Sustainability in IT Operations: The Importance of Virtualization and Other Techniques

The environmental impact of IT infrastructure is often overlooked when setting it up. Traditional considerations such as initial cost, performance, compatibility, and maintenance are prioritized, but the increasing number of server equipment leads to higher energy consumption, cooling expenses, and maintenance costs. To address this issue, organizations such as Dell, Sun Microsystems and others have formed non-profit organizations like "The Green Grid" to promote efficient energy consumption in IT equipment. 

Another organization, SPEC, which is formed by Oracle, IBM, and HP, conducts research to help compare energy-saving practices in IT organizations like data centres and server rooms. Both of these organizations, along with other market leaders, recommend virtualization as an energy-efficient practice.

Virtualization is a technology that enables multiple server software to run on a single server hardware. This results in a reduction of the number of server hardware needed, which in turn leads to lower cooling expenses, lower energy consumption, and less floor space. Virtualization projects promote server consolidations that lead the way for better management of the servers and lower maintenance costs. It is important to note that while virtualization is not a sufficient effort on its own to make IT operations more environmentally friendly, it is a step in the right direction.

There are several ways to reduce the environmental impact of IT infrastructure other than server virtualization. One way is to use energy-efficient hardware such as servers, storage devices and cooling systems. Another way is to use renewable energy sources to power the IT infrastructure, such as solar or wind power. Additionally, implementing power management systems, such as power capping and automatic power-down of idle systems, can help reduce energy consumption. Another approach is to use cloud computing and remote hosting, which can reduce the need for physical servers, and can also reduce the energy consumption and environmental impact of data centres. Additionally, proper disposal of electronic waste, and recycling of old equipment, can also help reduce the environmental impact of IT operations. Overall, a comprehensive approach that considers energy efficiency, renewable energy, power management, and waste reduction, is needed to fully address the environmental impact of IT operations.

In conclusion, all these techniques should be used in combination. Overall, it is crucial for organizations to adopt a holistic approach towards sustainability in their IT operations and continuously strive to improve their environmental footprint.

Vedat YOZKAT

Think Global, Act Social

Technology is usually to blame for environmental problems and for promoting social detachment, being in the heart of the technology, is it possible for IT operations to be more social, is it possible for IT departments to contribute to social and environmental projects?

Although, IT departments have always been the leader for productivity, we think, we still could find room to improve our services and help contributing to social initiatives without compromising the service quality. Other than participating to the global projects and programs, we think by acting smart and making minor adjustments we can consume less, help reducing our carbon footprint locally and contribute to the society more.

IT departments contributes substantially in many green initiatives within corporations, such as paper reduction campaigns, energy conversation projects, promoting communication projects to reduce business travels and involving heavily in recycle & reuse projects.

Not only we “think green” for such activities, but also as IT teams, we take parts on socially responsible activities. We have been getting in touch with vocational schools in the vicinity to make a difference for the students in these schools. We provide a workplace experience for the students in such vocational schools. For students who are studying in computer science, programming and electronics, it is at upmost importance to find a workplace to put their learning at use. Not only, we provide a workplace experience for these students but also we involve them in IT projects to increase their take from this experience.

Furthermore, IT departments usually provide many training opportunities. Corporations consist of both well-educated, experienced staff and junior and not well equipped staff. One of IT departments' aim to bring everyone at an average level of understanding the technology and increase everyone's level of computer literacy. We provide many training opportunities to those that are not very well equipped with all the skills and qualification for their career targets. Without the required computer skills, many people cannot reach their career targets. We believe by helping them the break this barrier, IT departments play an important role in people's development and reaching their career goals.

Every year, number of personal computer systems retired or no longer needed by IT departments. While these are not the most powerful computers, they are still very useful for teaching basic computer skills. We refurbish these computers, remove all software licenses from them and reinstall free software licenses. After completing the installation and testing, we donate the equipment free of charge to eligible schools that are truly in need. This donation program has helped bring access to computer technology to many students. We are proud of these efforts that help create and foster foundations for enhanced learning. We will continue to donate such equipment to the schools and other educational nonprofit organizations in need.

We believe that environmental and social problems will not go away overnight by itself, all of us have to make collective efforts, we have to think smart to find more ways to be sustainable and increase our involvement in social initiatives.

We always have to keep in mind that the small details make the difference.

Vedat YOZKAT

Ego or Eco...

“Is the relationship between humans and the rest of the nature hierarchical and are humans, being superior to the rest of the nature, thus morally permitted to use nature in any way they see fit?”

Throughout the history, humanity had seen itself as the center of everything. It was widely believed that humans were created by the God and in the image of the God. Anything around us is created by the God to serve the humans’ needs. According to this view, humans had a special place in the environment, they were superior to the nature because the nature was explicitly created for their use. Below diagram depicts this view by showing a human male on top of the ecosystem pyramid.

Not only did they see themselves in a special place in this planet, but also they believed that the earth, being inhabited by humans, was the center of the universe thus was a special planet, too. This school of thought led the development of anthropocentric or human-centered world view.

Under the principles of the anthropocentric (human-centered) world view, humans are thought to be masters of the rest of the nature thus the nature is only a resource for the well-being of the human race. Since the nature is only a resource, humans are allowed to use the nature in any ways they want without taking any considerations for the nature itself.

I believe that today’s widely accepted environmental movements such as conservationism and the movements toward achieving a sustainable society are also products of the anthropocentric world view. Although, these movements do concern about the well-being of the nature and they support the idea that the nature is valuable, they still perceive the nature in human terms, that is, they believe that the nature should be protected to serve the humans better in terms of using it for sustaining human life, providing for future generations to come, recreation, appreciation and enjoyment.

Historically, some counter ideologies have been established against the anthropocentric world view also. Some scientific findings, such as Newton's geocentric discoveries and Darwin's theory of evolution, have been used to support these counter ideas. Even though, these ideologies establish good views in terms of defining the nature as an entity with an intrinsic value, they are still far from being practical in the current way of thinking. We have to devise new ways and change our way of thinking to find our righteous place in the ecosystem: not on top, just a part.

I believe that no matter what happens, the nature will survive and our existence will depend on the way the nature shape into when it manages its survival.

Vedat YOZKAT

How Green is My (Silicon) Valley...

Virtualization as a Sustainable IT Practice

When setting up an IT infrastructure, usually its environmental impact is overlooked. Initial cost, performance, compatibility and maintenance are usually the major points that are taken under consideration. As the number of server equipments increase, energy consumption also increases. Overall, using more server equipments would mean higher cooling expenses in the server room, higher energy consumption, higher server support costs and higher maintenance costs.

IT market leaders such as Dell, Sun Microsystems and others have formed a non-profit organization called “The Green Grid” to promote the efficiency at the consumption level of IT equipments. Similarly SPEC, another organization formed by Oracle, IBM and HP, conducts research to help comparing energy saving practices in IT organizations such as data centers, server rooms.

Both of these organizations along with other market leaders recommend virtualization as an energy conservative practice. Virtualization is basically allowing multiple server software to run on a single server hardware. The result is reduced number of server hardware, less cooling expense, less energy consumption and less floor space.

Virtualization projects promote server consolidations that lead the way for better management for the servers and lower maintenance costs. This is, of course, by itself not a sufficient effort for environment friendly IT operations but it is an important measure toward the right direction.

Vedat YOZKAT

Ethical Obligation toward Ourselves

Nowadays, heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in industrialized nations. One of the major causes of heart disease is the excess intake of fat and cholesterol, and meat is the main provider of fat and cholesterol. Since a balanced vegetarian diet greatly eliminates the fat and cholesterol intake, the risk of having heart disease for a vegetarian is very small. In fact, as early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, “90% to 97% of heart disease can be prevented by a vegetarian diet”

Cancer is another disease that can be prevented by following a vegetarian diet. Researches strongly suggest that eating a meat-based diet puts us greatly at risk in terms of cancer. For instance, the studies published by the Himalayan Academy show; the risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week, and for men who consume meat daily, the risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater.

Another great concern is the chemicals that meat contains. These chemicals could be very harmful to people who obtain them through eating meat. One class of these chemicals is the antibiotics. Large amounts of antibiotics are fed to livestock to control certain diseases among the animals. Since the bacteria causing these diseases are becoming immune to the drugs very quickly, the meat industry is increasing the amount of the antibiotics given to livestock every year. It is not healthy for humans to consume the meat that contains high levels of antibiotics because by the gradual increase of antibiotics in the human body, disease causing bacteria which affect humans build a resistance against these antibiotics, and this causes a rapid decline in effectiveness of all “wonder-drug” antibiotics.

Another group of chemicals that the meat contains includes pesticides and herbicides. These chemicals are commonly used to increase crop efficiency. Even in a vegetarian diet, people receive these chemicals. However, since livestock is feeding on this crop, as well, they are biologically magnifying the chemicals in their bodies and passing these chemicals at a much greater rate to the humans who consume their meat. For example, a research published by the Himalayan Academy clearly indicated that contamination of breast milk due to pesticides found in meat-eating mothers versus non meat-eating mothers is 35 times higher.

I also truly believe that adopting a vegetarian diet would also provide us more internal peace. As Tolstoy asked once, “while our bodies are the living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions on earth?” In my opinion, violence creates more violence. When we treat other creatures violently, I do not think that we can find internal peace of our own.

Vedat YOZKAT

Ethical Obligation toward the Animals

One of the most important issue related to the meat consumption is dealing with animal rights. It is very simple that, in order to eat meat, animals should be killed. However, the necessity of killing another living being is highly controversial. Must we really kill in order to live? My answer for this question is a simple answer: no. I think that we can sustain our well-being without killing other living creatures. We can very well nourish our bodies with a plant-based diet, and in today’s way of living, we do not have to kill the animals to protect ourselves or eliminate the competition for other food resources either. I think that we have no right to kill the animals or treat them badly for only pleasure; since we can nourish ourselves very well without eating them, our only reason for doing all this to the animals is our enjoyment of the way they taste. And this will not even come close to justifying the cruelty.

Today, most of us do not live in wild habitats; we do not even see most kinds of animals anywhere other than zoos. Our encountering with animals is minimized in today’s comfort-driven society; therefore, it is much more impersonal. Today, we do not have to kill the animals for ourselves either because others in the meat industry are killing them for us. I think that this impersonalization and the disassociation of meat from the animals are the major human perceptions that are contributing the growth of the meat industry. Whenever a person goes shopping, she or he sees these little packages of meat in the cooler. There is nothing to associate the meat in the cooler with a living-breathing animal. For the shopper, this is only another food item to be bought. I truly believe that if everybody were reminded of the fact that these little, clean-looking packages are products of careless, malicious handling followed by violent, bloody and terrorful slaughtering, the meat consumption would promptly drop. This theory is also backed by the fact that of all occupations in the US, slaughterhouse workers have the highest turnover rate because most people cannot deal with the daily experience of screams of terror and the anger of the animals.

Some opposers think that if the animals were living in their natural habitat, they would be eaten by carnivore species anyway; therefore, there is nothing wrong with our eating them. However, they overlook the fact that, for example, whereas cows have a lifespan of 25 years under natural living conditions, they are only allowed to live 3 to 5 years on animal farms. They also overlook the fact that the treatment that the animals receive before they are killed is very different from how nature treats them in their original habitat.

I think that it is morally wrong to treat other living creatures badly and kill them for only pleasure. Since we are the only moral creatures on this planet, I think that we have an ethical obligation toward the animals, as well. I also tend to believe that, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote once, “the time will come when men will look upon the murder of the animals as they now look upon the murder of men”.

Vedat YOZKAT

Our Ethical Obligation toward the Environment

In the earlier stages of human history, individuals who ate meat did so at their own expenses, that is, whatever an individual could hunt or raise for himself or herself was whatever she or he could eat. However, especially after the industrial revolution, humanity found itself in a comfort-driven society. People in such a society do not like to be bound by their own performances and limitations but want more of everything. This has been a driving force behind the fact that meat production has become a huge industry in recent decades. As it is the case for most major industries, capital-driven enterprising of the meat industry has created major problems in the environment.

First, livestock growers realized the fact that in order to obtain maximum efficiency, they have to take the animals under their total control; this meant that the animals of commercial value should be removed from their natural habitats and put in well-defended places. This separationist attitude created several problems. By doing this, growers removed a valuable item from the food chain of the nature; this was a major cause of disruption for carnivore species that heavily depend on these animals. Not only did some weaker carnivore animals die because they could not find food readily available, but also they were killed by people who were defending the livestock under their supervision. This resulted in the decreasing of some carnivore species’ numbers and in some cases even led to extinction.

Another problem occurred. When under the supervision and protection of humans, these captivated animals increased their population dramatically to an extent that they could never reach in their original natural habitat. With the increasing population of the livestock, land and food problems have been raised. In order to keep the animals alive and well, the meat industry needed a lot of land for animals and for more crop land to feed the animals. To meet the increasing demand, each year a lot of forest land is cleared for crop land to feed livestock and produce more meat. Because of this mass clearing of forest lands, many species face extinction; a lot of wild animals die because they lose their homes in the woods. For most forest species, the forest is the major source of food and protection. With the forest destroyed, many species cannot resist the difficulties presented and die either because of starvation or because of weather conditions. The destruction of forests not only presents a problem for forest species but also creates problems for the earth’s ecology. It is widely known that forests are the major source of oxygen and oxygen is needed for life on earth. By destroying the forests, the meat industry is actually destroying the earth’s major source of oxygen. Destroying these forest lands is also a major contributor to floods and top soil erosion, as well. Trees help the soil hold together by absorbing the water, cutting these trees and planting crops with short roots would weaken the soil against winds and water and the top soil would be eroded by these external forces. With the rich and fertile soil eroded, we would not even be able to grow crops for ourselves, let alone for the livestock.

Another major environmental problem related to raising livestock is that the energy needed to produce meat is much greater. According to the scientists, the energy needed to produce meat is fifty times more than the energy needed to produce same amount of crop. This would mean that for every pound of meat fifty times more fossil fuels needed to be burnt, and the ecological problems associated with fossil fuel burning are so widely known that there is no need to discuss it here in detail other than mentioning its disease causing effect on mine workers such as black lung disease, its contribution to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, its contribution to acid rain and its alleged contribution to global warming..
Researches also show that in order to produce a pound of meat, 2500 gallons of fresh water are needed as opposed to 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat. Because fresh water consumption is so much greater in raising livestock, the livestock growers are said to be one of the main contributors of fresh water pollution. Although the major portion of the earth’s surface is covered with water, most of the water is water with sea salt; that is, it is not usable for agricultural and household purposes unless it is treated. Only a small portion of the water is fresh and readily usable water. Water pollution in the industrialized nations is a big problem because fresh water is a precious and essential source for life, and we are rapidly polluting our resources. Although treatment techniques for sea water and some polluted water are scientifically available, they are neither practical nor economical solutions to the pollution problem. In some cases of polluted water, it is not even possible to clean up the pollution. Because of its cost-increasing effect, most industries are inattentive to take precautionary steps to decrease the amount of their water polluting waste unless they are forced by governmental regulations. One of the main industries that contribute to the pollution of the fresh water is the meat industry because the meat industry in the US, for example, uses more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US. As I stated before; fresh water conservation is so important for all the present and future life forms on earth, and we should minimize the pollution that we pour into this precious source of life.

I think that we should respect the wildlife in forests as well as the animals under captivity and let them live their lives in their natural habitats. I also think that we should be more concerned about the future of this planet and act accordingly to eliminate fossil fuel burning, deforestation, polluting of fresh water and our contribution to the extinction of species. I not only think that we should be concerned more about the future generations, animals, the environment and the earth’s well-being than what it is on our plates, but also I strongly believe that we are ethically obligated to do so. Keeping these facts in mind, I conclude by repeating that we must fulfill our ethical obligation toward the environment by eliminating our meat consumption so that this world would be a better place to live for us, for all the other species and for the future generations.

Vedat YOZKAT

Hunger, a Game?

World hunger is one of the most important of the problems that humanity is facing today. Each year, approximately 60 million people die either because of malnutrition or under nutrition. The major portion of these deaths is occurring among children who are much more fragile and prone to starvation than the adults. According to the studies, a child starves to death every two seconds. I think that these people who face starvation every day of their lives should not be deprived of their most basic right of continuing their lives, whereas people in the industrialized countries take this right for granted and continue to live in a consumption based society where massive and unacceptable wasting of resources has become a way of life. Today, with the help of our advanced science and technology, we are very efficient in growing crops. As a result, the world’s crop yield, today, is greater than anytime in the history. One would think that since we have a very large amount of crop production, we should not have any problems related to lack of food resources for every person in the world. However, the hunger problem is not a result of insufficient resources but a result of unequal distribution of resources among the individuals. Somehow this could be taken as a fortunate recognition because it would mean that the resources in the world are adequate for every people to nourish themselves if the distribution problem is solved. The major portion of the distribution problem comes into the scene with our preference for using the crops in a very inefficient conversion process to produce a more expensive food: meat. Instead, we can use the crops to feed people directly and prevent a massive waste in the conversion process. When people are starving in one part of the world, a massive amount of food is consumed by livestock in other parts of the world to produce meat in a ridiculously inefficient ratio; for every pound of beef, for instance, approximately 16 pounds of grains and soybeans needed. In a more focused example, the United States of America is one of the major producers of corn, wheat, oat, soybeans and potatoes. However, the statistics show that only a small portion of the US production is consumed by people (approximately 10-20%) because the US is also one of the major producers of livestock, and the major portion of the US grain and soybeans production is eaten by livestock. Some researchers argue that if only the people in the US reduced their intake of meat by 10%, with the grain saved from the reduced feeding of livestock, all the people who face starvation each year in the world would be adequately fed .

I think that it is morally wrong to let people die because of starvation when we could eliminate our waste of resources and let everyone nourish himself or herself. I also think that every member of the earth community should have an equal right to the sharing of resources, and she or he should not wave this right to the others who think their shares should be bigger because they are better than the rest. Under the light of these facts, it is clear, in my opinion, that people have an ethical obligation toward others not only to reduce but also to eliminate the meat consumption completely so that hunger would disappear from the face of the earth forever.

Vedat YOZKAT

Why Do Corporations Go Green?

Nowadays, all companies in a race with each other to adopt environmental practices in their operations. In the past, nobody has cared much about but now no one can run away from it.

Why is this shift?

• All of a sudden, did the leaders of the industry and the business understand the importance of the environment?
• All of a sudden, is the technology advanced in a way that environment wouldn't be harmed much?
• All of a sudden, did the people realize that the environment is more important than the bottomline?

I think not.

Maybe all of these have triggered the mind shift, but, in my opinion, overall their effect is minimal.

I think the major reason is the policies and regulations. Governments now more aware of the public health and adverse environmental impacts of the heavy industries. Therefore, one after another, governments worldwide are trying adopt regulations and policies to minimize the affects. Although, still deeply influenced by lobbies, industries, still most countries have laws the protect their environment.

Another major reason that the corporates go green is the cost saving aspect. Most green initiatives are returning as a cost saving in way or another. Energy and water conservation, reducing paper consumption, recycling etc are just to name a few.

Public is now more aware about environmental friendly corporates and brands, more and more customers base their choices on this criteria. Public image of a company is very important to increase its market share. Knowing this, corporates, now, investing more on environmental friendly practices as a PR investment.
When competitors adopt more and more environmental friendly practices and shine their images on public's eyes, others feel the pressure to go to the same direction. Peer pressure leads corporations to go green.

People feel good when contributing to environmental friendly practices, I think the feel good factor should not be overlooked. Not only devotion of the customers but also employee loyalty is promoted by adopting such practices. People tend to devote themselves to good causes.

No matter what the reason is, it is extremely crucial that we keep this direction and lead the way for future generations to come. Regardless of the motives, the outcome is of utmost importance.

Vedat YOZKAT

Computers and the Environment

Throughout the history, humanity has altered its environment so that the environment would be more comfortable and more suitable to its needs. For millions and millions years, people have continued to change the environment in many ways, however, these changes have been considered as minor changes, because of the fact that people did not have the necessary power to make major alterations in the environment until the recent centuries. Industrialization was the name of the game that gave the necessary power to the people’s hands, so that they could make major alterations in the environment to obtain a “better life.” Industrialization has been exclusively serving people on the expense of all other elements of the environment. All of the major environmental problems have been created and have been being created during the industrialization process, namely; global warming, ozone depletion, water pollution, air pollution, accelerated extinction of species, etc.

After having completed their development by using the power of industrialization, some nations went into another stage that some people call postindustrialism. According to Daniel Bell in his 1973 work on sociological movements, postindustrialism refers to a shift toward service and advanced knowledge technology (Bartos). I think that computers came into the scene at this stage of industrialization. Because computers, themselves, cannot be used in the production processes as it is required in the industries, but they can be used to improve, control or monitor the production processes. Computers, especially in the recent years, helped the improvements of service economies and led to advancements in the knowledge-based technologies. Analogously, in the postindustrial societies, computers are extensively used to find solutions to the environmental problems created by industrialization.

Because of the complicated nature of the environment, proposed solutions to the environmental problems would lead to some unexpected consequences, and because we cannot use the nature as a laboratory to conduct experiments on it, we would never know what consequences to expect as a result of the actions we are intending to take. In order to get at least some sense of what to expect, environmental scientists, nowadays, heavily rely on computer models and simulations. For example, computer models are extensively used to predict possible outcomes of global warming. Other computer models, such as World3 and Balance of the Planet, are used for educational purposes to give the students some sense of the complex structure of the earth (Skinner). Although, these computer models are widely accepted as good tools for environmental researches, they would be never fully accurate because of the infinite number of parameters involved in a single environmental phenomenon. However, I think that computer models will continue to be used in the process of ethical decision making toward the environment.

Computers are also useful as accurate measurement and complicated calculation devices. Industries in the developed countries, today, monitor their production processes by computers to increase their efficiencies as well as decrease their pollution. Computers are really helpful to make necessary adjustments quickly and accurately in real-time systems to increase productivity of the production line, and consequently eliminate the waste of resources and conserve energy. Environmental scientists also make a heavy use of the computers in analyzing ecological data by measuring the levels of pollution in the air, soil, and water.

I think that use of computers in the postindustrial societies is an attempt to find solutions to the environmental problems that are created by industrialization process. In a sense, computers are our modern devices to help us to find out what is ethically right thing to do. In terms of computer modeling, forecasting, energy conservation systems, environmental safety monitoring systems or computerization of treatment systems, I believe that the use of computers will continue to increase in the near future, and I also believe that computers will be proven to be useful in the ethical decision making process by providing the necessary information and possible precautionary steps to take.

Vedat YOZKAT



References


Bartos, Otomar J. “Postmodernism, Postindustrialism, and the Future.” Sociological Quarterly. Volume 37. Issue 2. p307.

Sewell, Joe. “Expert Systems in the Air Pollution Industry.” Christian Brothers University.


Skinner, B.K. “Decisions, Systems, and Models.” Gumption Trust.

A Flexible Solution for the Modern Workforce

Telecommuting, also known as remote work or working from home, refers to a flexible work arrangement in which employees perform their work from a location outside of their office, such as their home or a remote location. The history of telecommuting can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s, when technology advancements made it possible for employees to perform their work from remote locations. At that time, telecommuting was seen as a way to reduce traffic congestion, save energy, and increase worker productivity. However, it wasn't until the late 20th and early 21st centuries that telecommuting became more widespread, as advances in technology and the Internet made it easier for employees to communicate and collaborate with their co-workers from a distance. The rise of laptops, and other portable devices made it easier for employees to work from anywhere, and many companies think about embracing telecommuting as a way to reduce costs and improve worker satisfaction.

With advancements in technology, it is now more possible to have all job-related tools and equipment at home. This raises the question of whether a traditional workplace is even necessary anymore. More and more businesses could be conducted from home offices, with technology playing a major role in allowing employees to work effectively and efficiently. The Internet, with its increased availability and lower cost, is a key player in facilitating remote work. In addition, the widespread use of web-based applications allow for convenient and secure use of applications from anywhere. For businesses that require secure transactions, Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications are available to provide secure access to corporate networks. Communication tools can also be easily set up at home, giving employees access to the same communication capabilities as they would have in a traditional workplace. Telecommuting offers numerous benefits, including environmental benefits such as reducing fossil fuel usage and carbon emissions from commuting, social benefits such as reducing traffic and providing work opportunities for disabled and remote individuals, financial benefits such as lower overhead costs from reduced office space requirements, and personal benefits such as improved work-life balance and time management. For businesses, telecommuting provides advantages such as the ability to conduct business across multiple time zones, faster disaster recovery, and improved risk management. 

Companies could also offer employees to have the combination of two options to work from the office or from home, depending on their needs and the requirements of their job. This flexible work arrangement provides employees with a work-life balance and greater autonomy, while also giving companies the ability to benefit from the advantages of in-person collaboration and face-to-face interaction.

In conclusion, telecommuting has come a long way since its inception in the 1960s and 1970s. With advancements in technology and the widespread use of the Internet, telecommuting has become a viable and attractive option for both employees and businesses. It is clear that telecommuting is here to stay and will continue to evolve as technology improves. For businesses and employees, telecommuting offers the ability to work effectively and efficiently from anywhere, providing numerous benefits for both. Whether it is reducing costs, improving work-life balance, or reducing carbon emissions, telecommuting has become a valuable option for businesses and employees alike.

Humans and the Nature

“The relationship between humans and the rest of the nature is hierarchical. and humans, being superior to the rest of the nature, are thus morally permitted to use nature in any way they see fit.”

Throughout the history, humanity had seen itself as the center of everything. They believed that humans were created by the God and in the image of the God. Anything other than the humans around us is created by the God to serve the humans’ needs. According to their view, humans had a special place in the environment, they were superior to the nature because the nature was explicitly created for their use (White). Not only did they see themselves in a special place in this planet, but also they believed that the earth, being inhabited by humans, was the center of the universe thus was a special planet, too. This school of thought led the development of anthropocentric or human-centered world view.

Under the principles of the anthropocentric world view, humans are thought to be masters of the rest of the nature thus the nature is only a resource for the well-being of the human race. Since the nature is only a resource, humans are allowed to use the nature in any ways they want without taking any considerations for the nature itself.

I also believe that today’s widely accepted environmental movements such as conservationism and the movements toward achieving a sustainable society are also products of the anthropocentric world view. Although, these movements do concern about the well-being of the nature and they support the idea that the nature is valuable, they still perceive the nature in human terms, that is, they believe that the nature should be protected to serve the humans better in terms of using it for recreation, appreciation and enjoyment (Lamb).

Although there have been many scientific findings, such as Newton’s geocentric discoveries and Darwin’s theory of evolution, that suggest that humans are not any special with regard to the rest of the nature, most people still see themselves as superior to the nature (Lamb). I think this is mostly because of the fact that most of our science, technology, and teachings have been derived from the historical roots of the anthropocentric world view.

Historically, some counter ideologies have been established against the anthropocentric world view. For instance, preservation can be seen as a counter idea for conservation or deep ecology is a counter idea for both shallow ecology of conservation and sustainable development. Even though, these ideologies establish good world views in terms of defining the nature as a separate entity from humanity and recognizing the nature’s intrinsic value, they are far from being practical in the current way of thinking. However, I not only think but also hope that these ideologies could be good alternatives for the current way of living in the future. Because, I believe that no matter what happens, the nature will survive and our existence will depend on the way the nature shape into when it manages its survival.


Vedat YOZKAT



References

Lamb, Kara L. “The Problem of Defining Nature First: A Philosophical Critique of Environmental Ethics.” Social Science Journal. Vol. 33. Issue 4. p475.

Naess, Arne. “Ecosophy T: Deep Versus Shallow Ecology.” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston.

White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston.

Footprint

From the very beginning, every element of the ecology has been altering its environment in one way or other. Some in small scales, some in larger scales, but everything that constitutes the earth has a contribution to the way the earth is right now. This is not only the case for the living organisms, but also is it the case for non-living forms of the ecology. For instance, who could deny the effects of the wind, the water or the sun to the formation of the environment as we know it. Rivers, for example, cause erosion, carry water for life to inland and contribute the formation of deltas. Volcanoes, to name another, cause major environmental changes in their vicinities. Similarly, animals change their environment so that the environment could be more suitable to their way of life. For example, birds make nests on trees and rabbits dig tunnels into the ground to protect themselves from the intruders and weather conditions. Because of the higher intelligent factor, in my opinion, humans have changed their environment more extravagantly than any other species on this planet.

The most major of the changes made by humans have occurred during the process of industrialization. Because of the improvements in the health services and medical advancement, industrialization led to a sharp increase in the population (“Humanity...”). In order to provide a better life for the increased population in the developed countries, technology has been intensively used to produce more food, more housing and more comfort on the expense of other things, such as people in less-developed countries, species with no commercial value, and ecosystems that are never thought to have any importance.

Some of these changes that humans have made are major changes that harm the environment greatly and it is doubtful that the environment ever will be able to repair itself. For example, as Rachel Carson indicated in her book, wide usage of chemicals has been harming the environment in many irreparable ways, and many species have been harmed by these changes in the environment (Carson). Carson claims that these chemicals cover the surface of the earth, get into the soil, get into the groundwater, and she adds that we might never be able to clean up these chemicals out of our precious water resources (Carson).

Other than the use of chemicals, humans are using fossil fuels to meet the increasing demands for energy in the industrialization process. Fossil fuels are formed in millions of years of time period, and they are limited. By using up these fossil fuels, we are taking something out of the environment that would take other millions of years to be replaced. And, by burning these fossil fuels, we are causing atmospheric pollution that would lead some harmful consequences. For example, scientists argue that because of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by fossil fuel burning, global warming could be on its way. Scientists think that once this happens, the earth would never be the same. The weather conditions would change, flooding would occur in many coastal cities, some animals that cannot adjust the changes very rapidly would go extinct (“Humanity...”). As it is foreseen, most of these changes would be very harmful to the environment and humanity itself, and they are irreversible.

Since we are the only species that have moral values, and since we are the only species who could think about the consequences of an action before we take it, I think that we are obligated to use these unique skills of ours. I think that we are obligated to apply our moral values to the environment, and we have to see the fact that we are not superior to the nature but a part of it. Our moral values should be our guidance in our decision making process. We should ask this question to ourselves: who are we to decide this earth’s fate? We have to remember the fact that this earth has been here much longer than we ever came into the scene and it will be here after we are long gone.


Vedat YOZKAT




References

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Co.
“Humanity: An Agent of Global Environmental Change.” One Earth One Future. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.

Telecommuting

As the technology advances, now it is more possible to provide all job related tools and equipments at home. If all tools and equipments can be effectively used at home, then is it really necessary to go to a workplace?

Traditionally, a work place is designed to accommodate the need of the job required and the need of the employees. Nowadays, more and more business can be conducted at home without even have to be present in a workplace. More people are working in home-office environments and technology is helping them conduct their business as effective.

Advanced technology offers some tools to make it easier. Of course, Internet is offering great help for this type of businesses. Internet today is more available and much cheaper. In most countries, large bandwidth Internet is obtainable in residential areas also. This would help employees to access their corporates’ networks, use remote applications, conduct some tasks over the Internet etc. Furthermore, concepts such as cloud computing, web based applications etc help employees to use applications more securely, faster, cheaper and with more convenient licensing.

For corporations that require secure transactions, Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications are to rescue. VPN is much cheaper and widely available today. VPN or alike ensure users to access their corporate networks securely.

Communications tools such as video conferencing, IP telephony can also be easily set up at homes. Such communication tools now can be integrated to the corporates’ networks; therefore, even the employee works at home, all capabilities of the corporate’s communication network can be easily used at home. This would also help reduce travels to the clients, employees can directly communicate with the clients without leaving their homes.

Telecommuting offers great benefits, we can categorize these benefits under several categories: environmental, social, financial, personal, business, risk management.

For environmental benefits, we can easily say that, as the name applies, telecommuting eliminate the daily commute to work therefore it helps reducing the fossil fuel usage and helps environment by reducing CO emission. Furthermore, not having big business buildings also helps reducing energy consumption by eliminating the heating, cooling, lighting etc.

Telecommuting also offers some social benefits, overall traffic would be reduced, communities would start offering more jobs to the disabled, retired and people live in remote regions, employees would have opportunities to adopt better parenting practices, it would help employees to improve their social life by keeping the delicate work-life balance.

Financial benefits are one of the main reasons for corporations to adopt these practices. Telecommuting would help reducing the office space requirements substantially. This would lead to reduce cost of the property, rent or cost of ownership, cost of utilities, insurance etc. It would greatly lower the overhead expenses.

Telecommuting is said to promote employee’s morale. It would reduce employee’s absents and turnover rate, employees would have opportunity to have better time management.

Business wise, telecommuting provides some advantages too. Since there is no single location but the business locations are widely distributed, business can be conducted accross multiple timezones easily. In case of a disaster, disaster recovery could be initiated more easily and the business could be restored in a shorter time period.

Similarly, businesses that adopt telecommuting practices have better risk management. This type of businesses are more strong against natural disasters, terrorist attacks, wide spread illness etc. Furthermore, by eliminating the need for commuting everyday, traffic accidents are no longer a threat for employees.

Overall, telecommuting aim to empower colleagues without an office setting to conduct their jobs effectively and productively without compromising corporate standards. This in return provides countless benefits to the business itself.

Vedat YOZKAT