Technostress

Using QR Codes for Interactive Presentations

QR code is short for Quick Response code. It is considered to be evolved version of barcodes. It is a 2 dimensional barcode with capacity of holding matrix of information.

A QR code can be scanned and read by a specifically designed reader device or any type of imaging device with proper software support. Nowadays, all smart phone devices have QR code reading applications to read the QR codes.

QR codes have so many application areas, endless opportunities to discover.
Here is a way that I use QR codes to enable the audience to see the presentations on their mobile devices:  http://youtu.be/GFkAyFE3igQ



Vedat YOZKAT

3D Printing: Evolution or Revolution?

It is not science fiction anymore... It was only in the science fiction movies that a small device is constructing a three-dimensional tangible object with the help of a computer. Now, it is the reality.

3D printing is an additive manufacturing technique (as opposed to conventional subtractive manufacturing that deals with getting rid of the excessive material) which means adding layers of material one after another to form the shape of the object.

3D printers are in use for more than couple of decades, they have been mostly used for making quick prototypes. As 3D printers get cheaper, faster and more capable, its use will get wider for prototypes and even for final products.

Since it is much cheaper, required less skills and less material use, many industries turn into using 3D printers for their prototyping and end products. Producer do not have to make a certain number of items to cover up the fixed costs, each item can be customized at the same low cost with minimal risk. In some cases, even transporting the item is not necessary, downloading the digital design file and printing it elsewhere is also possible. 3D printer prices get lower very fast, with this pace, even the end users could buy a machine and use it at home to customize or design own 3D objects. Some companies already started using for; rapid prototyping, medical modeling, fashion accessories, custom fit shoes or helmets and most importantly spare parts for expensive machinery.

I think 3D printing techniques will continue to evolve. As it gets more affordable, it will get more adoption. In my opinion, eventually, it would revolutionize the industries as well as individual users' capabilities to put their innovation at work.

Vedat YOZKAT

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

Gamification

Learning is an ongoing process; whether in schools as children or in corporate settings as adults, we continuously learn to keep ourselves competitive and up-to-date. In order to make learning endeavors more enjoyable, to keep the motivation at the top level, and to provide continuity during the training activities, a lot of institutions try to devise different techniques. Gamification and game-based learning are two of them. 

Playing to learn is emerging as an educational approach to motivate learners to engage by using game design techniques and strategies in learning environments. The goal is to attract and entertain the interest of the attendees so that they can become more attentive and engaged participants. It is necessary to say that game-based learning is not exactly the same thing as gamification In game-based learning, attendees play an actual game, in contrast, in gamification, game is embedded into the learning activities.

In fact, even if we do not realize it, many companies use these methods to gain customer loyalty. For example, if your favorite coffee place gives you a card with a hole in it for every coffee you buy, and if the number of holes in the card is 5 and you are offered free coffee, the coffee shop is trying to use gamification techniques to assure you coming back again and again.

I think that using gamification and game-based learning in education is more important than in other areas. Regardless of the age, playing games has always been a source of motivation for almost everyone. It is an indisputable fact that we need to increase motivation and participation in all types of education and training. In fact, various methods of gamification and game-based learning have been tried by various educational institutions with successful results every time.

Vedat YOZKAT

Digitalization

Digitalization is translating functions and processes into digital data to improve them with the help of digital technology. It is one of the most widely used terms in the business world in recent years. Companies digitize their businesses to create models that use digital technologies to provide opportunities for generating new revenue and value or to make existing business models more efficient. There is a slight difference between digitization and digitalization. For example, scanning a piece of paper with the help of a digital scanner is digitization whereas digitalization is when digitizing all the business processes and data in a way that businesses do not need a scanner because all data is already in digital form.

Digitalization has gone a long way in recent years and we can say that it will increase its influence rapidly in the coming years. Nowadays, many services, products and processes are digitized data at the source. For example, most of the books you read are created digitally, many television and radio channels are now being digitally broadcast. Maps, films, singles, photographs, magazines, newspapers are few of the obvious examples of digitally produced content at their sources. Concepts and terms such as e-invoice, e-government, e-learning, e-health are utilized more and more every day. After digitalization has become so widespread and proved its benefits for increasing productivity, some other examples have emerged. Digital twins of physical assets are one of them. Digital twins of some physical devices can be created to apply the benefits of digitalization. For example, digital twins of traffic lights can be created in a computer environment to test any improvements before applying to real life. Another example, the digital twins of the wind turbines used in  wind farms can be used to increase the efficiency of electricity generation. 

With the raise of many new technologies and concepts such as digital economy, Internet of Things, big data, cloud computing, AI, Industry 4.0, etc, digitalization will be the driving force behind these technologies and will rapidly increase its influence.

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

Will Tablets Change The Nature Of The Business?

As the technology advances, it not only helps the run the business in conventional methods by increasing the productivity but also changes the nature of businesses in ways that never been thought before. Just imagine years ago, people never thought of putting a computer in the middle of everything, nowadays, can anyone imagine running a business without a computer?

In time, mainframes involved into desktop PCs, PCs are gradually replaced by laptops, why not tablets would replace them all?

How can we use these devices more productively and make a them a part of our daily routine?

Users of tablets usually agrees the fact that these devices quite easy to get used to. Especially, mailing, browsing experiences offer a great user friendly interface. However working on spreadsheets, word processors, enterprise applications etc havent been proven to make the life easier.

Let’s try to list of devices, applications and peripherals for business users:

Desktop or laptop PCs, Blackberry or other type of smartphones, telephones, mail clients, spreadsheet , word processor, web browser, enterprise applications such as ERP, CRM etc.

It seems that a tablet PCs can replace all above applications. Given that sufficient security measures are properly taken.

We might still consider providing a desktop and notebook computer in the office for advanced tasks and duties, for travelling though, a tablet pc would offer great benefits.

Travelling only with a properly chosen tablet PC would offer below tasks:

- Email client

- Web browsing

- Access to company intranet

- Access to corporate applications

- Telephone (some tablets offer this feature)

- Constant Internet access

- Spreadsheet

- Word processors

- Presentation tools (need for a VGA-out)

- Vidyo client for attending company video conference sessions

- Webex client

- Querying and viewing corporate data.

In summary, industry have already accepted the fact that the future of personal computing is tablet PCs. May be business should also start to think about exploiting these possibilities. Security concerns still remains the same, some further developments are definitely needed. Otherwise, tablets will not offer an environment for data entry and active usage just merely used for viewing corporate data.

Vedat YOZKAT

Computer Literacy

Computer systems take an important notion in today’s business world. Nowadays in job interviews, nominees’ computer literacy is seriously questioned besides their technical job competency, personality and spoken foreign languages. Companies invest heavily in Information Technologies and expect their users to utilize these expensive and fragile systems properly. In order to be able to make sure the level of computer competency of the staff, companies rely on nominees’ self-assessed statements, written tests or hands on computer exams. Of all these techniques, certification system is the most trusted and accepted.

The European Computer Driving License (ECDL) is a leading certification technique that is accepted by most countries and major companies. ECDL is also known as fastest growing and most prestigious certification system. ECDL (or ICDL - The International Computer Driving License) aims to determine users’ computer skills, designed to be entirely vendor independent. The aim is to prepare an international work force for especially European Union countries as well as the other parts of the world. ECDL is not designed for IT professionals, it is specifically designed to determine computer users’ skills.

According to a non-profit scientific organization ECDL foundation, most substantial advantages of ECDL are as follows:
•    ECDL is the only certification program inaugurated by the Computer Scientists of Europe (CEPIS).
•    It is promoted by a not-for-profit organization.
•    It has worldwide validity and acceptance - 2.500.000 candidates enrolled up to date.
•    The "Syllabi" are vendor independent.
•    It applies strict assessment procedures and a reliable evaluation system.
•    Examinations in Turkey take place under the supervision of a special Supervisors Body, constituted by members of the TBD.
•    It establishes a tangible benchmark for computer user skills.
•    It helps to reduce IT support costs.
•    It provides evidence of an organization's ability to deliver effectively.
•    It can improve employee performance and enhance job satisfaction.
•    It prepares people for the Information Society.

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.

How Green is My (Silicon) Valley...

Technology is usally to blame for environmental problems, being in the heart of the technology, is it possible for IT operations to be greener, is it possible for IT to contribute sustainability?

As IT teams, we always try to find answers to these questions. In our meetings and daily discussions, we always remind ourselves to “think green.”

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 the green initiatives without compromising the service quality.

Other than participating the global projects and programs, we think by acting smart and making minor adjustments we can consume less and help reducing our carbon footprint locally.

We can contribute to reduce paper consumption by taking some local measures such as installing dedicated drivers to each computer for duplex and booklet printing, feeding A5 size paper to the printers, hanging posters to the print areas to raise awareness and inform users for most efficient fonts, sizes and styles.

Aside from adopting global power plan for energy efficiency on client computers, we could also try to reduce our energy consumption by keeping server room temperature at an acceptable level, replacing all CRT monitors with low consuming LCDs, using scheduled turned on / off for stand alone systems, always using energy star qualified equipments for ensuring the low consumption, making sure all client computers turned off when not used.

We also think that using our communication tools such as video conference, conference bridge etc. more efficienty would help reducing travels consequently help reducing our carbon footprint. Therefore, we spend extra effort to promote such tools.

IT consumables are always subject to recycle and reuse, we should take special care for such items, always prefer either recycled or recyclable materials. Some vendors offer special “recycle and reuse” programs. We could make sure to follow up such programs and sign up if applicable.

Not only should we “think green” for on job activities, but also as IT teams, we should take parts on outside activities. We could join tree planting events, invite our family and friends to support green initiatives, participate some of our vendors’ roadshows that specifically deal with sustainable IT.

We believe that environmental 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.

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

Vedat YOZKAT

Video Conference as a New Business Tool

Video Conference (VC) is an application more businesses are turning to in an attempt to cut travel costs, reduce carbon footprint and keep the time executives spend out of the office to a minimum. Business travel and accommodation costs are rising each year and many executives now prefer to link up with clients and colleagues in other cities or countries by using technology rather than travelling. Besides, air travel is a major contributor of air pollution. The greater the number of people at the meeting, the greater the travel and accommodation savings. Although the technology is expensive for now, costs can be recouped fairly quickly.

The cost benefits of video conference meetings can be huge with savings on flights, taxis, hotels and, not least, unproductive hours spent traveling. As the bills mount up it makes a lot of sense to look for alternative ways of working. Overseas travel expenses are quite high and this adds to the argument for video conferencing. Most companies, nowadays, have more concern about environmental problems and they try to contribute more to sustainability projects. Companies working together on projects, find video conferencing lets people meet and work together more often and more effectively without incurring extra expense and help reducing their carbon footprint. Then there is travelling time to consider, in some cases, people take up to two business days for only 2 hours of face to face meeting.

Video conference increases users involvement and builds trust for a more open, collaborative and productive working environment. The technology also ensures that marketing opportunities are grasped in time because decision makers can be easily brought together at short notice to discuss and decide on the issues at stake.
A wide range of companies, from major manufacturers to multinational corporations, have all been early adopters of the technology, its use is growing fast as its benefits become clear and costs decrease.

With new technology, video conference images and audio are close to television quality and there are fewer restrictions on how many participants can join a multiple-site broadcast. Moreover, the equipment works in conjunction with desktop computers and laptops to show PowerPoint presentations, photos, documents and images.

In conclusion, video conferencing is a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly alternative to traditional business travel. The technology allows executives to communicate and collaborate with clients and colleagues around the world while avoiding the high costs and time-consuming nature of air travel. Additionally, video conferencing offers a range of benefits, including increased user involvement, improved collaboration and productivity, and the ability to quickly seize marketing opportunities. As the technology becomes more advanced and affordable, more and more companies are likely to adopt video conferencing as a key tool in their business operations, helping to reduce their carbon footprint and contributing to sustainable business practices.

Vedat YOZKAT

Negotiation with Email

In today’s fast moving business environment, emails have a special place in our daily work. Although it can never replace face to face negotiation, everybody still heavily relies on email communication on business negotiations.
Email is very useful tool for all type of communication but it still have some problems:
Email lacks facial expression and voice tone, this makes it very difficult for the recipients to understand the overall mood.
Email does not help to build rapport which makes relationships very fragile in case of a conflict.
Since email communication is not very formal, it is very easy to get careless.
In order to make sure to overcome these pitfalls and conduct effective communication and negotiation through email, some improvements can be done and some special points can be taken into account:
We can take the control in writing, we can manage the direction and do not let the negotiation go off track.
We can establish a common ground assuring that parties have the same understanding
We can always achieve to write in calm and powerful language.
We can use supporting documents when needed
Instead of using a complicated and sophisticated language, we can write with a focused vocabulary.
We can take advantage of taking our time before replying to a message, in face to face negotiation we do not have this luxury.
We can add rapport building content to our email messages such as "By working together to achieve our mutual interests we have made great progress," or "The trust and flexibility you have demonstrated has made it a fulfilling experience to work with you and your company." This would help in some degree to overcome the difficulties of building relationship.
We do not write emails as long as possible, short and right to the point is always better.
Even if we suspect that we have been insulted, we still write in calm and kind manner.

Vedat YOZKAT

New Generation Printing Techniques

What is the need?
Printing sensitive documents in today's office environments is becoming increasingly difficult. In addition, preventing unauthorized use of expensive printers is cost saving for companies. On top of that, having centralized printing solutions have been proven to have great results in reducing paper waste and reduce the energy need, this has a great environmental impact for the companies. Because high costs and IT logistics prevent users from having their own personal printers, this is a dilemma faced by large and small companies.
Everybody thinks their documents are highly sensitive and confidential. Everybody wants their own private printer.
Keeping too many printers in the office increases the operation and maintenance cost.

Solution:
Printing solutions designed to help companies and organizations gain control over their printing costs and document security.
• Documents follow users to their choice of printer
• Control user’s access to printers
• Recover print and copy costs by charging users or groups, either fully or partly
• Turn any public workgroup printer into a personal printer
• Maximize security by encrypting print data on the network
• Utilize printers better
• Reduce paper usage and help reduce deforestation
• Reduce the energy wasted

How does it work:
1. Click Print














2. Your Document Stays in the database until you need it.













3. Go to any printer and scan your card











4. Your document is pulled from the database & printed.

















Other than printing, these devices can be used as photocopier and scanner also.

Benefits:
Access control: Personal card to control printers access and usage.
Increased security : Documents print only after the user has identified himself at the printer.
Decreased waste: Minimize costs due to documents that never get collected or are collected by the wrong person by mistake.
Accounting: Costs monitored and logged on user or user-group basis.
Flexibility: Print jobs follow users to their choice of printer.
Environmental effects: Reduce the paper consumption, reduce the energy wasted

Vedat YOZKAT

Stress Caused by Technology

Technology is designed to make our lives easier. However, nowadays technology itself has become the major player rather than the supporting actor. We come to work to check our emails, we live with our Blackberry devices, cannot do without checking our social network accounts. Whereas, emails are just tools to improve our communication with the other parties, Smartphone devices again a way to be in reach all the time, social networks is designed to find and to be found. After awhile, using these tools has become our job and we lost the very reason behind the use of technology.
As our works become increasingly dependent on technology, it is inevitable that the very things designed to make our jobs easier will be also cause of stress in the workplace: overwhelming number of emails, calls, computers, card readers, printers, faxes, telephones etc. etc. Stress caused by such overwhelming technology is called technostress.

Technostress have the biggest impact for those who use computers and other technical equipments for many hours during their working day. We all spend a lot of time around these devices and of course we are also under a lot of stress not only because of the nature of our jobs but also because of the tools we use.

So how should we deal with it?
We should try to learn the systems we are using, knowing our systems will help us feel more comfortable around them.
We should try to work on one task at a time, working on several things at once might cause stress.
When we take a break, we should try to detach ourselves from computers, telephones and smartphone devices.
Instead of smoking at the break, we should try to get some fresh air.
Instead of struggling with technical problems, we should try to get help from the fine people of the IT departments.
We should try to relate with real life people instead of poking people on the Internet.
Physical comfort would also help to ease the stress, we should try to have a comfortable seat and keep our monitors at the eye level with a reasonable distance.
We should try to keep our email addresses as confidential as possible to avoid receiving extended number of email messages.
After all, technology is here to ease our jobs and help us work more productively, we should make a use of it without letting it use us.

Vedat YOZKAT

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.

E-Learning

In order to compete today’s success driven business world, we should constantly study to improve ourselves. Continuous studying could be very time consuming if the right tools are not used. Nowadays, educational institutions and Information Technology companies offer new tools to improve learning skills more productively for the attendees. First called computer based training, now, total of all technology aided learning tools are called as e-learning tools. Such tools could include personal computers, CD-Roms, Television, PDAs, MP3 Players, and Mobile Phones.

Although e-learning refers to so many different types of learning environments such as online face-to-face, instructor led group, web based, video/audio tape or cd-rom. I will elaborate on on-line web based trainings. On this type of training, the user could log onto a predefined web page and could follow the instructions to get fully interactive training on the subject matter. This type of tool could also offer tests to determine the level of the attendee. There are so many companies in the world that offer this type of training tool, as well as in Turkey.

Advantages of e-learning
Reduced overall cost
Learning times reduced
Proof of completion and certification,
On-demand availability
Self-pacing
Interactivity
Reduce the paper usage which help for the companies to be more environmental friendly
Eliminate the need for travelling which also helps reducing the carbon footprint.

Disadvantages of e-learning
Technology dependent
Unsuitable for Certain Types of Trainings
Unsuitable for Certain Types of Learners
High initial cost
Reliant on Human Support
Social disadvantage

The advantages and disadvantages of e-learning may change depending on goals, target audience, company infrastructure and the culture. But it is unarguable that e-learning is rapidly growing and in the future we will encounter more and more in so many different areas of training facilities.

Vedat YOZKAT

Technical Threats

As we are more and more involved with computers and rely on them for so many reasons, we get more vulnerable in terms of high technology threats. There are so many ways to damage one's computer, the software runs on it or the information itself.

The best known of all is the viruses. Viruses are small computer programs that are not intended to be run by the original owner. They copy themselves unintentionally, they run themselves unintentionally and they always have another additional motive that would range from harmless message spreading to crashing the whole system. There is a never-ending race between the security companies and the virus developers. Virus developers creates a new virus, while companies writes a protection as soon as the virus is out. Some viruses are so simple to get a protection against them very easily while some others are very well written with high technology coding techniques. There is even a well written virus called Mytob that is not only spreads itself to the computers but also alters the virus protection program on the computer to keep itself away from it. Another very interesting virus called GPCoder encodes all the files in the computer, asks for money to give the password. This virus is the first blackmailer in the history of the computer viruses.

Worms, macros, trojans are again similar to viruses. They somehow copy themselves to the system and forward themselves to the other victims. Worms specifically use the mailing systems or networks, attaining the addresses in the vicinity, they copy or send themselves to the every system in the environment. Sometimes, they basically spread messages but sometimes they do harmful things such as getting the whole network to its knees. Macros spread themselves with Office programs or any similar macro-using software. For example, you can receive a spread sheet from a known source and open to process it, all of a sudden a macro runs automatically and do something that is not intended in the first place. Trojans are very interesting and very easy to distribute. There are a lot of computer users who open, receive or download so many different type of mails from other sources. Some of these files are considered to be Trojans, the user thinks it is just a funny video or his/herfavoritee mp3 song, however along with this intended content, these files also have some vicious content that would harm the computer. Just like the historical Trojan horse, thought to be a gift but there were soldiers inside it. Some trojans are opening the necessary ports to allow all connections, some collectnecessaryy information such as account numbers and passwords and send it back. These type of trojans are also called Spywares. Spywares are also redirecting you to some not pleasant addresses directly, for example, the user would click to open a newspaper site but the spyware redirects to the user to a porn site.

Another very common security threat is the email spams. There are so many unwanted emails are coming. This type of unwanted emails are called spams. Some people or companies use spam as a very naive marketing tool. They think if they send enough number of emails, they would have a chance to let more people know about their company and products and they will have a market share as an outcome. Over the time, it becomes so annoying to receive so many unrelated emails, even the ones that would be beneficial treated as junk mails. Another email using scheme is called phishing. This term comes from fishing, it is exactly same as throwing a line into the sea and wait for someone to get hooked. Phishers send so many emails messages and expect someone to fall for it. In their messages, they either claim they are from your bank or they are in need for your financial assistance to transfer a huge amount of money through your bank account. Sometimes, they say you won a lottery and in order to claim it you need to fill out a form which usually contains some financial data. Phishing is also called on-line identity theft, their main motive is to steal as many as personal and financial information.

No matter how much money is invested and how top of the line security systems are installed, it always come to the people. The users should always be aware of these types of threats, use the passwords as provided, do not give personal or financial data through mails or Internet no matter how authentic and reliable looks.

Vedat YOZKAT

Vegetarian Ethics

Introduction:

The primary source of energy for all the life forms here on earth is the sunlight. Plants (primary producers) use photosynthesis to convert this sunlight into biomass. Biomass produced by plants is used by herbivores (plant-eating species), and decomposers as an energy source. The biomass of the herbivores serves as an energy source for carnivores (flesh-eating species). Humans are said to be omnivores (feeding on both plants and flesh) (“Humanity in the Food Web”). Historically, some people refuse to follow an omnivorous diet; instead they adopt a plant-based diet as their herbivore counterparts in the nature do. These people are called vegetarians. Vegetarians base their decisions on various reasons, such as religious reasons, ethical reasons, health reasons, economical reasons, ecological reasons, and so on. Some of these reasons, in my opinion, also form a strong foundation for the ideology that wide acceptance of vegetarianism would solve many of the ecological, ethical and health related problems that we are currently encountering.

In today’s world, many people who choose to become vegetarians do so mostly because of ethical reasons. There are several different ethical aspects of adopting a vegetarian diet. One of these is the ethical obligation toward others. People who raise this argument believe that world hunger would be eliminated if everybody would follow a vegetarian diet. Another one of the ethical aspects is the ethical obligation toward the environment. The supporters of this argument believe that raising livestock is one of the main consumers of water, soil, natural resources, and one of the main producers of CO2. Yet another ethical aspect is the ethical obligation toward animals; this argument is one of the most controversial of all, yet it has the most supporters who think that animals should not be killed for any reason. . The last of the ethical aspects is the ethical obligation toward ourselves which deals with one’s health. Most vegetarians think that a vegetarian diet reduces the chance of cancer, reduces fat and cholesterol intake, and eliminates many other diseases caused by eating animal flesh. Throughout this paper, all of these four ethical aspects and their foundations will be elaborated upon.

Ethical Obligation toward Others:

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 undernutrition (Esterhazy). 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 (Robbins). 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 (Robbins). 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 (Esterhazy).

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.

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 that they consider good for them. 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 (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”). Destroying these forest lands is also a major contributor to floods and top soil erosion, as well (Pultar). 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 (Robbins). 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 (Robbins). 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 as it is stated in Mr. Robbins’ book, the meat industry in the US, for example, uses more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US (Robbins). 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.

Ethical Obligation toward Animals:

Another 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; as James Rachels explained, “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” (Rachels).

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 impersonalized. 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 (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).

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 (Esterhazy). 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 (Pultar).

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” (Dasa).

Ethical Obligation toward Ourselves:

Finally, of course, we always have an ethical obligation toward ourselves. We have to nurture our bodies and minds because whatever everybody else thinks, in my opinion, the only asset that we truly have is our own bodies and minds. I am convinced that adopting a vegetarian diet could be very nurturing for our bodies and minds.

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” (Dasa).

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 (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).

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 (Robbins).

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 (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).

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?” (Dasa). 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.

The Vision:

I hope that everybody understands the effects of our treatment to the others on our ownselves and everybody embraces the fact that we are not superior to nature but just a part of it. I also hope that everybody realizes that every single creature on this earth has the most basic right to live and to produce. I truly hope that everybody believes the fact that we are moral creatures and we are obligated to apply our moral values not only to each other but also to everything that constitutes our environment. I also believe that we would find true happiness in our own lives if we accept our true and equal place in the environment and treat the other entities of nature accordingly and fulfill our ethical obligations toward each other, toward the environment, toward the animals and toward ourselves.


References

Burshtein, Lyn. “Why I Stopped Eating Meat.” Horizons. Vol. 10. Issue 4. p22.
Dasa, Adiraja. “Vegetarianism: A Means to a Higher End.” Hare Krishna Vegetarian Society, Australia National University. "Discussing Vegetarianism With a Meat-Eater: a Hindu View." Himalayan Academy.
Esterhazy, Jonathan. “A Beginner’s Guide to Vegetarianism.” Manitoba Animal Rights Coalition. George, Alexander. “Ruminations of a Vegetarian.” Massachusetts Review. Vol. 33. Issue 3. p447.
“Getting the Roots of a Vegetarian Diet.” International Food Information Council (IFIC).
“Humanity in the Food Web.” University of Illinois.
Inge, Karen. “Vegetarianism.” Nutridate. Vol. 7. Issue 2. p1.
Pultar, Edward. “Vegetarianism.”
Rachels, James. “Vegetarianism and ‘The Other Weight Problem.’” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994: 301-308.
Robbins, John. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole, NH 1987.
Witherell, Thomas D. “Notes from the Vegetarian Underground.” America. Vol. 170. Issue 14. p16.

Clean Air Act

The recent controversy over new strict clean air standards highlights the complicated interdisciplinary nature of environmental ethics.

In 1972, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first clean air standards under the name of Clean Air Act (CAA). Since then, the emission of major air pollutants in the U.S. has decreased by about 30%. Now, EPA is set to issue its new and improved CAA which is said to be stricter than the previous one.

As it is the case for almost every environmental related issues, the issue of CAA has created a lot of controversy among environmentalists, politicians and businessmen. Some think that stricter standards are needed because nothing could be more important than the health of the people. Yet others think that health benefits are uncertain and the cost of meeting these new standards would be really high and they also think that these high costs would lead some major problems in economies of many business enterprises.

Supporters of CAA think that these new standards could prevent 15,000 premature deaths every year and it could allow millions of people who have respiratory problems to breathe easier. As the Clinton said in his endorsement speech, children could greatly benefit from clean air as well. Besides the health benefits aspect of CAA, EPA argues that CAA could be economically helpful too. According to EPA, the cleaner air would mean fewer sick days for workers, lower health-care costs, less asthma, more kids in schools, and fewer kids in hospitals.

On the other hand, the opponents argue that EPA is exaggerating the benefits of clean air. They claim that no where in the medical literature, it is explicitly proven that air pollution causes any deaths. They also claim that the proposed standards are not more protective of public health than the current standards. Although they clearly express their doubts on health benefits of CAA, their main argument is related to the economical burden that CAA would bring onto the businesses. According to the businessmen, implementing these new standards is too expensive and it could result some businesses to bankrupt and that would cause loss of many jobs.

Again, as I discussed in my previous writing, here lies a conflict between money and things that have no monetary value. At first, it seems that we are trying to compare oranges and apples -- as my first arithmetic teacher told me not to, however since we cannot attach a monetary value to everything (because money is an artificial measurement unit and it is not sufficient to measure the nature), comparison of two different categories seems essential. On one side our obligations toward the environment and on the other side the great economic loss of the businesses, I think that this is where the precautionary principle should come into the scene.

In my opinion, we should set aside any worries related to the economic loss, because however big the economic loss is, it is still a worry that humans created for themselves (money is a human invention and it has no meaning in the nature) and they can overcome any difficulties related to this artificial source of disrupt for themselves too. Nonetheless, any footprint (for better or worse) we are leaving in the environment will be greatly inherent. I truly believe that we are ethically obligated to minimize our interference to the nature. Although it is not very clear that the dirty air is causing many problems for the organic life on the earth, as the precautionary principle suggests, even a slight possibility of harm should be taken seriously and precautionary measures should be taken accordingly.

Vedat YOZKAT

References

Editorials. Seattle Times. “Healthy skepticism for new clean-air rules.”
Editorials. Seattle Times. “Cloud of doubts over EPA’s clean-air rules. ”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Trucking Group Plans Lawsuit Against Air Plan.”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Opponents organizing to fight new pollution limits.”
Muro, Mark. Earth Times. “Clinton and clean air: What’s next for the environment?”

Science, Public Policy and Nature

Precautionary principle is the idea that action should be taken to avoid problems even the possibility of the problems occurring is really remote. Coming up with robust scientific proofs verifying that the current practices would lead highly problematic consequences could be time consuming and costly, in some cases, it would even be impossible.

The lack of indisputable scientific evidence to back up the theories in some highly controversial cases has always been a big problem. Because of the lack of evidence or previous experience, the probability of an outcome cannot be known with high certainty. This is called scientific uncertainty. Because of its complicated and unpredictable nature, environmental issues inherit scientific uncertainty.

For instance, in the case of global warming, the terms “Global warming” or “Greenhouse Effect” are recent terms which are created by scientists relying upon the scientific data that they have been collecting. These terms would have meant nothing to the people who had lived couple of centuries ago. However today, almost everybody is familiar with these phenomena and their latent adverse effects on the environment. Nevertheless we do not seem to agree on what the data we have would mean and how we should act according to each interpretation.

One would think that since it is clear that carbondioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature have been gradually increasing (One Earth One Future, pg. 28, 36), we should do something about it. However it is not that simple. Although the data we have thus far suggest that we are presented with a problem of increasing carbondioxide level and heat, the statistical data we have is too recent comparing to the age of the earth. Basically, we do not know how the behavior of earth was in the earlier stages. Relying on this fact, some scientist argue that the nature has its ups and downs and in the long term using its great ability of compensation, it will eventually correct the carbondioxide and heat levels; therefore, we do not have to do anything about it. Yet some other scientists think that we have to act now, otherwise it will be too late to reverse the damage that is already being done.

Nevertheless, according to the precautionary principle, however remote the risk is, environmental policies should stay one step ahead of the anticipated problems. Back to the issue of global warming, the precautionary principle suggests in this case that we should immediately stop burning fossil fuels and, in turn, it would eliminate the excess carbondioxide emission and it would also disrupt all economies. This does not sound like a rational solution for most people. For the policy makers, making such a decision takes a lot of courage. Because we are living in a money oriented society, the order and welfare of a society, in this economical framework, are thought to rely on its monetary wealth. In their decision-making-process, the policy makers see every parameter involved as an entry in their cost and benefit analysis charts, and since a “possible” ecological problem does not have a monetary value attached to itself, it cannot be appraised in their cost and benefit analysis.

Although I identify the major problem in the decision making as the lack of economical value of the environment, I still do not think that the solution of this problem is measuring the environment’s value as a quantifiable value to humans. Most sources I came across suggest that under the ideals of the precautionary principle, potential victims should be empowered to make the necessary decisions for themselves. Even though I completely agree with this idea, I still have a question mark regarding to the word “victims.” Whereas it is not explicitly stated, “victims” in this statement are usually thought of humans. I think that even a remote risk toward “insignificant” species should be evaluated as though it is a call for doomsday.

Vedat YOZKAT

References

Costanza, Robert and Laura Cornwell. Environment. “The 4P approach to Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty.” November, 1992.
Lundmark, Thomas. Journal of Environmental Law & Practice. “Principles and Instruments of German Environmental Law.” January, 01, 1997.

Western Culture and the Environment

Lynn White, Jr. maintains that occidental science and technology, in spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary, stem from Christian axioms and that this is, in many ways, responsible for the contemporary ecological crisis.

According to White, it is unquestionably obvious that the modern science and technology are Occidental. I agree the fact that, in today’s world, all the technology we have everywhere on earth is distinctively western oriented, and all the branches of science we have is mostly based on the findings of Western scientists.

Furthermore, White claims that not only our science and technology have been undeniably affected by Judeo-Christian teachings, but also Judeo-Christian teachings have served as a foundation to our science and technology. According to White, Science, in Western societies in the past, has been seen as “to think God’s thoughts after him.” This has been a real good motivation for scientists in those days. In his essay, White also explicitly states that humans’ place in Christianity is not being a part of the nature but being over the nature and being an exploiter of the nature. White states that in Christianity, humans are created in the image of God and the nature is created to serve the humans. Christian teachings also state that humans are not equal to the other creations in the nature but superior to them. This duality, from the beginning, sets a milestone in the long journey of humans’ struggle to control and exploit the nature.

According to the Christian beliefs, as White stated, the earth that we are living in now is a temporary place and we will eventually go to a better place; therefore, this place has no importance and does not need to be protected. In Christianity, the earth is given to us to use it as a big resource, we have no obligations toward the earth and the earth can be exploited and altered in any ways we wish.

Of course all these beliefs played a major role on development of the humans’ attitudes toward the nature. Humans, using science and technology together, have taken in charge to control and exploit the nature relying on their “God-given” rights. They believed that since God created everything on earth for the use of humans then humans have every right to exploit the earth with every tool they have, and the tools, they have now, are enormously powerful all because of the advancements in technology.

I think that we will not be able to find solutions to our environmental problems within the framework of our current science and technology. Because I agree with White that most of the problems that we have are created in the first place by our science and technology whose attitudes have been formed by Christian attitudes. I do not see a way to solve our problems “by just applying more science and more technology” without changing the attitudes behind our science and technology.

Vedat YOZKAT

References

Barlow, D., Chuck. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. “Why the Christian Right Must Protect the Environment: Theocentricity in Political Workplace.”