Society and Physical Appearance

Society and Physical Appearance Nowadays people feel a responsibility to fit into todays society. People want to look as better as possible due to the outside influences one has. In the online article written by Jane Shure readers are able to realize how the surroundings have a great effect on choices that we make. This article points out three major categories on which tries to explain in more detail the troubles with body images. Readers are able to see how cultural background plays an important role on peoples body image. Couple of factors that influences notoriously on todays society is the media and advertising companies. These two change peoples perspectives in having an idea on what we should look like, being that just of myth that is not a reality. Many people tend to follow this ideal look due to the reason that media is exposing visual and audio messages every day, which is unrealistic. Some may even get to the point of having health issues becoming bulimic or anorexic due to the reason that they want to fit into those role models that the media exposes. Readers are also able to see that peers and family could affect positively or negatively in the way one feels. Most of the time peoples body image is negatively affected due to the fact the parents neglect to provide confidence for child wasnt sufficient enough for them to feel positive themselves and create that confidence on how they look and how they think people look at them. Peers also play an important role on peoples body imagines. As a one is growing up, peers tend to criticize by the outside appearance because of you physical appearance. For example, kids tend to be shorter, fatter, and skinnier than others are. Due to the many studies that have been done from a psychological perspective, body image could be explained through the social cultural perspective. Sociocultural perspective refers to behavior one follows due to the surroundings the individual has from how they act and how they look at things from their point view. This varies because we all come from different background and we each have different beliefs that make us act different from one another depending the situation we are in. One can clearly see how this sociocultural perspective strongly relates to the article written by Jane Shure in that it explains the influences that affects ones behavior. An example would be that body image is greatly influenced by family and peers (Shure, 2009). This is important because through this readers can realize that growing up as a child family and peers have a great influence in the way we act and behave to others. This is an example of sociocultual perspective because family and peers are an outside influencers that due to the interaction that people have day by day, they influence greatly in the choices and ideas one has (Wade, 2008). Another example of the article that relates the sociocultural perspective is the way media influences society in what they should look like. An example would be how the fashion industry does a great job in influencing what we should buy in order to fit in (Sadaba, 1997). This is important because through this one can see how the media manipulates ones actions and preferences as to what we should and should not like. According to the sociocultural perspective this example relates strongly to this perspective in that people dont chose what they really want, they rather follow the crowd by listening to what society is advising them to acquire (Wade 2008). Lastly, another example that could help us understand better, how the sociocultural perspective relates to the article would be the challenge individuals could face in changing the idea of what our body should look like. Because our surroundings have great influences in how we see and look at ourselves, it is very difficult in changing the idea that media, family, and peers have influence us in believing what the ideal image should be (Sadaba, 1997). This is essential in that because one has been influenced since childhood; it would be difficult to change the way you see yourself and others. Through this one can see the sociocultural perspective in that the cause of how we fell physically living in our body is due to the fact that the body image that has been established through our surroundings (Wade, 2008). In conclusion, studying the issue on physical appearance from a sociocultural perspective would help in solving this problem in helping individuals look at themselves more positively. On example in how studying this issue from this perspective would help others would be in that they can realize that they do not have to follow the unrealistic model ideal look that they media portraits that we should look like. This would help in changing the individuals body image that one should look like in loving themselves and loving other how they are and not judge them by their physical appearance. Another example that studying this issue from this perspective can help in solving this problem would be that one should surround ourselves with family and peers that can positively can help us in increasing our confidence. This would be very important because individuals would surround themselves by people who would love and not judge them by their physical appearance. References Sadaba, Stanley W. Applied Social Psychology. (1997). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Shure, Jane, PHD (2009). How Body Image Impacts Self-Esteem. Submitted on Feb. 19, 2009 from http://www.selfgrowth.com Wade, C. Tavris, C. (2008). Invitation to Psychology (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Understanding Ourselves in the Age of the Internet Essay -- Sherry Tur

Understanding Ourselves in the Age of the Internet In her book, Life on Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, author Sherry Turkle explains the effect technology has on the way individuals view themselves, and how this relates to the growth of postmodernist thinking. According to Turkle, the rapid expansion of network technology, specifically the Internet, is responsible for introducing millions of people to new spaces and ways of interactivity with one another. This revolutionary method for relating to others is swiftly changing how we view our minds, our sexual interactions, the forms of our communities, and even our own identities (Turkle 9). In the excerpts selected for our class reading, Turkle cites Internet communication technology such as chat rooms, MUDs (Multi-User Domains) and IRC (Internet Relay Chat) as the basis for the further exploration of our identities because, "it is on the Internet that our confrontations with technology as it collides with our sense of human identity are fresh, even raw. In the real-time communities of cyber space, we are dwellers on the threshold between the real and virtual, unsure of our footing, inventing ourselves as we go along" (Turkle 10). As we invent new identities in order to harmonize with the changing frontiers of technology and society, our culture moves from the modernist idea of calculation to a postmodern concept of simulation (Turkle 20). To understand the difference between the postmo dernist impact on contemporary thought as opposed to the modernist view, it is important to hold a basic understanding of both ideas. Modernist thought is difficult to accurately define - the gradual evolution of philosophy makes it hard to determine how long modernism has ex... ...l life and what is considered computer simulation. After all, most chat users argue, "why grant such superior status to the self that has the body when the selves that don't have bodies are able to have different kinds of experiences?" (Turkle 14). The technological culture of simulation is gradually affecting the way we view our minds as well as our bodies, and a majority of mainstream computer programs are designed with this postmodern influence in mind. Rather than expecting to program aptitude directly into their computers, programmers now believe it is the interaction of smaller subprograms to each other that can create a greater intelligence. The relation of these programs to each other may become too complex to properly define or completely understand, but so are our brains - and this never prevented them from functioning competently (Turkle 20).

Inustrialized Food Production

Industrialized Food Production: A Dangerous Path When visiting the grocery store, shoppers are bombarded with pleasant photos of farmers in their fields. This idyllic agricultural way of life may have existed in the past, but today’s farms are much different. In our modern era, a revolution has taken place and food production has changed dramatically. The industrialized method of food production has created a dangerous and unsustainable system. Choosing locally sourced foods is beneficial to the planet, health, and local economies. The 100 mile diet has brought attention to this important subject and made people aware of the impact of food choices. Humans began farming over 9000 years ago, and many technological advancements have occurred since that time (Mintz, Du Bois, 101). Most significantly in the modern era, the green revolution changed the way food was grown. The green revolution allowed for intensification of food resources, intended to alleviate world hunger (Bourlag). Lead by Norman Bourlag, hybrid variations of wheat were bred to produce higher yields and be two to three times more resistant to disease. Success was achieved, but has created more issues. From 1950 to 1999 production on the same size acreage increased 170%, producing 1. 9 billion tonnes of grain (Bourlag). However, copious amounts of fertilizers need to be added to the soil to support this production; this leads to more chemical run-off and contamination of water sources. Another major problem is that the hybrid seeds lead to development of genetically engineered seeds. These grains are patented by large corporations, causing costs to rise and taking control away from farmers. The local farmer no longer has control over how they grow crops or run their farm. Large companies like Monsanto hold all the power. The genetically modified seeds that are needed for the high yields are patented, and farmers are forced to purchase new seeds each year (Food Inc. ). For centuries, farmers have been able to save seeds from their crops for planting the following year. With the introduction of patents, farmers now face massive lawsuits if they try to reuse seeds. Even though many farmers do not want to use the modified seeds, it is nearly impossible because of cross contamination. Mark Anslow provides an example of one Canadian farmer: Percy Schmeiser. He found that sixty percent of his crop had been contaminated by Monsanto engineered seeds carried onto his land by the wind (12). Even though Schmeiser did not plant or want the seeds, he still faced intimidation and lawsuits from the giant biotechnology company (Anslow, 13). The power held by these agribusiness giants controls what farmers can do. The control held by corporations is not limited to grains and seeds, it extends into poultry and livestock. The high demand for meat created by the multitudes of fast food restaurants has completely changed the way animals are raised. Factory farming techniques produce plump animals from small areas. About 10 billion animals are raised and killed for food every year in the United States, many of these inhumanely (â€Å"Humane Eating : The Humane Society of the United States. â€Å"). Laying hens are kept in cages so small they cannot even move. In addition, animals have been bred for meat production, leading to chickens with breasts so heavy they can barely walk; chickens often die from their own weight (_Food Inc_. ). Cattle are raised in small pens with no area to graze. Instead, they are fattened up with corn (Nierenberg, 22). These feedlots are seas of manure and disease. Farmers are pressured by that large companies they hold contracts with to have the latest technologies. This means taking on massive debt that forces farmers to continue producing for that company, even if they do not agree with the practices. For example, poultry producers working for Tyson, one of the largest companies, have been forced to â€Å"upgrade† chicken houses to be large sheds with no natural light, with thousands of chickens packed inside (_Food Inc_. ). As with grain producers, livestock producers are caught in a debt cycle by powerful corporations. Major health issues are caused by industrialized food production. The close quarters and filthy conditions where the animals are raised are perfect conditions for the spread of disease. Animals raised intensively arrive at slaughterhouses covered in feces, which raises the risk of contamination during the processing (Nierenberg, 22). As well, a variety of antibiotics are used to as feed additives to prevent disease and encourage growth in livestock and poultry, which are then ingested by humans, increasing antibiotic resistance worldwide (Sayre, 78). The crowded, stressful conditions of intensive farming, combined with ammonia released from waste and lack of sunlight facilitate the spread of disease among animals and to humans. As well, the manure from these animals is contaminated with the antibiotics; if a manure lagoon bursts or seeps into the water supply, anyone using the water to drink or bathe can be infected (Sayre, 77). One way to reduce these issues is to eat less meat, reducing demand and the need for intensive factory farm operations (Pollan, 33). Another solution is to choose locally raised meat. This allows consumers to get to know the farmers and practices used to raise the livestock. In addition, it is more likely that the meat has been processed in a smaller slaughterhouse, reducing chances for cross contamination from many sources. Local food increases the amount of information available to consumers and provides food security. Factory farming not only harms the animals and the farmers, it has huge environmental impacts. The production of livestock and dairy actually contributes more greenhouse gases to the environment than vehicles (â€Å"From Field To Feedlot To Fork. â€Å"). Globally, 18% of greenhouse gas emissions are created from feedlot to dinner table. Animal production creates emissions at every stage. Fossil fuel is required to run equipment, grow crops, transport animals, and distribute products. The production of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides alone require the equivalent use of over 123 million barrels of oil (â€Å"From Field To Feedlot To Fork. â€Å"). Factory farming centralizes production areas, meaning that in order to slaughter and distribute the meat, long distance transportation is required. Aside from the fossil fuel use, greenhouse gases are created by the animals themselves. Grazing animals, like cattle, release methane. While this is natural, the huge amounts of livestock being produced are massive contributors to global warming. As well, the manure produced by these animals exceeds amounts that can be used as fertilizer for fields. The excess amounts are stored in ponds and lagoons, where more gases are released as it decomposes (Nierenberg, 23). By choosing to eat local, consumers negate the creation of much of the pollution. The most obvious reduction is in transportation emissions. On average, a meal travels 2414 km from farm to table. This is over a 25% increase from 1980 (Roosevelt, 78). Shopping at a local farmers market or farm stand reduces the distance considerably. A study in Iowa found that a regional diet consumed 17 times less oil and gas than a typical diet based on food shipped across the country and around the world (Smith, Mackinnon, 65). Another way local eating reduces environmental impacts is though more sustainable practices. Local farms are usually operated on a smaller scale; livestock can graze on grass, and the manure produced fertilizers the field. Another benefit of small farms if the diversity they provide. Agribusiness operations focus on monoculture. One crop is grown over hundreds or thousands of hectares. A small farm features more diversity, attracting and providing habitat for a range of wildlife (Pollan, 62). As well, smaller farms require far less chemical additives like pesticides and fertilizer, both produced with fossil fuels. Recently, the 100 mile diet has brought attention to choices consumers can make and why local choices are important. A couple in Vancouver undertook a year long challenge to only eat food that was grown or produced within a one hundred mile radius of their home (Smith, Mackinnon). At first, this seems like an overwhelming task, but is actually achievable. Some luxury items, like coffee and chocolate, must be given up, but most essential items are available. While it may not be possible for everyone to follow the 100 mile diet completely, choosing local products as often as possible has many benefits. As well as reducing transportation costs and emissions as mentioned earlier, purchasing food from local farmers helps the local economy. The income stays in your local area instead of being absorbed by a multinational corporation. A British study found that money spent at a local farmers market had twice the economic value for the area than money spent at a supermarket chain (Smith, Mackinnon, 112). The reduced transportation time also has health benefits. Produce is not picked until it is ripe, and often sold the same day, so the nutrients are not degraded when it reaches the dinner table. Food production has undergone many changes since the rise of agriculture thousands of years ago. The rise of factory farming practices has brought many negative changes to food. Rates of pollution and disease have risen dramatically, and conditions for animals and farmers are very poor. The recent popularity of the 100 mile diet has brought raised public awareness about food choices. By choosing locally produced food consumers get a more nutritious product, reduce environmental impacts, and support local economies. Works Cited Anslow, Mark. â€Å"Farmer warns: ‘GM will destroy organic industry'. † The Ecologist 38. 10 (2009): 12-13. General Science Index. Web. 30 Nov. 2009. Bourlag, Norman. â€Å"Biotechnology and the Green Revolution (ActionBioscience). † ActionBioscience – promoting bioscience literacy. Nov. 2002. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. http://www. actionbioscience. org/biotech/borlaug. html. Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Alliance, 2009. DVD. â€Å"From Field To Feedlot To Fork. † Cool Foods Campaign. 2009. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. http://coolfoodscampaign. org/your-tools/global-warming-and-your-food/from-field-to-feedlot-to-fork/. à ¢â‚¬Å"Humane Eating : The Humane Society of the United States. † The Humane Society of the United States. 2009. Web. 04 Dec. 2009. http://www. humanesociety. org/issues/eating/. Mintz, Sidney W. , and Christine M. Du Bois. â€Å"The Anthropology of Food and Eating. † Annual Review of Anthropology 31 (2002): 99-119. Print. Nierenberg, Danielle. The Commercialization of Farming: Producing Meat for a Hungry World. † USA Today (Periodical) 132 (2004): 22-4. Readers' Guide Abstracts. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. Pollan, Michael. In Defense of Food. New York: Penguin Paperbacks, 2009. Print. Roosevelt, Margot â€Å"The Lure of the 100-Mile Diet. † Time 167. 24 (2006): 78. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 4 Dec. 2009. Sayre, Laura. â€Å"The Hidden Link Between Factory Farms and Human Illness. † The Mother Earth News Feb. /Mar. 2009: 76-83. Readers' Guide Abstracts. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. Smith, Alisa, and J. B. Mackinnon. The 100-Mile Diet A Year of Local Eating. New York: Vintage Canada, 2007. Print.

How Dolphins Suffer From Environmental Pollution - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1857 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/04/15 Category Ecology Essay Level High school Tags: Pollution Essay Did you like this example? Dolphins are lovely and smart animals, but dolphin population worldwide are facing a significant threat. According to Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) (n.d.), human activities influence approximately 40 percent of marine systems and every area of the sea. In the eastern coast of the U.S., the death of about three thousand bottlenose dolphins is observed from 1987 to 1988. We have to pay close attention to this issue so that dolphins would not die out and species diversity could be preserved. Actually, environmental pollution is an important reason why the dolphin population dramatically reduces. Dolphin population is significantly hurt by environmental pollution due to three major reasons. First, dolphins are easily hurtful by chemical contamination because of bioaccumulation in which damage dolphins body systems. Second, noise pollution impairs dolphins health and change their normal behaviors. Third, marine debris threat dolphins life since dolphins may accidentally eat litters or be entangled by packaging. At the same time, there seems to an argument about whether environment pollution extremely harms dolphins. Some people argue that some studies contain limitations and the data are insufficient to support the position that the species of dolphin are significantly hurt by environmental pollution. However, environmental pollution has some clearly negative impacts on dolphins. One of the direct effects is that noise forces dolphins to consume more energy. Also, environmental pollution pollutes dolphins habitats and kill smaller sea animals that could lead to the short of fo od for dolphins. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "How Dolphins Suffer From Environmental Pollution?" essay for you Create order First of all, chemical pollution including oils spills and polluted water has a detrimental effect on dolphins health. With the rapid development of industry, increasing industrial accidents happen and these accidents result in many serious consequences. Pitchford et al. (2018) study the influence of the huge 2011 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and they find that the large number of bottlenose dolphins death is related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (p. 14). In other words, dolphins are unable to completely avoid the area of oil slick, and sometimes they indeed swim into floating oil. There is a chance that the poisonous oil will enter dolphins spiracles and mouths if they are encompassed by floating oil. What is more, Durante et al. (2016) believe that polluted prey also has an adverse impact on dolphins health since toxins will be accumulated in dolphins bodies eventually (p. 358). Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are perilous chemicals that released by industrial production and they are unlikely to break down in a short time. Sea animals will die if they absorb POPs at a certain level, and the amount of POPs in the ocean is rather huge. The majority of dolphins are at the top of food chains naturally, and so they are the ending point for POPs (Durante et al., 2016, P. 353). To be more precise, plankton absorbs PCBs from the environment, and small fish eats plankton to survive. A lot of small fishes are eaten by large fishes in their life, and dolphins eat plenty of large fishes over their lifetime. Finally, POPs from lots of smaller marine organisms are absorbed by dolphins. So, bioaccumulation caused by chemical is contamination really a big issue for dolphins. In fact, anthropogenic chemical pollutant have more negative influences on dolphins than other animals. Rage et al. (2008) provide convincing evidence that the species of dolphin are not good at coping with pollution like POPs because there are scarcely any enzymes in their bodies to decompose hazardous chemical components (P. 472). Consequently, dolphins reproductive and immune systems are likely weakened due to the damage of chemical contamination such as POPs. The injury to dolphins reproductive systems can lead to serious problems. More specifically, a large ratio of POPs may be passed by female dolphins to their first babies via womb or milk , which is possibly fatal to offspring (Durante et al., 2016, P. 354). In addition, the issues related to injured immune systems are also severe. For example, the massive death of dolphin population since the 20th century could be caused by virus transmission from animals to animals (Rage et al., 2008, P. 473). Immune system is the main defense against diseases, and injured immune system certainly increases diseases risk. Thus, chemical pollution puts dolphins in especial danger because toxins and poisons from dangerous chemicals severely impair dolphins health. Other than chemical contamination, noise also has a seriously negative impact on dolphin population. Dolphins live in the ocean where sound is the basic tool to communicate and look for direction. Nonetheless, human activities such as natural resources exploration, the operation of ships, and military maneuvers in the sea have made a very high level of noise, which puts dolphins in risk. There are plenty of studies from scientific literature illustrating the damage of noise to the species of dolphin. For instance, high-frequency and mid-frequency sonar from military vessels are recognized big worries for the health of sea mammals since they can lead to physical hurt or even death to marine animals like dolphins (Li et al., 2014, P. 496). Likewise, dolphins with excessive stress levels caused by high-intensity sounds may even behave aggressively, which can result in physical injuries (Harris, 2017, p. 212). This evidence clearly show that noise pollution has an adverse effect on the s pecies of dolphin. Besides high-frequency and mid-frequency sonar, Harris discusses that low-frequency ocean noise also influences mammal behaviors. To be more specific, mammals like dolphins will go away from their habitat or breeding place because of excessive noise, which is observed on the coast of Baja California, Mexico ( Harris, 2017, p. 211). Similarly, Pitchford et al. (2018) claim that noises will drive dolphins from important areas to them so that the chance of illness and stranding to dolphins increases (p. 16). Basically, all noises made by humans influence extremely disrupt dolphins life. Dolphins have to raise their voices to communicate with each other since plenty of ships in the ocean make many noises. Dolphins change the frequency, duration or amplitude, or they simply repeat their calls several times. Yet, these actions really hurt dolphins health (Holt, 2015, p. 1648). Furthermore, exposure to shipping noise in long periods could cause temporary or permanent damage to dolphins sens e of hearing (Li et al., 2014, P. 501). Auditory system plays an essential role in dolphins daily life, and it is hard to imagine how should dolphins survive in the sea without a sensitive sense of hearing. Therefore, dolphins lives are significantly impacted by noise pollution because noises alter dolphins normal behaviors and harm their heath including auditory system. Dolphins are threatened by noise while the detrimental effects of marine debris on dolphins cannot be overlooked. Millions of tons of plastic garbage are dumped by people into the sea yearly worldwide (WDC, n.d.) The oceans are polluted by countless man-made litters, which is quite risky to dolphin population. When dolphins swim in coastal areas or along shorelines, marine litters containing plastic bags and other indecomposable substances can trap or choke them, young dolphins in particular (Pitchford et al., 2018, p. 16). To put it another way, dolphins can suffer or die once they are entangled in plastic bags. Moreover, researchers have found that more and more dolphins eat marine debris accidentally. Bearzi et al. (2014) discuss that one of the known cause of dolphins mortality is obstruction of the digestive system by ingesting plastic (P. 393). As a consequence, intestinal blockage, starvation, and inside damage are all possible injuries to dolphins. Similarly, Eo, Yeo, and Kwon (2013) explain that gastrointestinal foreign objects are a serious problem in cetaceans and dolphins (p. 251). For example, Eo et al. (2013) helped a male bottlenose dolphin to remove foreign objects from its forestomach, and they found that The foreign bodies included a 10 ?— 3.5 cm plastic tube, 4 ?—2.0 cm stainless steel pipe, brush, and concrete debris (p. 251). Consequently, the species of dolphin are significant hurt by man-made litters. Hence, marine debris as one of the chemical pollution poses a real threat to dolphins lives because serious issues such as intestinal blockage, and internal injury are possibly happened due to ingestion of plastic litters and entanglement by packaging. On the other hand, some individuals challenge that environmental pollution does not have a extremely negative effect on dolphins because of two main reasons. First, lots of scientific studies about how environmental contamination affects dolphin population are not optimal. For instance, some factors that would impact the results are not being quantified in the study of oil spills (Pitchford et al., 2018, p. 16). Additionally, the statistics are not sufficient because some data are rather difficult to collect. Durante et al. (2016) write that there is solely a low number of samples available (P. 358). Follett, Genschel, and Hofmann (2014) say that reliable conclusions cannot be drawn based on inadequate data and limited knowledge although oil discharge leads to huge destruction (p. 130). Scientists have to examine the death of many animals to confirm the cases that animals died due to environmental pollution (Follett et al., 2014, p. 130). In other words, humans indeed do not have ade quate information about how the death of animals like dolphins is linked to environmental pollution since checking the actual cause of a large number of animals death is quite challenging. Hence, the limitations of some scientific researches and the lack of data are the two major reasons why some individuals reject that dolphin population is significantly harmed by environmental contamination. Nevertheless, there is compelling evidence demonstrating that environmental pollution has an adverse impact on food chain and ecosystem. Follett et al. (2014) note that oil spills can grow bacteria and kill smaller marine mammals that are the sources of food to dolphins although oil spills may not directly kill dolphin population (p. 122). It means that environmental contamination like oil spills obviously causes habitat destruction to dolphins as well as increase the risks that dolphins have diseases and lack food. Meanwhile, Holt et al. (2015) study a pair of bottlenose dolphins at the lab and conclude that the louder dolphins phonate, the more oxygen and energy they consume. Then Holt and her colleagues apply the uniform method to calculate how many extra calories dolphins in the wild have to get to compensating the extra consumption of energy, and they estimate dolphins need to obtain two extra calories for each two minutes (p. 1650). Though this extra metabolic cost is not huge, the consumption of energy will become quite large through the accumulation over time. More importantly, not all dolphins are able to find sufficient foods, especially for juveniles and pregnant females. Thus, environmental contamination indeed has dramatically negative influences on the species of dolphin. To conclude, environmental pollution significantly harms the species of dolphin because of the three reasons. Chemical pollution enables toxins and poisons enter dolphins bodies and then destroys their reproductive and immune systems. Through injuring dolphins auditory system and disrupting the communication, dolphins health is impaired by noise, and dolphins normal behaviors are changed by noise pollution as well. Marine debris threat dolphins life by raising the risk that dolphins ingest litters or be entangled by plastic bags, which leads to severely consequent issues like obstruction of the digestive system and asphyxia. Each person, every organization, and all countries ought to should the responsibility to tackle environmental pollution and protect the species of dolphin. Humans should take actions immediately before environmental pollution results in more seriously irreversible damage to dolphin population.