Gene Therapy

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he declared that "all men were created equal".  Today we know that he meant to include women, minorities, and the poor in that description.   The statement is often used in legislation to address violations of civil rights.  This will likely be the biggest challenge of gene therapy, which looks beneficial on the surface, but will only be affordable for the upper class- mostly rich, white, and male. 

The greatest benefit of gene therapy is that many genetically transmitted diseases could be reduced, and that's probably all it should be used for.  If not, I would expect lawsuits like the kind performance-enhancing drugs brought for athletes.  Only this would be on a higher level, because selection would be based on class discrimination.  In the Center for Genetics and Society podcast, Marcy Darnovsky stated "we already have such shocking levels of inequality and such shocking patterns of discrimination... we would suddenly be living in a world where people of means could have children who are... biologically superior to the un-engineered..."  I think the key is getting governments to allow gene therapy only for medical purposes and not for self-enhancement. 

An additional problem is that if everyone could afford to select traits for their children, odds are they would be picking the same ones (intelligent, tall, athletic).  There would be very few deformities among children in future generations.  Yet if you pay careful attention to evolution, you will notice that it's the deformities that allow species to adapt to changing environments and mutate into something else.  If we all had similar traits, there would be less genetic variation for natural selection to keep the chain of life going in the event of an extinction. 

 

Source:  https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/internal-content/designer-babies-crispr-genetic-engineering 

The Key Concept in Physical Geography

    The most important and interesting concept for me in physical geography is how atmospheric circulation controls the climate of every region, leading to the diverse range of landforms and lifeforms in each biome they have.  Below is an image of the basic pattern of atmospheric circulation on Earth.  Bear in mind that this image does not include the jet streams, which also play a large role in climate, but more-so on the immediate weather. 

    The image helps explain why the tropics are hot and wet, why all the hot deserts are roughly at the same latitude, the circulation of midlatitude cyclones, and the movement of polar air.  What isn't shown is how the Coriolis Effect redirects air, depending on the hemisphere we are looking at.  With this image, we can imagine how air masses move on average through any region.  I appreciated learning how the vertical cells (Hadley, Ferrel, Polar) play just as important a role in climate as horizontal circulation.  

    The image helps shape the idea that the conditions that determine geography on Earth are far more intricate than might appear at first glance.  The symmetry of the Earth system is a beauty to behold.  Perhaps it is paradoxical then that Earth should have such a wide range of soils, biomes, climates, species, etc.  For a geographer though, nothing could be more simple. 

Seismic Hazards in Mysterious Places

    Some places that aren't known for their seismic activity have experienced many earthquakes in the past, sometimes at destructive levels.  Two places that come to mind in the U.S. are the New Madrid zone and the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Below is a map illustrating the frequency of earthquakes in these areas.

 

    You don't typically think of these places as being prone to earthquakes, as they aren't even located near major faults.  Yet from 1811-1812, the New Madrid zone famously experienced three major earthquakes at magnitudes from 8.1-8.3 (Foresman 291).  

    First I wondered if these areas are located over "mini hotspots"- relatives to the bigger hotspots that form volcanoes, such as those that make up the Hawaiian islands.  That would have explained the frequent earthquake activity, as volcanoes have been known to generate seismic activity.  However, the lack of volcanic activity in these areas poses a problem for that hypothesis. 

    Then I did some research and found that under the New Madrid zone is a buried rift, where seismic activity "may be produced by movement on old faults in response to compressive stress related to plate motions" (USGS).  More mysterious is South Carolina's seismic zone.  In 1886, Charleston experienced an estimated 7.6 earthquake (SCGS), which amazes me.  It was the strongest earthquake in recorded history to ever hit the eastern seaboard.  Geologists suspect the faults in South Carolina are "hidden by a thick sequence of sediments" (SCGS).  

    It's harder to predict earthquakes in areas like these because there are so few surface features that would indicate earthquake activity.  Yet it's important to monitor them because they can surprise people living in populated areas who wouldn't normally expect earthquakes to happen. 

Foresman, Timothy & Strahler, Alan H.  2012.  Visualizing Physical Geography, 2nd ed.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  Hoboken, New Jersey. 

USGS- United States Geological Survey.  The New Madrid Seismic Zone.  Retrieved from  https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/new-madrid-seismic-zone?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects 

SCGS- South Carolina Geological Survey.  Retrieved from https://www.dnr.sc.gov/geology/earthquake-info.html 

NASA's First Air Pollution Map

 

 

    This is a satellite-derived map of average PM 2.5 levels over a five year time-span, courtesy of NASA.  PM 2.5 is a measure of particulate matter in the air that gives it appearance of being hazy and also adversely effects the health of a population. 

    On this map we can see how pollution levels are generally higher around major cities and areas of denser population.  Northeast China is particularly bad, with northern India not far behind.  Other areas you would expect are central Europe and the eastern U.S., which are relatively low compared to India and China.  Areas I thought would be higher are southern California and central Mexico, two places that are notorious for hazy air.  Japan and Indonesia are also lighter than I expected, since they are densely populated nations with well over 100 million people. 

    Areas I didn't expect PM 2.5 to be rampart are in the northern Sahara, Middle East, and western China.  Anyone who knows geography knows these are arid regions with a lot of sand.  Indeed, it appears that mother nature churns its own PM 2.5 factories where there are large deserts of sand- something I hadn't known before.  Sand from the Sahara is actually extremely hazardous to sub-Saharan Africa, causing high levels of infant mortality rates (Neill). 

    Something that concerns me in the future are increasing PM 2.5 levels globally.  And not just from pollution.  The smoke from forest fires is another generator of PM- a threat that is increasing as global warming continues.  Last year, we had the worst spell of smoky skies from forest fires in my 36 years of living here.  It was so bad that we felt ill and had to buy an air purifier! 

Sources: 

NASA.  2010.  Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/health-sapping.html 

Neill, Pippa.  2020.  Air Pollution From the Desert is Causing an 18% Increase in Infant Mortality.  Airqualitynews.com.  Retrieved from https://airqualitynews.com/2020/06/30/air-pollution-from-the-desert-is-causing-an-18-increase-in-infant-mortality/ 

Pluto, the Dwarf Planet That Isn't Really a Dwarf Planet

    The thing about science is it has always practiced detachment from culture, whether it be on religious or superstitious grounds.  Scientists might name objects based on cultural items, but the rules of science mean classification schemes cannot be based on arbitrary measures or public sentimentality.  Things need precise definitions, or the systems by which objects are classified will not be consistent.  
    I understand why Pluto's demotion upset the public.  At first I was baffled by the apparent nitpicking of astronomers.  But now I realize how useful the debate is to science, astronomy, and even the general public.  It's important because Pluto behaved in ways that didn't entirely fit any term in the astronomy dictionary.  In some ways it resembled a comet, being made of ice and not having a stable orbit; in other ways it resembled a planet, being large, round, and having a nearly circular orbit.  It also had moons, which was something only planets were thought to have. 
    However, once it was found that some asteroids had moons, and that there were similar icy objects farther away in the Kuiper Belt (some which rival Pluto in size), it became apparent that Pluto resembled something in an entirely different class of objects (Tyson).  The IAU decided on calling these dwarf planets, or plutonian objects.  Why the IAU decided on "dwarf planet" to describe something that isn't really a planet is something that also baffles me, as it doesn't really help clarify the new classification scheme. I mean, isn't a dwarf star still a star? 
    It goes to show how science and culture often distort each other.  The demotion of Pluto didn't make it any less significant as a celestial object.  Nor did calling it a dwarf planet make up for the cultural backlash.  People did not need to perceive it as a demotion either; it was simply reclassified, as many things are in science.  The whole thing is a wonderful example of science doing what science does: challenging public perception and our ideas of conventional thought. 
Tyson, Neil deGrasse. "Pluto's Honor." Natural History magazine. February 1999. Retrieved from https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/essays/1999-02-plutos-honor.php