Science and the environment: 2 essays

So we do in-class essays every so often. These tend to be shorter than full weekly ones for Monday reports, but longer than the ones I write on daily homeworks or preparing for tutoring reports.

Here are two that I did in the unit on environmental stuff, they're both about science and environment stuff.


随着科技发展，越来越多人买电脑，手机等。这样，电子垃圾增多了。因为电子垃圾对环境污染造成了严重的后果，所以我们要解决电子垃圾得问题。

那么，我们会怎么解决呢？根据“从个人做起”的想法，个人会用可充电的电池，长一点时间用以各手机等。这样，个人扔掉的电子垃圾会减少。

但是，个人不会从根本上解决电子垃圾的问题。公司应该多开发可以回收的产品。而且，公司应该愿意修自己的产品，不让的人多扔掉。

不仅个人，公司要来解决电子垃圾的问题，而且国家政府要来解决电子垃圾的问题。因为个人难以让公司做应该做的事，所以国家要采用规则让公司开发可回收的产品。而且，国家要资助开发可回收产品的研究。

如果个人，公司，国家合作解决电子垃圾的问题，电子垃圾会减少，对环境又帮助。


And here's the other one.

有人认为科技发展越快，环境问题越严重。他们拿空调的发明，塑料袋的制作，车的使用等当他们的例子。反而，科技发展得越快，科技找解决环境问题的做法也越快。因此，我们不应该把环境问题归咎于科技的快速发展。

对环保来说，科技的快速发展是一柄双刃剑。人们滥用塑料袋对世界造成白污染。人们为了方便多开车又带来了不便（交通阻塞）又带来了环境问题。公司，为了挣钱，给世界巨大的污染问题。从企业革命开始，科技的快速发展及人类得经济选择一起带来了越来越严重的环境问题。

但是，科学也带来了一些解决环境问题的方式，即回收，太阳能，水能，风能。人们不使用这些方式来解决一些环境问题不是科学的问题，而是社会的问题。有一次，加拿大的一家公司提供完全没有排放的一辆车。没有人买这家公司的车。这不是科学得问题。我们不应该责备科学：环境问题是人类的问题。科技只当人类的工具。

China and the WTO

Oh hey talking about China and the World Trade Organization because assignments.

This is the "presentation" I gave by typing it without looking at dictionaries or my notes or Google translate or Nciku or anything else, since speech wasn't really working when I was supposed to present. I started by flapping a lot and eventually gave up on the whole speech thing, typing this. The grammar should be fine, if a bit simple.

中国1995年开始申请入世。中国为什么要入世呢？
第一，虽然中国二十年前改革开放，但是中国公司开不拓国际市场。加入贸易组织会帮助中国公司开拓国际市场。例如说，联想开拓美国的个人计算机市场是中国入世后才发生。
第二，中国出口会被超大的关税。如果中国入世的话，中国产品被的关税曾下。
第三，中国的两极化问题越来越重要。在中国入世的推动下，中国农民更容易把农产和特产卖给国人。
中国2001年才当贸易组织的第143成员国。入世后，中国市场有巨大的改变。有一些中国公司开拓了国际市场（例如联想），也有跨国公司开拓了中国市场（例如星巴克）。从2001年到2007年，中国的纺织品和衣服出口增加高达220%。现在，中国出口总额是世界最多的。虽然中国还有过严重的两极化问题，但是农民把产品卖给外国人有帮助。
短期看，中国入世给中国经济带来大的改变，长远看入世会继续对中国生产深刻的影响。谢谢大家。  

This is the one I wrote as a report ahead of time. There were several words and grammar points I was required to use, and I probably messed up several of them. It's how I learn, right? 

中国入世不是一件小事。中国1995年申请加入世贸组织，2001才入世。中国入世经历了六年的时间。那么，中国为什么要花那么多时间，那么多力气入世呢？中国原先不是世界市场经济和多边贸易化体系的一部分，哪怕改革开放了二十年，中国仍然被排斥在世界经济之外，中国仍处于局外者的状态。因此，入世会让中国的经济进一步发展。与此同时，在加入世贸组织之后，在世界经济的推动下，中国对外贸易的风险降低了。因为在世贸组织成员国当中，每个国家都需要遵守关于贸易的条款和法规，这样就等于刺激了中国经济的发展，中国公司由此受益。从2001年到2007年，中国纺织品和衣服出口增加多达220%。表面上，这只是纺织业的进步，而实际上，中国所有的出口都有这样的趋势，根据这一事实完全可以判断中国的进出口总额是怎么改变的。短期看，这是纺织业的快速发展；长远看，加入世贸组织，为中国公司开拓国际市场提供了良好的机会。而且，入世也让跨国公司更容易的开拓中国的市场，给中国人更多选择。中国从加入贸组织收益巨大：现在，中国国内生产总值排在世界第二，超过除了美国以外的所有国家。中国的出口总额排到世界的第一，跟所有的欧盟出口总额接近。因为中国加入了贸易组织，所以中国的关税下降了，但进出口额增长了。因此，虽然关税少了，但是中国政府从关税得到的钱增长了。
除了上面谈的以外，中国政府也希望加入世贸组织会对经济两极化问题有所帮助。经济结构的二元化造成中国总体的发展不足，东部沿海地区先进的工业化、城市化经济和中西部落后的农村经济同时并存，差距很大。如果有什么政策会对农民有所帮助，中国政府一定会尝试。加入组织给中国8亿农民以发展机会：例如农民可以出口农特产。只有8亿中国农民从入世中受益，才能说中国从入世中受益。

Fixing Problems

Oh hey have a Chinese essay about responsibility for fixing environmental issues where I cited Young Wizards because why not?

随着科技发展，全世界的变化越来越明显。但是无毫节制地发展是一柄双刃剑。在国际越来越发达，越来越全球化的同时，世界面临越来越严重的环境问题。解决这些环境问题是谁的责任？我们应该怎么来解决环境问题。

如果说，“谁引起问题，谁就要解决问题，”的话，那么公司应该解决环境问题。从工业革命开始，公司都为了获益滥用我们世界的资源，从而引发了严重的环境问题。不仅公司滥用资源，而且公司从前不注意可持续发展。现在面临的环境局面就是公司的责任。他们的做法是资本主义弊端的体现：为了获取高额利益而不择手段。但是，令人欣喜的是当代的公司纷纷意识到了自己这种做法的错误，并开始逐渐改正。那么，公司应该怎么解决环境问题？现在，公司为了卖更多的产品，会卖很多残次品，让客户快把产品扔掉。公司必须停止这样的做法。而且，公司要生产可回收的产品。在可再生能源的一方面，公司应该加强研究：怎么可以用可再生能源来生产产品（例如：使用电能开车就是应该研究的一件事）。总之，公司应该采用保护环境的行为准则。

但是，“谁引起问题，谁就要解决问题，”不是唯一的看法。在Duane写的“年轻眩人”的系列丛书中，作者认为的做法是“谁找到了问题，谁就要解决问题。”如果说我们世界也是这样的话，那么个人要解决环境问题，特别是环保专家要解决环境问题。虽然个人来解决环保问题并非能从根本上解决环保问题，但是个人少开车会在大局方面有利于环境的保护。由此，个人应该做自己可以做的，拿少开车来说。如果每个人都少开车就会让车排放的尾气下降。而且，少开车会让个人多走路，多骑自行车，多坐公交车。因此，个人的身体健康和城市里的交通情况都会改善。再如，个人应该买可回收的产品，而且，如果个人只愿意买可回收的产品和用可再生能源做的产品，那么公司就都要卖这样的产品。这样，个人的消费理念就会引导公司保护环境。

政府是个人和公司的领导。那么，政府应该怎么做？因为政府已经资助科技研究，所以资助环保和可再生能源研究是好的做法。除了环保和可再生能源研究以外，政府也应该多提出环保的政策。如果政策和个人的消费理念都鼓励公司做环保的事情，公司的做法会变得更加环保。

个人不能从根本上解决环境问题。公司最看重的是收益。政府的政策会让公司现在做的好一点，但是因为公司比个人更具有经济实力，所以公司的下一代会让政府改变政策。由此，解决环境问题的做法需要个人，公司，及政府一起来解决。这样，我们才能给子孙好的环境。

Chinese essays

Have an assortment of Chinese short-ish essays.

政务微博为政府形象带来影响。在好处的方面，四川地震后，政务微博使得政府更能找被地震害的人民。四川人纷纷发微波，让政府知道什么事发生了，最好怎么帮助。而且，政府会使用微波引发信息。但是，政务微博是一柄双刃剑。例如，“僵尸微博”给政府负面影响：人看没有更新微波，会认为政府不在乎。由此，中国政府应该注意怎么使用微波：会有用，而政务微波并非魔弹。

联想公司1984年在北京成立。一开始，联想公司所有的员工都是中国科学院计算技术研究所的成员。1988年联想公司开幕香港队部，也是联想第一次找新的员工。因为联想成立的20万人民币是政府投资的钱，所以有些人以为联想现在是政府的企业，与自由市场有悖。但联想是为了商业化中国科学院的研究结构成立，而不是政府的企业。依在下偶见，联想公司就是中国市场好质量的象征。联想公司怎么到这样的情况？

买IBM公司中个人计算机部前，联想在国内个人计算机市场遭遇瓶颈，联想务必开拓海外市场。如果不开拓海外市场的话，联想继续卖得不好，会有太大的问题。但是在海外，人以为中国只能做便宜的产品，人尚未相信一个中国公司能卖好的电脑。而且，联想的科技不如硅谷的科技。

这时候，IBM也面对问题。鉴于IBM公司中电脑业务不好，拖累了IBM公司的整体业绩，IBM想卖个人计算机部。联想知道I收购IBM公司对联想公司的产品有很大帮助：IBM的科技得以发展联想的电脑。

当谈到环保这个话题的时候，很多人批评政府，公司做得不够。在批评政府及公司做得不够的同时，也在很多人自身做得也不够。人去出的时候不一定关灯，就把电能挥霍一空。如果个人无毫节制的滥用石油，天然气等，就让下一代面临更严重的能源匮乏问题！多用煤，石油，天然气会产生环境问题。环境问题会导致人的健康问题。因此，无论是顾及眼下还是着眼长远个人都应该少开车，支持保护环境的公司。这些都是保护环境行为的体现。令人欣喜的是，如果支持保护环境公司的人许多，所有的公司都会开始可持续发展。不仅个人要自己做这样的事，而且个人更要教孩子这样做。如果教孩子的话，下一代会继续保护环境，教他们的孩子，下下一代也会这样做，等。正像中国俗话说的那样：“子子孙孙无穷匮也。”

Have some more essays!

Woo, have 4 more things I wrote for Chinese class.

This one is about environmental stuff and subway construction in Nanjing.

 

南京为了建新的地铁线会砍树及移树。从环境保护的角度来说，因为在南京移的树中，只有15棵存活，保存率只有18％。地铁建设部不仅不看重保护南京的桐，反而更好的地铁也对保护环境好。反过来说，发生之所以地铁建设部移这么多树，是因为设计问题：政府让他们少移树，地铁建设部就从1065棵减少到780棵减少到328棵。这样做表明地铁建设部不必这样做。通过政府“移树”的观点，因为政府有办法一边建地铁，一边保护桐，所以他们应该这样做。

 

This one is about global warming.

全球变暖是非常严重的一个问题。虽然有一些人说“谈气候变暖的科学家都是危言耸听，”但是气候变暖已经会殃及。（对于科学来说“气候变暖”绝非 完全对的名字，而是给气候变化的一部分表明。世界变暖只是冰山一角。除了变暖以外，也有龙卷风变多，暴风雪变多，海平升高等。） 无止境排放尾气会引发一系列连锁反应：温室气体让气氛有更多水汽。水汽是一种温室气体，就是一种周而复始。而且，冰帽反影太阳光。如果冰帽融化的话，冰帽反映的太阳光减少，由不得世界变得更暖。这个问题已经会过昂贵！但是，我们还有能力解决（或者帮助）世界变暖的问题。如果个人都少开车，政府提供环保的政策，公司来少排放尾气，这样做会有帮助。而且，多种树会让气氛里的二氧化碳减少。总的来说，快来做环保的事情对气候变暖问题有帮助。

 

Education by the family/at home between China and the USA.

中美家庭教育虽然表面上是截然不同的，而实际上中美父母做家庭教育为的是孩子的成功。中国父母注重成绩是因为在中国成功历来都是从教育来的（找好工作，这样的事情）。美国父母注重孩子快乐是因为我们认为快乐是一种成功。而且，中美两国的教育情况不一样。在美国申请大学比在中国申请大学容易多了。在美国，大学看成绩，考试，和课外活动。中国大学绝非放松，而是只看重一次残酷性的考试。 归根结底，问题在于教育情况，而不是中美父母完全不一样。中美父母都要希望孩子会有成功，区别是“成功”的结构和得到成功的方式。

 

Actually kind of the same as the last one lol.

中美两国的教育有一样的，也有很大的区别。在美国，孩子上小学的时候，父母不注重考试。（有一些学生，第一次考试是小学三年级。）而且，美国的小学生晚一点学好怎么静坐。 按说，中国学生从幼儿园要静坐。在课后的事情，中美两国也不太一样。条件充许的话，美国小孩儿尽是运动都参加。什么活动都做的不太好，但是什么都不惜参加是美国孩子的做法。中国孩子选少一点活动，直到做的非常好为止。中国教育注重做的非常好，美国教育注重学好很多事。

 

但是，中美两国都注重考试。中国历来都看重考试，美国今时越来越看重考试。因此，准备考试的补习班越来越大行其道。而且，美国教育注重考试的内容。在中国，注重考试的原因是从历史来的。而且，中国的高考过渡重要：每一年考一次，高考的成绩决定学生可以上什么大学。美国也有上大学的考试，但是没有中国的高考这么重要。在美国，考得不好但是高中成绩好的学生还可以上挺好的大学。在中国，这是不可能的。

Chinese Class and Tangents

In Chinese class, we're talking some about environmental protection stuff. It's actually nice, because I can hit a lot of the questions with science (yay science!) and no one's doing the whole “climate change deniers” thing. I've got to wonder if that's a primarily USA thing, because we seem to really like conspiracy theories and we're kind of anti-intellectual as a culture. Seriously, when “he went to Harvard Law!” is getting used as a reason a person shouldn't be president, we have some anti-intellectualism problems. And the people talking about climate change as a big issue have a tendency to be scientists because science is used to test a lot of this stuff.

Oh, and yes, I do remember 2008's presidential election. I was a junior in high school, taking Honors US History and then decided I was going to take the AP exam in US History anyways because why would I limit myself to things that make sense to do? My teacher was really excited about the presidential campaign, and since students in the Honors class are primarily not taking the AP exam, he could go a bit off-syllabus when current events got interesting. We actually talked about American anti-intellectualism in class, when people started using the fact that Barack Obama went to Harvard Law and did really well there as a reason he “wouldn't be able to connect with the American people” or some other nonsense. That's... not exactly what his job is? Like, yes, there are figurehead type things that a President will do, and it's nice when they can connect to “the people,” but “the people” aren't as uniform as a lot of people like to claim and a President also needs to be able to handle complicated political and legal issues. Yes, they get advisers, but they still need enough basic understanding that the adviser's information is helpful in getting to a good decision. That doesn't require Harvard Law, certainly- people can be good Presidents by way of “common sense,” but saying that Harvard Law is bad for being the President is a sign of something not quite right here.

Point is, we've got some anti-intellectual stuff going on, and I've got to wonder if a lot of the climate change deniers are coming from there. If so, you'd probably see fewer of them in cultures that have valued intellectualism and education for a long time.

Now, have my notes about an article I read in Chinese for class. I had to figure out what a few paragraphs were doing: use Beijing as an example. (Reduced rainfall, specifically.) Explain how that relates to climate change and why it's bad. Talk about a way to make it less of a problem. Give a few examples from Europe.

举个例子：北京的降雨逐年减少。
这说明人为制造的地貌已经反作用于气候了。
在用逻辑解释不降雨引发的问题。
解决办法：绿化。不仅是美化环境，反而是保护生态。
再举例子：外国绿化的做法和结果。

Oh, and as usual, have the most recent list of words where I had to either look up the word or check how to write it by typing it.

Yes, I feel silly for always needing to look up how to write 开始. I learned this word in middle school and it gets used a lot, and yet I constantly need to look it up. Whoops.

拿

使用
例子
解决
应该
责备
快速
一柄双刃剑
滥用
白污染
带来
交通阻塞
挣钱
巨大
企业革命
开始
人类
经济
选择
即
太阳能
风能
社会
加拿大
提供
排放
辆车

A couple short essays

Yay short essays for Chinese. These are both ~300 character essays. The first is quite a bit more optimistic about the government "attempts" to do stuff about inequality than I actually am, but it's what I could come up with using the language patterns they were asking for. Meh.
Also, I got featured on a thing related to NaNoWriMo, which I'm planning to do this year. Considering that it's me getting interviewed, that will work better as "my" post for the day that most of you can actually read.

美国的贫富分化问题在很严重。最有钱的美国人富可敌国，与此同时，美国人的六分之一日虑三餐。吃不饱饭的孩子超过五分之一。在贫富分化问题中，吃不饱饭是很重要的一部分：如果每天吃不饱，难以学习好，找工作，做好工作。因此，美国政府采取SNAP及WIC的项目政策。SNAP是所有的贫穷人、家庭都可以申请，WIC特别有助于女生和孩子。这两个项目根本不是减免饭的价格，而项目的影响跟减免的影响差不多。虽然这两个项目不能完全解决贫富分化的问题（贫穷人平常是伤残人，残疾人，女生，同性恋者，双性恋者，变性者，或小数民主，也被别的边缘化，）但是对处于缺乏饭状态人来说，可以吃饱是进一步。除了这两个帮人吃饱的项目以外，各州的政府也提出学费减免项目，帮贫穷的学生上大学，再进一步。

在中国入世的推动下，中国出版公司被冲击。因为中国所有的市场都越来越国际化，所以更多从外国来的书被出版。而且，跨国出版公司来了中国。（我现在看的材料科学书是跨国出版公司出的中文片。）现在西方受欢迎的生活类、文学类、经济管理类的读物，都能在中国同步出版。有一个中国出版公司，现在他们的外国版权图书高达所有的图书30%。国际网络市场也给中国图书市场带来了很大的改变。例如，亚马逊开拓了中国市场，现在人会买电子图书。因此，路上的书店面对一些问题。表面上，书店的问题是卖图书的问题，实际上，在网络时代，路上产品卖得好不好不同于产品真的卖得好不好。短期看，书店会面对困难，但是长远看，仅大众类图书每年增长10-20%肯定有“如果书店能适合网络时代，就没问题”的意思。

Internet Helping With Something

Chinese assignment, written about economic inequality stuff and the internet. There's a Chinese internet thing happening that could actually help some, especially if the government meets its goal of getting every Chinese person internet access by 2020.

随着中国的现代化，更多中国人能上网做事。网络对中国社会（国际社会）产生又广泛又深刻的影响。网络可以找到的事多，从社会问题的讨论到运动报告，从食谱到市场，什么都找得到。网络让个人的生活更方便。除了加方便以外，网络也会解决社会问题。

经济失调是中国社会面对的主要问题之一。虽然中国越来越发达，但是大部分的受益者已经是有产者。所有国家都有经济失调问题，难以解决这个问题。网络有帮助，特别是淘宝网这样的网站会有帮助。虽然中国的网民只有中国人口的44%（发达的国家平实77%可以上网，）但是网络零售额已经有所有的零售额的7%，今年会超过美国的网络零售额。而且，中国政府要2020年前让所有的中国人都会上宽带网络。

让所有的人都可以上网跟解决经济失调有什么关系呢？看淘宝农村的例子。中国农村和城市贫富差距很大。一个原因是农民从旧没有办法在农村转钱。他们可以去城市打工或者在家耕种。而且，他们只能把农产品和特产卖给本村人，附近地方人，或者自己来农村的人。卖给本村人和附近地方人的粮食少因为农民有自己的粮食，卖给农村外的人少因为来农村的人少。有了网络后农民可以卖给更多的人：中国的城市人和外国人都能上网买农产品和特产。

现在，农村的网民可以用淘宝卖农产品和特产，从而他们会一边呆在家一边转钱。对以前潜在的客户相比，农民在淘宝上的潜在客户多多了。虽然网络，淘宝农村还没完全解决经济失调问题（一件事肯定不会完全解决难以解决的社会问题，）但是农民通过淘宝把农产品和特产卖向全世界这样是对中国经济失调最大的帮助之一。如果中国政府2020年前让所有的中国人当网民的机会有好处，淘宝会在解决经济失调有更大的帮助。

Review: Democratizing Innovation

I read this book called Democratizing Innovation, by Eric von Hippel. Eric makes the pdf available for free on his website, so yes, this is a book I got for free. You can get it for free too. And I do suggest it for people who are interested in innovation, technology, engineering, and maybe even politics. Plus it's got a free translation into Chinese, so I can use the two together to learn better Chinese.
Reading it made me think about a lot of things: I think there are parallels between hacker culture (what most non-computer-nerds think of when they hear the word hacker is actually a cracker,) and anarchism, which is interesting. It's not the thing I know most about, since my experience with anarchsim basically extends to reacting to a couple Slingshot articles and I'm not actually an anarchist, but the book made me think of that parallel. That's why I think it could be interesting for someone who is into politics, especially anarchist politics.
It also made me think about possible parallels between user-innovators and scholar-activists, since both wind up creating things that they need and don't have. Scholar-activists come up with the words they need to describe things they run into in activism, sometimes. User-innovators come up with the inventions they need. It's similar. So an activist (especially a scholar-activist!) could find this book interesting.
I read a bit where manufacturers (incorrect) conventional wisdom caused them to not realize how many of their major innovations actually came from user-innovators, who are apparently invisible to them. It reminded me a bit of how it sometimes seems like big organizations don't notice the individuals who actually made things happen. (Hi Autism Speaks, I am looking at you right now.)
That's on top of the interest to people who are interested in innovation or engineering or technology, the topics this book is actually supposed to be about. It really is about those things, and it does a good job looking at what sorts of innovations come from which places and why. The effect of the internet is also looked at, including how people are using the internet to spread their own innovations and how Firefox is basically a pile of user innovations stuck together, same as most open source projects.
Besides this, there was examination of who makes these innovations. It seems to be the early adopters and people who are in similar but more advanced areas who make innovations, so the first people to get a car were innovators and the racecar drivers are innovators. It's actually really cool!
It even took the time for economic implications of widespread user innovation. Manufacturers would need to adjust, but overall social welfare can be increased with more user-innovators. 
Democratizing Innovation also has a good bibliography, from which I noted several pieces I am interested in reading. That's these:

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Westview.

Antelmon, Kristin. 2004. “Do Open Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?” College and Research Libraries 65, no 5: 372-382

Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovator's Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press.

Morris, A. D. and C. McClurg, eds. 1992. Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press.

Harhoff, D., J. Henkel, and E. von Hippel. 2003. Profiting from Voluntary Information Spillovers: How Users Benefit by Freely Revealing Their Innovations.” Research Policy. 35, no 10: 1753-1769.

Mishina, K. 1989. Essays on Technological Evolution. PhD Thesis, Harvard University.

Von Hippel, E. 1976. The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process. Research Policy 5, no 3: 212-39

This is by no means the whole bibliography; it's just the items from it I think I want to read.

Ad-Gag Laws: The Flash Blog

Trigger Warning: References to animal abuse, mention of JRC in first paragraph

It's a flash blog! It's a flash blog! It's also not my usual fare, but it's got some parallels. Remember how hard it is to legally get any footage of what goes on inside the Judge Rotenberg Center? Well, ad-gag laws make it that hard or harder to get footage, take pictures, take recordings, get any evidence of wrongdoing for certain kinds of corporations. Which kinds depends on the specific law, of course, but agricultural stuff and industrial stuff tend to be common, and agricultural is what this flash blog probably focused on considering that it's put together by an institute for critical animal studies.
Basically, they can make it so that if you take pictures to prove that there is abuse or maltreatment of workers or animals, or if you take pictures to document violations of any kind, workplace safety or anything, you get in trouble. Not the people who actually had the violation, the person who blew the whistle on it.
There's supposed to be protections for whistleblowers, not laws that criminalize gathering the evidence it takes to get anywhere blowing that whistle.
But that's what ad-gag laws can do, are doing. Someone actually got charged for taking video from a public sidewalk under one of these laws. The charges got dropped, but think about that. Person with a camera on public property, taking pictures of something you can see from public property? Illegal under an ad-gag law that already exists. Think about the police officers who already try to stop people recording them on public property, even when there are laws that specifically state that doing so is allowed. Think about companies that bully people into deleting their footage, even when there are laws that specifically state that taking that footage is legal. Think about how many people get fired for bringing major issues to public attention, even when there are laws that are specifically supposed to protect them.
Whenever surveillance is being outlawed or protected, we have to think about the power differentials and who is getting protected by this law.
So:
Who are the stakeholders in an ad-gag law preventing people from recording anything from a slaughterhouse or farm (or combined facility?)

• Butchers and slaugherhouse workers
• Potential consumers who want to know the preparation of their food
• Farmers who raise the animals
• The animals themselves
• Owners/Owning corporation of the facility

The one with the power here is the owners. Animals can't talk and are owned, so they clearly don't have the power here. Workers are pretty consistently subordinate to their bosses, especially when there are more people wanting jobs than there are jobs, like now. Unions can sometimes level the playing field, but not always, so they aren't the ones with the power either. Consumers can choose not to buy specific brands if they have the money, but they do need to eat something and the companies with the lowest standards (and the most violations of even those standards!) tend to be the cheapest, so there is a definite economic factor. So it's not them either. Farmers... they could try to go independent, but that tends to come with an economic cost. Small-scale farmers can sometimes manage it by going organic and selling directly to consumers, but not always. Nope, unless it's a corporate farmer, they aren't the power holders. (Oh, and the corporate farmers are often also owners of the slaughterhouses, and they often have violations in both places.)The people owning the facility are doing a bit more than middlemen, but they are the ones who make bigger money and they are the ones with lawyers and who can afford lobbyists. They are the ones with more institutional power here.
Now who does an ad-gag law protect, and who can it hurt?
Safety violations get a lot harder to report and prove, so the workers are hurt.
Potential consumers don't find out about any violations of safety, ethics, or purity. So they are at risk of hurt.
Farmers need split into small independent farmers and big corporate ones. Small ones who don't have enough pull to call someone in to enforce this rule against people recording them aren't getting the benefits. They also probably don't have their own slaughterhouses, so they are a consumer in terms of needing to purchase the services of a slaughterhouse, which they can't get as much information about. So they don't realistically get the benefits of this law, though they legally do, and they have the potential for getting hurt in that they won't know if the slaughterhouse does something bad.
The big corporate farms are direct beneficiaries here. They can stop people from recording any violations they might have.
Big slaughterhouses are also direct beneficiaries, for the same reason.
Animals are at risk of being abused without anyone ever being able to prove that this happened, which isn't OK. They're at risk of harm beyond that of just "going to get eaten" and are not getting helped here.
People with more institutional power and people getting protected look to be the same group. That's generally not a good sign, and right here, right now, it's definitely bad. Because it the abuses that are made illegal to prove are happening, and ad-gag laws make them impossible to stop.

Inequality

Inequality. It’s a loaded word, isn’t it? Some people will argue that it is always the fault of the people who are at the bottom of the heap, that they simply are not working hard enough, that if they just weren’t lazy, they could achieve the same success that the people at the top are achieving. In making these arguments, the idea that certain groups are inherently lazier and others are inherently harder workers is perpetuated- how else could the theory of hard work overcoming all explain the stories of who makes it and who doesn’t? How else could they explain the fact that success is largely the domain of the white straight men without disabilities? So they state that inequality is an acceptable cost of the trickle-down economy (which doesn’t actually work, since simply handing rich people more money doesn’t change the margins where they make their hiring decisions) and that if the poor just worked hard enough, they wouldn’t be poor.

Others will note that there is insufficient education for many who are at a disadvantage, that social mobility is not nearly as extant as the hard work advocates claim, and that there are huge amounts of disinformation on the subject wherever one looks. As Americans, we generally hold that the proper distribution is more equal than what we think it is, but what we think it is turns out to be yet closer to equal than reality.

For people who are at a disadvantage, we see that discrimination often is part of what’s going on, and we see stories that show hard work to be insufficient. We hear about the single mother working multiple full time jobs who still needs food stamps (or the alternately named equivalent, as many states changed the name to avoid the stigma associated with food stamps.) Occasionally, we hear about lower pay for people of color or firings upon hearing that a person is not straight.

What we hear less about is people with disabilities. Send the same twelve men to repair shops to get the same thirty-six repair shops. Half use wheelchairs; half don’t. The result? Wheelchair users were charged approximately thirty percent more, and a follow up suggested that it was because shop owners expect wheelchair users to do less shopping around because of their mobility impairments. Every car repair costing 30% more than it should adds up over the course of a lifetime. Add in the fact that proving discrimination in the workforce is nearly impossible, and we find that people with disabilities have a tougher time than most staying out of poverty, even working just as hard.

The numbers show that women, people of color, the elderly, and people with disabilities are over-represented in the “people living in poverty” demographic and under-represented in the “highly successful” demographic, and part of the inequality seems to come from access: getting charged more, getting offered fewer jobs, getting offered lower-paying jobs, not being able to afford the suits that would force employers and the world to stop taking advantage of populations they (correctly) assume to have trouble fighting back. Poor people stay poor because they are vulnerable to being hit again once they are down, not because they are less willing to work hard.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728204/

http://www.disabilitymuseum.org/dhm/edu/essay.html?id=70

http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/the-hidden-costs-of-disability/

The River is White

Rivers aren't supposed to be opaque and white, right? The local river in Aodi, Zhejiang seems to have missed the memo, and it's not alone. In fact, it is the third river in China to have turned white in a month. In addition, the river in Chongqing turned red and Jiaxing has found an orange river from excess iron. Resident reactions range from anger at the business that caused the color change in the cases where the cause is known to confusion to bottling of the water to show off the colors to one fisherman going about his business as if the river turning read made no difference to him. Assuming that fish were still to be found in the river (unlikely, though possible if this were the first morning of the river being red,) it probably didn't make much difference-yet. From "normal" pollutants to corpses, all sorts of things have been reported in China's rivers, and the rather varied pollution doesn't seem to be slowing.

Why should it? The companies which are dumping white rock-dust or dyes or latex waste or iron ions have no economic incentive strong enough to make them clean their waste well enough to prevent this sort of event. The total costs of pollution are not paid completely by the companies doing the polluting, or even mostly by them in many cases. With much of the cost being paid by local residents who can not use the water to wash their clothes, water their fields, water their livestock, or drink themselves (even after the boiling that is needed to drink even unpolluted water in most of China,) there is little balance in who gains and who loses. The corporations which are dumping pollutants into the rivers are not paying much to do so (certainly less than it would cost to treat the water first, or else they would,) and the locals gain far less benefit from the corporate profits than the harm caused by inability to clean themselves or have water to drink.

This sort of externality is a large problem in pollution and climate change. If a corporation can make a cost external, they have no reason not to do so, and then the people paying the cost are not the corporation, profits are increased by the decreased costs, and people suffer. Rich countries send factories to poorer and developing countries, externalizing many of the pollution-based costs for themselves but causing the poorer countries to foot these costs, further increasing inequality.

No one wants to pay the price of slowing economic growth to help the environment, and no one wants to pay the price of pollution in their back yards to keep the economy running in the way it has been, and so we find that the richest keep the growth moving and externalize as many costs as possible to the poorest, often ignoring the cyclic effect of the economy leading to climate changes that affect poorer parts of the world more that then increase economic inequality, increasing environmental damage to the world that is still concentrated in the poorer areas. This matches quite well with the idea that environmental regulations and the costs of pollution abatement have more effect on industries that create more pollution and which are easier to move to new locations- the industries causing this sort of extreme pollution are concentrated in developing nations and are of types that are largely leaving developed nations. Inequality, local pollution issues, climate change, and the differences between environmental protection regulations in different locations seem to be highly interrelated, and when industry, developing nations, and villages where the locals have fewer personal resources combine, we get rivers turning white and demands from the local residents that the industry in question be shut down. Most likely, these demands will go unheeded, as corporations typically hold more sway than individuals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215681/Fears-runaway-pollution-crisis-China-THIRD-river-mysteriously-turns-white.html

Beginning of this book: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/climate-injustice

FOOTLOOSE AND POLLUTION-FREE Josh Ederington, Arik Levinson, and Jenny Minier*

Disability In China

TW: Descriptions of abuse and exploitation of disabled people

General warning: No, I don't actually think this is a particularly good proposal as far as having hard facts. But the professor says story is better than statistics, and that stories should grab people. I think I avoided making the disability itself seem tragic or portraying the people with disabilities inherently more innocent, at least. And there are some statistics in the relevant articles.

Liu Xiaoping is covered in third-degree burns. He has marks on his wrists from the chains used to keep him from running away at night. He is not a fictional character. He is a 30-year-old man who spent 10 months held captive in a brick factory. He was tricked there because of an intellectual disability. When he became too weak to work anymore, he was thrown out on the street, where he was eventually found. We only know about his story because He Wen is also missing, presumably also held at a brick factory. He went missing over a year ago, and his father, He Zhimin, stumbled upon Xiaoping while searching for Wen. Liu Xiaoping, He Wen, and others like them are recruited with the promise of the equivalent of $10 per day, which they never see. Instead, the equivalent of $4.50 per day is paid to the person who recruited them for each worker she brings. Even with the essential enslavement of workers with intellectual disabilities, the brick factories are still often short on labor, as it is difficult to find workers willing to work in the brick factories. Perhaps this is why there is a demand for workers with intellectual disabilities, who are perceived as easier to trick, easier to control, and less likely to be searched for with any determination.

How does the exploitation of those with intellectual disabilities affect China-the individuals, the families, the businesses, the social structures and perceptions of people with disabilities, and the economy in general? Do these stories about the exploitation actually lead to real changes? What else can the narrative of disability in China look like?

 Disabilities are not limited to the intellectual, of course, nor are they always present from birth. Some disabilities are acquired, like those of Li Nan and Zhang Haidi. One day, Li Nan was a renowned dancer. The next, a car accident left her in a wheelchair with both legs amputated. This could happen to anyone. The Premier visited her, and she commented on the need for better accessibility in public spaces. There is now a law in China mandating wheelchair accessibility. Zhang Haidi acquired her disability at a younger age, becoming paraplegic at the age of five from a surgery to remove tumors from her spine. While she attempted suicide at one point, she also later became a poster child for the revolution when it spoke about people with disabilities, and she currently heads China's Disabled Person's Federation. She was among the first people with paralyzed limbs to obtain a driver’s license in China under regulations that allow for driving a modified car after a three month training period.

These two examples serve to show that just because we and our loved ones are fully able now, we do not know that this will remain the case. Disabilities exist. They always have, and they always will. The question I think needs answering is how disability affects Chinese society? How does disability affect the Chinese national economy? What about the personal finances of people with disabilities in China and the finances of their households? What effects can the way the government defines and provides (or does not provide) accommodation for disability have on the personal, family, and community scales in China? Essentially, how does China handle disability, and what economical effects result from the intersection of disability and Chinese culture?

Sources:

Demick, Barbara. "China's Disabled Exploited as Slaves." Los Angeles Times. N.p., 26 Feb. 2011.

Web. 9 Sept. 2012.

Levi, Eric. "Disability Rights in China." Disaboom. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.

"Zhang Haidi." Chinaposters.net. N.p., 29 July 2012. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.

Articles relevant to the question:

Loyalka, Prashant, Lan Liu, Gong Chen, and Xiaoying Zheng. The Economics of Disability in

China. Working paper. Rural Education Action Project, May 2012. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.

Weiss, Thomas C. "Overview of Disability in China." Overview of Disability in China. Disabled

World, 16 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.

Is it really that complcated? (energy crisis)

I'm a bit of a cynic about government. I really am. And as a science person, I'm kind of aware of how much junk science is floating around. So: The world is warming up. The effect of greenhouse gasses put into the atmosphere by people isn't negligible. Oil and coal will both eventually run out, and I'm not sure exactly when. Renewable/sustainable energy is clearly a GOOD IDEA. So, here's what I think we should do:
As a country, we give a pile of subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies. If we drop those and put the money saved on that into 1) Some programs to help people pay to heat their homes, because this will make oil prices rise and we don't want to make people homeless, 2) Making public transit programs less broke, and 3) research into sustainable energy, good things happen. First off, gas being more expensive and improving public transit programs by moving more money into them (possibly cut the subsidies to auto makers as well, but that would need to be after the economy is back in shape), people might actually use public transit, which is good for making oil last longer and polluting less. Second, research makes the sustainable stuff start working better sooner. Third, taking subsidies away from oil means that renewable stuff will be cheaper than oil sooner. When renewable energy is cheaper to use than oil/coal, people will switch based on pure economics, and it will all be hunky-dory.
Yes, I know it's not actually that simple. For one thing, that plan will never get passed. But since running out of oil before we get anything sustainable up and running is 笨死了， possibly literally (the Chinese would literally be stupid to death/dead of stupid), come up with a better idea or use mine. If you have a better idea, have at. I am totally game for an economics discussion to distract me from all the junk science I keep seeing about autism.