The relationship between humanity and the rest of creation Essay Example for Free

The relationship between humanity and the rest of creation Essay a. Describe the teachings of the religion of which you are studying about the relationship between humanity and the rest of creation. Christianity teaches that God created the Earth and that human beings are the stewards who should protect the gift they have been given. The relationship between humanity and the rest of creation is not a simple one. To look at Christian teachings on this relationship, the state of creation must first be examined. Yet, despite human beings being seen as the most intelligent life form and having responsibility for the Earth, many of the problems facing the planet are mainly due to human activity. Stories and headlines featuring pollution, global warming, over flowing landfills and the extinction of both animals and plants are, unfortunately, no longer uncommon. These problems are not confined to the UK and are, in fact, happening worldwide. Global warming is one of main problems. There are thin layers of gas that surround the Earth which keep in enough heat from the sun for the Earth to be at a perfect temperature, however, a build up of carbon dioxide from sources such as cars, is causing the layers surrounding the Earth to get thicker so more heat is being trapped causing the temperature to rise. Temperature rise will cause polar ice caps to melt and sea levels to increase causing flooding, storms and hurricanes, resulting in loss of human life. Christianitys teachings on humanitys responsibility for the environment seem to be having little effect as the world is facing huge problems. The Christian story of creation can be found in the first two chapters of Genesis, in the Bible. These chapters describe how God created the Earth, from nothing, in 7 days, and it was on the 7th day that he rested. After creating the Earth, the sky, the seas and plants, God made birds and fish on the fifth day and animals and humans on the sixth day So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27) Although the Bible often gives more than one opinion on some subjects it is clear when it comes to expressing the view that God created the world. The Bible teaches that the Universe is Gods creation, not an accident, and that it is filled with meaning and purpose. The Old Testament, in particular, reflects these ideas. O Lord our God, your greatness is seen in all the worldWhen I look at the sky, which you have made, at the moon and stars which you have set in their places ( Psalm 8:1,3) And again in Psalm: In his hands are the depths of the depths of Earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. The sea is His, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. (Psalm 95; 3- 6) It can be seen therefore, that the Psalm teaches that God made the Earth but the people have the task to keep it how it was created. Despite the New Testament not giving the same emphasis to God creating the world, it still shows that he did. Look at the birds in the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns and yet your heavenly father feeds them. (Matthew 6: 26) Christianity teaches that Christians, as stewards, have the responsibility to look after the Earth because God put people in charge of the world. A steward is someone who takes care of things and is responsible when things go wrong. Therefore, Christians have the job of caring for the planet and they should try to put things right when they go wrong. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis acts a reminder to Christians that humanity has been given the role of stewards. In the story of Adam and Eve God provided a perfect environment for them but it was their responsibility of taking care of it. Then the lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and guard it. (Genesis 2:15) When Adam and Eve disobeyed Gods orders and they ate the fruit on the tree of knowledge, they were banished from the garden. The story of Adam and Eve is often compared with todays situation; people are abusing the resources given to them by God. In the Bible it says And God saw it was good (Genesis 1:1) This suggests that when the world was created by God it was perfect so clearly todays problems have been caused by human activity and their disregard for the planet. There is Biblical evidence to show that humans were asked to take care of the planet. For example, in the Old Testament after crops had been harvested the fields were allowed to rest for a certain period of time so that the soil could replenish itself. They Jews were also told not to destroy trees when attacking a city. When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an axe to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?'(Deuteronomy 20:19) Pope John Paul II said this Look to the future with hope and set out with renewed vigour to make this new millennium a time of solidarity and peace, of love for life and respect for Gods creation. The Assisi Declaration was made on the 29th September 1986 when Christian leaders joined leaders from the other 5 major world religions, in Assisi, to declare their promise for nature. The meeting was held in Assisi in honour of St. Francis, who lived there in the 13th century, because he preached about conservation and described all creatures as his brothers and sisters. The Declaration on Nature, Assisi, (1986) said: Christians repudiate all ill-considered exploitation of nature which threatens to destroy it and, in turn, to make man the victim of degradation. This shows that some Christians do want to take care of the world and protect it from catastrophe. To conclude, Christians are the Stewards of the world and should take responsibility for their actions because humans have been clearly given this power.

All My Sons: Millers Chief Criticism Of American Society Essay examples

All My Sons: Miller's Chief Criticism Of American Society A shot was heard throughout the Keller home as Joe ended his guilty, worthless life. Miller criticizes that American society has become corrupt- a place of selfishness, where people care too much about themselves, and that which benefits them, and will go to any lengths to achieve that goal; even if the repercussions of their actions will bring harm to other people. He stresses that money seems to be the key factor that drives society to this level of corruption. Miller emphasizes this point in several ways. The first example is that Keller knowingly ships out cracked cylinder heads, that will crash an airplane if used, to prevent his business from going bankrupt, claiming that he did it for his family. The second example is that Sue would rather Jim make allot of money, and not do medical research- which is what he really wanted to do. The third example is Jim's abdication of his pursuit of medical research do to the lack of profit involved. In his play "All My Sons," Miller makes it apparent that society in general values money and profit more than human life. He shows this by his portrayal of Keller. Keller ships out cracked cylinder heads, aware that in flight they will cause planes to crash, to save his business from being shut down. Furthermore, he goes on to allow the blame to fall on Steve, in order to save hims...

Skeletal Muscle Undergoes Repair and Regenaration Throughout

|21 | Coursework R: Mini-Review Topic Selected: Topic 2: â€Å"Skeletal muscle undergoes repair and regenaration throughout normal life. Write a review on the processes involved, emphasizing the role of satellite cells. † Muscle Cell Regeneration and the Impact of Ageing Introduction: Throughout normal life, skeletal muscles undergo repair and regeneration in response to injury through a process involving several sequential steps. A very important role in this regeneration is played by satellite cells, which are small mononuclear progenitor cells found in mature muscle tissues.In this review, we are going to explore the consequences of ageing in satellite cell numbers and their ability to maintain and preserve muscle tissue. Steps involved when skeletal muscle is damaged: The homeostatic process that allows muscle regeneration in response to an injury stimulus, involves four interrelated steps: degeneration, inflammation, regeneration and remodelling repair. When myofibers are damaged, extracellular calcium flows into the cell, initiating proteolysis, which causes necrosis.The necrosis of myofibers brings about an inflammatory response where neutrophils and macrophages infiltrate the injured site. Neutrophils are the first to arrive; they remove cell debris by releasing free radicals and proteases as well as secreting pro-inflammatory cytokines that stimulate the arrival of macrophages. There two different classes of macrophages arriving at the injured site: M1 (expressing CD68) and M2 (expressing CD163). The M1 class is responsible for producing a high concentration of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which promote further tissue inflammation.Arriving next, is the M2 class of macrophages that induce angiogenesis and tissue remodelling and repair, by activating stem cells. This phase of inflammation is critical to the muscle regeneration process. Experiments have shown that if the inflammation response is inhibited, then muscle repair cannot occur at all. Nev ertheless, there must be a balance between insufficient and excessive inflammation response. The regenerative phase is achieved by the activation, proliferation and differentiation of satellite cells that fuse together to form multinucleated myotubes.This is regulated by the presence of a number of growth factors such as insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and others. The final phase of the regenerative process is ‘remodelling and repair’ and it involves the remodelling of connective tissue, angiogenesis and functional recovery of the skeletal muscle. How does this happen? Well, once the muscle is injured, there is an excessive production of collagens that promote scar tissue to form.This is so-called fibrosis formation is activated by transforming growth factor-? 1 (TGF-? 1), which plays a major role in this cascade. This phase is over once the injured muscle has been replaced by a functional and contractile apparatus. Figure 1: [pic] F ig. 1 shows the steps involved for a satellite cell to form a myotube. (www. bioscience. org) The role of satellite cells: Satellite cells (identified using electron microscopy) are located under the basal lamina and are a type of muscle stem cells.They are present in muscle tissue in the quiescent form and can be activated by both physiological stimuli (such as extensive exercise), as well as pathological conditions (injury or degenerative disease). Their main function is to create a population of myoblasts that can fuse with each other or with other myofibers and differentiate, so as to repair muscle tissue. Both quiescent and active satellite cells express the transcription factor Pax-7 that is thought to drive transcription and maintain proliferation.Even though the role of Pax-7 is not completely understood, it is evident that without it, we would not have satellite cells. In fact, an experiment showed that mice lacking Pax-7, did not survive beyond 2 weeks. In addition, activa ted satellite cells express a protein called myogenic regulatory factor (MyoD), which is a crucial factor in regulating the differentiation of muscle cells. Impact of ageing in muscle degeneration: Hypothetically, even though the number of satellite cells decreases with age, the few cells remaining should be enough to initiate the regenerative mechanism.However, experiments have shown that the surrounding tissue and systemic environment to which the satellite cells were placed, were far more important factors for muscle regeneration than the number of cells present. This hypothesis was supported by the fact that old muscle tissue could be regenerated when it was placed in a young animal, but the opposite did not occur. Therefore, the hypothesis that the decrease in satellite cell numbers due to ageing was the major factor that affected regeneration was proved to be wrong. Figure 2: [pic] Fig. illustrates the difference between a normal myofiber and a regenerating myofiber. (www. bio science. org) Conclusion: All in all, sarcopenia alters the regeneration and repair of muscle, which can cause structural abnormalities. Ageing causes a dramatic decrease in satellite cell numbers and reduces their ability to repair damaged muscle. Even though young stem cells applied to aged or damaged skeletal muscle seem to be promising for therapeutic applications, we must gain a better understanding of satellite cell biology in order to use regenerative medicine to treat sarcopenia.Bibliography: Carosio, S. , Berardinelli, M. G. , Aucello, M. , Musaro, A. (2011) Ageing research reviews. Impact of ageing on muscle cell regeneration. 10: 35-42 Kierszenbaum, A. L. , (2007) Histology and cell biology: An introduction to pathology (2nd Ed. ). Philadelphia: Mosby. 7: 197-210 Crowe, J. , Brdashaw, T. (2010) Chemistry for the Biosciences. The essential concepts. (2nd Ed) Oxford University Press. 9(3): 270-272 Satellite Cells. [Online]. Available from: http://www. brown. edu/Courses/BI0 032/adltstem/sc. tm [Accessed 6 December 2011] Zammit, S. P. , et al (2006) Pax7 and myogenic progression in skeletal muscle satellite cells. [Online]. Available from: http://jcs. biologists. org/content/119/9/1824 [Accessed 7 December 2011] Seime, A. , Caron, A. Z. , Gremier, G. (2009) Frontiers in Biosciences:Advances in myogenic cell transplantation and skeletal muscle tissue engineering. [Online]. Available from: http://www. bioscience. org/2009/v14/af/3431/fulltext. asp? bframe=figures. htm&doi=yes [Accessed 7 December 2011] Word count: 747

Do Maps Create or Represent Reality

Have you ever stopped and really looked at a map? I’m not talking about consulting the coffee-stained map that makes its home in your glove compartment; I’m talking about really looking at a map, exploring it, questioning it. If you were to do so, you would see that maps differ distinctly from the reality that they depict. We all know that the world is round. It is approximately 27,000 miles in circumference and home to billions of people. But on a map, the world is changed from a sphere into a rectangular plane and shrunken down to fit on an 8  ½Ã¢â‚¬  by 11† piece of paper, major highways are reduced to measly lines on a page, and the greatest cities in the world are diminished to mere dots. This is not the reality of the world, but rather what the mapmaker and his or her map are telling us is real. The question is: â€Å"Do maps create or represent reality?† A Representation, Not a Mirror The fact that maps distort reality cannot be denied. It is absolutely impossible to depict a round earth on a flat surface without sacrificing at least some accuracy. In fact, a map can only be accurate in one of four domains: shape, area, distance, or direction. And in modifying any of these, our perception of the earth is affected. There is currently a debate raging over which commonly used map projection is the â€Å"best† projection. Among a multitude of options, there are a few that stand out as the most recognized projections; these include the Mercator, the Peters, the Robinson, and the Goode’s, among others. In all fairness, each of these projections has its strong points. The Mercator is used for navigation purposes because great circles appear as straight lines on maps utilizing this projection. In doing so, however, this projection is forced to distort the area of any given landmass relative to other landmasses. The Peters projection combats this area distortion by sacrificing accuracy of shape, distance, and direction. While this projection is less useful than the Mercator in some respects, those who support it say that the Mercator is unfair in that it depicts landmasses in the high latitudes as being much larger than they really are in relation to landmasses in the lower latitudes. The y claim that this creates a sense of superiority among people who inhabit North America and Europe, areas that are already among the most powerful in the world. The Robinson and the Goode’s projections, on the other hand, are a compromise between these two extremes and they are commonly used for general reference maps. Both projections sacrifice absolute accuracy in any particular domain in order to be relatively accurate in all domains. Is this an example of maps â€Å"creating reality†? The answer to that question depends on how we choose to define reality. Reality could either be described as the physical actuality of the world, or it could be the perceived truth that exists in peoples’ minds. Despite the concrete, factual basis that can prove the verity or the falsehood of the former, the latter may very well be the more powerful of the two. If it weren’t, those - such as human rights activists and certain religious organizations - who argue in favor of the Peters projection over the Mercator would not be putting up such a fight. They realize that how people understand the truth is often just as important as the truth itself, and they believe that the Peters projection’s areal accuracy is - as the Friendship Press claims - â€Å"fair to all peoples.† The Symbolism in Maps Much of the reason that maps so often go unquestioned is that they have become so scientific and â€Å"artless. Modern mapmaking techniques and equipment have served to make maps seem like objective, trustworthy resources, when, in fact, they are as biased and conventional as ever. The conventions - or the symbols that are used on maps and the biases that they promote - that maps make use of have been accepted and utilized to the point that they have become all but invisible to the casual map observer. For example, when we look at maps, we don’t usually have to think too much about what the symbols represent; we know that little black lines represent roads and dots represent towns and cities. This is why maps are so powerful. Mapmakers are able to display what they want how they want and not be questioned. The best way to see how mapmakers and their maps are forced to alter the image of the world - and therefore our perceived reality - is to try and imagine a map that shows the world exactly as it is, a map that employs no human conventions. Try to envision a map that doesn’t show the world oriented in a particular manner. North is not up or down, east isn’t to the right or left. This map has not been scaled to make anything bigger or smaller than it is in reality; it is exactly the size and shape of the land that it depicts. There are no lines that have been drawn on this map to show the location and course of roads or rivers. The landmasses are not all green, and the water is not all blue. Oceans, lakes, countries, towns, and cities are unlabeled. All distances, shapes, areas, and directions are correct. There is no grid showing latitude or longitude. This is an impossible task. The only representation of the earth that fits all of these criteria is the earth itself. No map can do all of these things. And because they must lie, they are forced to create a sense of reality that is different from the tangible, physical actuality of the earth. It’s strange to think that nobody will ever be able to see the entire earth at any given moment in time. Even an astronaut looking at the earth from space will only be able to see half of the earth’s surface at any particular instant. Because maps are the only way that most of us will ever be able to see the earth before our eyes - and that any of us will ever see the entire world before our eyes - they play an immensely important part in shaping our views of the world. Although the lies that a map tells may be unavoidable, they are lies nonetheless, each one influencing the way that we think about the world. They do not create or alter the physical reality of the earth, but our perceived reality is shaped - in large part - by maps. How Maps Represent Physical and the Social Realities The second, and just as valid, answer to our question is that maps represent reality. According to Dr. Klaus Bayr, a geography professor at Keene State College in Keene, NH, a map is â€Å"a symbolized representation of the earth, parts of the earth, or a planet, drawn to scale†¦on a flat surface.† This definition states clearly that a map represents the reality of the earth. But merely stating this viewpoint means nothing if we can’t back it up. It can be said that maps represent reality for several reasons. First, the fact is that no matter how much credit we give maps, they really mean nothing if there isn’t a reality to back it up; the reality is more important than the depiction. Second, although maps portray things that we can’t necessarily see on the face of the earth (e.g. political boundaries), these things do in fact exist apart from the map. The map is simply illustrating what exists in the world. Third and last is the fact that every map portrays the earth in a different way. Not every map can be a totally faithful representation of the earth since each of them shows something different. Maps - as we are examining them - are â€Å"symbolized representation[s] of the earth.† They depict characteristics of the earth that are real and that are - in most cases - tangible. If we wanted to, we could find the area of the earth that any given map depicts. If I were to choose to do so, I could pick up a USGS topographic map at the bookstore down the street and then I could go out and find the actual hill that the wavy lines in the northeast corner of the map represent. I can find the reality behind the map. All maps represent some component of the reality of the earth. This is what gives them such authority; this is why we trust them. We trust that they are faithful, objective depictions of some place on the earth. And we trust that there is a reality that will back up that depiction. If we did not believe that there were some verity and legitimacy behind the map - in the form of an actual place on the earth - would we trust them? Would we place value on them? Of course not. The sole reason behind the trust that humans place on maps is the belief that that map is a faithful representation of some part of the earth. There are, however, certain things that exist on maps but that don’t physically exist on the surface of the earth. Take New Hampshire, for example. What is New Hampshire? Why is it where it is? The truth is that New Hampshire isn’t some natural phenomenon; humans didn’t stumble across it and recognize that this was New Hampshire. It is a human idea. In a way, it may be just as accurate to call New Hampshire a state of mind as it is to call it a political statement. So how can we show New Hampshire as a physically real thing on a map? How are we able to draw a line following the course of the Connecticut River and categorically state that the land to the west of this line is Vermont but the land on the east is New Hampshire? This border isn’t a tangible feature of the earth; it’s an idea. But even in spite of this, we can find New Hampshire on maps. This would seem like a hole in the theory that maps represent reality, but in fact, it is just the opposite. The thing about maps is that they not only show that land simply exists, they also represent the relationship between any given place and the world around it. In the case of New Hampshire, nobody is going to argue that there is land in the state that we know as New Hampshire; nobody will argue with the fact that the land exists. What the maps are telling us is that this particular piece of land is New Hampshire, in the same way that certain places on the earth are hills, others are oceans, and still others are open fields, rivers, or glaciers. Maps tell us how a certain place on the earth fits into the bigger picture. They show us which part of the puzzle a particular place is. New Hampshire exists. It isn’t tangible; we can’t touch it. But it exists. There are similarities among all of the places that fit together to form what we know as New Hampshire. There are laws that apply in the state of New Hampshire. Cars have license plates from New Hampshire. Maps don’t define that New Hampshire exists, but they do give us a representation of New Hampshire’s place in the world. The way that maps are able to do this is through conventions. These are the human-imposed ideas that are evident on maps but which cannot be found on the land itself. Examples of conventions include orientation, projection, and symbolization and generalization. Each of these must be utilized in order to create a map of the world, but - at the same time - they are each human constructs. For example, on every map of the world, there will be a compass that tells which direction on the map is north, south, east, or west. On most maps made in the northern hemisphere, these compasses show that north is at the top of the map. In contrast to this, some maps made in the southern hemisphere show south at the top of the map. The truth is that both of these ideas are totally arbitrary. I could make a map that shows north being in the lower left-hand corner of the page and be just as correct as if I said north was at the top or bottom. The earth itself has no real orientation. It simply exists in space. The idea of orientation is one that had been imposed on the world by humans and humans alone. Similar to being able to orient a map however they choose to, mapmakers can also utilize any one of a vast array of projections to make a map of the world, and none of these projections is any better than the next one; as we have already seen, each projection has its strong points and its weak points. But for each projection, this strong point - this accuracy - is slightly different. For example, the Mercator portrays directions accurately, the Peters portrays area accurately, and azimuthal equidistant maps display distance from any given point accurately. Yet maps made using each of these projections are considered to be accurate representations of the earth. The reason for this is that maps are not expected to represent every characteristic of the world with 100% accuracy. It is understood that every map is going to have to dismiss or ignore some truths in order to tell others. In the case of projections, some are forced to ignore areal accuracy in order to show directional accurac y and vice versa. Which truths are chosen to be told depends solely on the intended use of the map. Representing the Intangible As mapmakers have to utilize orientation and projection in order to represent the surface of the earth on a map, so they must also use symbols. It would be impossible to put the actual characteristics of the earth (e.g. highways, rivers, thriving cities, etc.) on a map, so mapmakers utilize symbols in order to represent those characteristics. For example, on a map of the world, Washington D.C., Moscow, and Cairo all appear as small, identical stars, as each is the capital of its respective country. Now, we all know that these cities are not, in fact, small red stars. And we know that these cities are not all identical. But on a map, they are depicted as such. As is true with projection, we must be willing to accept that maps cannot be completely accurate depictions of the land that is being represented on the map. As we saw earlier, the only thing that can be a totally accurate representation of the earth is the earth itself. Throughout our examination of maps as both creators and representations of reality, the underlying theme has been this: maps are only able to represent truth and fact by lying. It is impossible to depict the huge, round earth on a flat and relatively small surface without sacrificing at least some accuracy. And though this is often seen as a drawback of maps, I would argue that it is one of the benefits. The earth, as a physical entity, simply exists. Any purpose that we see in the world through a map is one that has been imposed by humans. This is the sole reason for maps’ existence. They exist to show us something about the world, not to simply show us the world. They can illustrate any multitude of things, from migration patterns of Canadian geese to fluctuations in the earth’s gravitational field, but every map must show us something about the earth upon which we live. Maps lie, to tell the truth. They lie in order to make a point.