Lung Cancer: History, Causes, Types and Treatments

Lung Cancer: History, Causes, Types and Treatments Lung Cancer Introduction Lung cancer is a kind of cancer that begins in the lungs. Lungs are the spongy organs in the chest that are responsible for taking in oxygen when one inhales and releases carbon-dioxide when one exhales. Lung cancer is the principal causation of cancer related deaths in the United States, amongst both women n and men. It claims more lives annually than does breasts, ovarian, prostate and colon cancers, all combined. People that smoke have the highest chances of suffering this ailment. The risk of this form of cancer increases with the number of cigarettes one smokes and the duration that one smokes. Lung cancer causes the demise of more than one million people worldwide in a single year. It is projected that roughly 90% of deaths caused by lung cancer in men and 75-80% overall deaths in the United States are owed to smoking. Vividly, lung cancer is a prevalent and imperative disease that constitutes a major health problem in the world. History In the past 150 years, lung cancer was non-existent. In the year 1878, only 1% represented the malignant lung cancers that were seen by the pathology institute of university of Dresden, Germany. By the year 1918, the percentage of cancer had risen to about 10% and by the year 1927 it had risen to more than 14%. It was noted in 1930 that t the turn of the new century the malignant tumors had begun to increase and may be even more by the end of World War I. It was noted that whilst most of the lung tumors happened to men, there seemed to be a rise of the tumors in women as well. The period of the disease from the time it was known to the time of death was usually between a year and two years at most. In all these cases of the patients diagnosed with the lung tumors, there had been a prolonged history of chronic bronchitis. The increase of lung cancer was said to have been on the rise due to several probable etiological factors: increase in air pollution by dust and gasses that were emitted by the industries; being exposed to gases in World War I; increased automobile traffic; and working with gasoline or benzene. Nevertheless, lung cancer cases rose at an equally alarming rate in the countries that had few automobiles, less industries and workers not exposed to gasoline and benzene. In several instances, smoking was mentioned as a possibility that caused lung cancer, but many investigations failed to confirm a link between lung cancer and smoking. There were however suspicions that smoking did actually contribute to the illness. However, in the year 1929, Fritz Linckint, a German physician, researched and published the findings that the lung cancer patients were most likely to be smokers. This led to his campaigns against smoking which led to the spread of anti-tobacco activism in Germany. The link amid lung cancer and smoking of cigarettes began to be prominent in the 1930s due to the suspicions of clinicians owed to the increase in the disease. After two decades, smoking was declared an agent that caused lung cancer. In the 1940s in Germany, lung cancer was the second frequent cause of cancer death after stomach cancer. Research by The German Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research postulated that amongst 109 lung cancer patients, only three were not smokers. It however took a very long time for the truth to sink in that there was a causative link between lung cancer and smoking. Most of the smokers as well as the physicians, who enjoyed cigarettes refused to trust that their habit was harmful to their health. In the 1500s two regions in Czechoslovakia and Germany, Joachimsthal and Schneeberg were productive mines that yielded arsenic, bismuth, cobalt, nickel and silver. The miners in these ores developed some deadly disease that the locals termed at â€Å"the mountain disease† that was labeled an occupational disease for the miners. Most thought that arsenic was the root cause of this lung cancer but it was later proven that it was the emissions of radium that was the cause. Lung Cancer Risks and Causes To a large extent, the biggest cause of lung cancer is smoking. Smoking causes over 8 out of ten lung cancer cases including a tiny fraction caused due to being exposed to second hand smoke for the non-smokers (passive smoking). The more an individual smokes, the higher the chances of getting lung cancer though the length of time that one stays a smoker is even more crucial than the number of cigarettes one takes a day. It is more harmful to start smoking at a a young tender age than starting as an adult. When one stops smoking it reduces the risks they have of contacting lung cancer as compared to continuing to smoke. The sooner one quits, the better their health. Passive smoking, breathing in other persons’ smoke from cigarettes, increases the possibility of lung cancer though it is much less if one smokes themselves. Cigarette smoking is therefore the major basis of lung cancer. Cigar and pipe smokers also have an increased chance of getting lung cancer as compared to those who do not smoke. They are also very likely to get cancer of the lip or mouth. In the past lung cancer was common with men than women, but nowadays since more women are smoking, it is also as common amongst women. Other risk factors that are known to cause lung cancer include: the exposure to radon gases and certain chemicals, air pollution, a previous lung disease, a family history of lung cancer, lowered immunity, previously smoking related cancers, and a past treatment of cancer. Radon gas is a natural radioactive gas that originates from the tiny deposits of uranium found in all soils and rocks. Radon gas is the second biggest cause of lung cancer after smoking. Exposure to radon gas increases the risk of getting lung cancer for the smokers. It is therefore advisable for the people living in areas prone to this gas to stop smoking since their chances of getting lung cancer are very high. Certain chemicals have been known to cause lung cancer: diesel exhaust, silica and asbestos. Contact with Asbestos was common in the 1960s in the shipbuilding and construction industries. Asbestos is still a lung cancer cause since the cancers take a pretty long time to develop. Smokers are at a higher risk of contacting lung cancer when exposed to asbestos. Silica is also a chemical that is used in glass making and is harmful to the human body since it causes a condition called silicosis. A person suffering from this illness has a very high chance of getting lung cancer, and once again, smokers are more at risk as compared to non-smokers. Air pollution has also been known to cause lung cancer. It however depends on the level of air pollution one exposes themselves to. People who have had previous diseases in the lungs have an increased rate of getting lung cancer. Adenocarcinoma of the lung is a form of lung cancer that occurs after one has had a disease in the past that caused a scar in the lungs. Tuberculosis is one such disease that can leave a scar in the lung. People who have suffered from tuberculosis have a double risk of getting lung cancer. The risk continues for over 20 years of the disease. Chlamydia pneumoniae is a kind of a bacterium known to cause chest infections. The people with the antibodies to Chlamydia pneumonia have an increased chance of getting lung cancer. The risk is even greater for the smokers. Family history of lung cancer could also be another risk factor to lung cancer. If a person has a first degree relative with the disease, their risk of lung cancer will be increased by 50%. This risk is however higher if a sister or brother has lung cancer, than the parent. This risk is not dependent on whether an individual smokes or not. Families with smokers could be exposed to smoke from cigarettes and therefore increase the chances of contacting lung cancer whether they have inherited a defective gene or not. Research has it that there is a likelihood that at least a single faulty gene could increase the risk of lung cancer and can be passed down in the family, inherited. There is evidence that particular treatments of cancer could increase the risks of lung cancer. An assessment into the cure for breast cancer shows that the ways of administering radiotherapy have in the past increased the risk of developing lung cancer. Oestrogen receptor negative patients suffering from breast cancer have a high risk of getting lung cancer. Other people who may also have increased chances of getting lung cancer are those that have been treated for a type of cancer of the womb, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Just like in the past causes of cancer discussed above, the chances of getting lung cancer are more increased for the smokers. Persons who have had neck, head cancer, cervical cancer and oesophagal cancer have a high risk of lung cancer. This could be explained by the reason that all the mentioned cancers are common for smokers, though it could also be due to radiotherapy curative procedures. The drugs that people take after they have had organ transplants and the people with HIV/AIDS both have low immunity. People with HIV or AIDS therefore have a risk of lung cancer that is 3 times more than those that do not have the disease. People who use drugs that suppress immunity after they have had an organ transplant have a double the normal risk of lung cancer. People with autoimmune conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis also have an increased chance of getting lung cancer. Signs and Symptoms of Lung Cancer Lung cancer may not produce any conspicuous symptoms during the early stages. In about 40% of persons diagnosed with lung cancer, diagnosis is normally made after the disease has already advanced. In most of the patients, the cancer advances to stage three for it to be detected. There are however some lung cancer symptoms that one ought to watch out for and seek medical attention early in advance. A new cough that lingers is one sign of lung cancer; since a cough related to a respiratory infection or cold should disappear within one to two weeks. One should not label a lingering cough as â€Å"just a cough† whether it is mucus producing or dry. It is therefore advisable to see a doctor immediately for testing. Changes in the cough is also trivial to note more so for the smokers. These changes include the cough having a hoarse and deeper sound, coughing up more mucus than normal or blood and coughing more often than is usual. Becoming easily breathless or experiencing shortness of breath are some probable indicators of lung cancer. This symptom could probably occur when the lung cancer narrows or blocks the airway, or when fluid from the lung tumor accumulates in the chest. This symptom should not be ignored for tiredness or dismissed for whatever reason. The presence of lung cancer can produce pain the back, shoulder and chest areas. The aching feeling could however not be accompanied by coughing. The chest pain caused by lung cancer is owed to a discomfort that is as a result of metastasis or the enlargement of lymph nodes to the ribs, pleura (lining in the lung region) or the chest wall. Wheezing is another symptom of lung cancer. The whistling or wheezing sound is produced by the lungs when one breaths, since the airways become inflamed, blocked and constricted by the occurrence of the tumor. Since wheezing is associated with treatable and benign causes, one should have it checked and not assume it since it could be a probable cause of lung cancer. The voice changes when one has lung cancer and becomes raspier, hoarse and deeper. Hoarseness in normal circumstances could be as a result of a simple cold, but when it persists to more than two weeks; it ought to be checked out. The hoarseness that is related to lung cancer occurs when a tumor tampers with the nerves that are responsible for controlling the voice box or larynx. A weight loss that cannot be explained of approximately 10 pounds or more may be linked to lung cancer or a different type of lung cancer. When there is a cancer in the body, ones weight drops as a result of the cancer cells using the energy in the body. It also tampers with the normal way in which the body uses energy acquired from food. Lung cancer could spread to the bones producing pain in the body and more so in the back. The pain is worse at night when the patient rests on their back. Lung cancer is also linked to pain in the neck, arm and shoulder. Headaches could be a sign that the lung cancer has spread to the brain. The headaches could also be triggered by pressure by the lung tumor on the superior vena cava (the large vein responsible for moving blood to the heart from the upper body). Prevention of Lung Cancer Several factors may help in the protection of lung cancer: diet, physical activity, aspirin and having multiple sclerosis. Vegetables and fresh fruits may help in the prevention of lung cancer since they contain chemicals that can prevent damage to cells. The antioxidant vitamins E, C and A, are also thought to help in the reduction of lung cancer. New evidence postulates that flavonoids in many vegetables and fruits help reduce the risk of lung cancer. Research is however ongoing to find out which exact nutrients in vegetables and fruits are of utmost help. Beta cryptoxanthin, found in fruits like mangoes and oranges may lower risk of lung cancer. Changing diet alone cannot reduce the risk of lung cancer much when one carries on smoking. The most vital thing is to quit smoking. Studies have shown that high levels of physical activity can lower the risk of lung cancer. This includes the activities at home, work and leisure activities such as golf and walking. Some research has it that taking aspirin may reduce the risk of lung cancer but other studies have not. Other studies postulate that aspirin intake may only reduce the risk in men or for people taking 7 tablets within a week. It is however not advisable to take aspirin on regular basis without the doctor’s instructions since it may cause bleeding or damage the stomach lining. People with multiple sclerosis, according to some research, have a low lung cancer risk. Types of Lung Cancer There are two main lung cancer types: Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer. The staging of lung cancer depends on whether the cancer has spread from lungs to lymph nodes or other organs, or whether the cancer is local. Since the lungs are very large, tumors can grow for a long duration before they are found. Symptoms such as fatigue and coughing may occur but people will always dismiss them thinking they are caused by other causes. Due to this reason, the early stages of lung cancer (stages I and II) are difficult to detect. Most people suffering from cancer are diagnosed at stages III and IV. Treatment Options for Lung Cancer There are four varied ways on how to treat lung cancer: targeted therapy, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. The options for treatment and recommendations highly depend on a number of factors such as the patient’s overall health and preferences, the possible side effects and the stage and type of lung cancer. The care plan also includes treatment for the symptoms and the side effects. Surgery A thoracic surgeon is mainly trained to perform lung cancer surgery. The aim of surgery in cancer treatment is to completely remove the lung tumor and the close by lymph nodes in the chest area. The tumor should be removed with a surrounding margin or border of normal lung tissue. Several types of surgery may possibly be used for lung cancer: Pneumonectomy, segmentectomy, a wedge, lobectomy, radiofrequency ablation and adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy is the cure given after surgery to lessen the lung cancer risk returning. It involves chemotherapy, targeted therapy and radiation therapy. The intention behind adjuvant therapy is to rid the body of any cancer cells that may still be in the body after the surgery. Radiation therapy This is the application of high energy x-rays and other particles to destroy cells of cancer. A radiation oncologist gives radiation therapy to cancer patients. External-beam radiation therapy is the most regularly used form of radiation therapy used that is given by use of a machine that is outside the body. Brachytherapy, radiation treatment using implants, in not used for lung cancer. Lung cancer patients who undergo radiation therapy experience loss of appetite and fatigue. If therapy is administered in the center of the chest or neck, patients may have difficulty swallowing or experience a sore throat. Chemotherapy This is the use of drugs to destroy cancer cells through stopping the cancer cells growth and division. Chemotherapy has been proven to improve the quality and length of life for the lung cancer patients in all stages. Common ways of administering chemotherapy is through placing an intravenous (IV) tube that is placed in the vein by use of needle or a capsule or pill administered orally. Chemotherapy side effects depend on the dose used and individual. They include hair loss, diarrhea, appetite loss, vomiting, nausea, fatigue and risk of infection. The side effects normally go away when the treatment is finished. Targeted therapy This form of treatment blocks the spread and growth of cancer cells whilst limiting harm to healthy cells. For lung cancer, the types of targeted therapy administered include anti-angiogenesis therapy. Conclusion It is not always possible to recover fully from cancer. When the treatment does not succeed, the disease is called terminal or advanced cancer. Diagnosis is very stressful for many patients to discuss. It is however crucial to have an honest and open discussion with the healthcare team or doctor to express concerns, preferences and feelings. Patients with advanced cancer and expected to live for less than six months should consider palliative care known as hospice. Hospice care is intended to provide the possible best quality life for people near the end of life. Arius and Athanasius | Analysis Arius and Athanasius | Analysis SYPNOSIS Arius and Athanasius were archrivals of the Arian controversy. Arius was the leading father in Arianism whilst Athanasius was the defender of the Nicene Theology for orthodox Christianity against Arianism. As Arianism rejects the divinity of Christ, salvation to mankind was at stake. Athanasius advocates the consubstantiality of the three persons of the trinity which was crucial argument to defend the divinity of Christ. Consequently Athanasius had built the ground of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrine which together with the humanity of Christ represents the complete Trinitarian theology. I. INTRODUCTION The fourth century church experienced a major crisis in understanding Gods divine nature, characteristics and relationship with members of the Godhead. This Arian controversy centred upon two archrival theologians, Arius and Athanasius.1 The controversy represented a new phase of doctrinal development of the Godhead and led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Churchs first ecumenical statement of the Trinity. 2 Athanasius was the champion of Nicene Theology, who greatly defended the traditional Christianity against the Arian heresy.3 Section II of this essay will briefly discuss the background of Arius, and summarize his basic theology. Section III will provide an overview about Athanasiuss life, Athanasius theology in conjunction with his defence against the Arians heretic claims. Finally, the conclusion will be drawn in Section IV. II. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY The ‘Arian controversy ignited in 318, when Arius openly taught his heretic teachings that denied the full divinity of the Son. Consequently, Arius challenged his bishop (Alexander of Alexandria) and teachers of Alexandria to an Christological conflict.4 The controversy lasted for nearly half a century and became the confrontation between the two archrivals, the ‘Nicene party and Origenists.5 Athanasius coined the names ‘Arian and ‘Arians as pejorative political and theological slurs against Arius and his opponents, who disagreed with him on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and those meant the Son as a creature or held fast to Arius basic position. Cf. Thomas G. Weinandy, Athanasius: a Theological Introduction (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), 51-52. Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points: Major Issues in Christian Thought (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 14. Justo L. Gonzà ¡lez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of The Reformation (3 vols., New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, Vol. 1), 173. Johannes Quasten, Pathology: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicaea to the council of Chalcedon (Utrecht, Netherlands: Spectrum Publishers, 1963, Vol. III), 66. Bruce L. Shelly, Church History in Plain Language (2nd Ed., Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995), 100. Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1990), 8485, 92. The controversy roots lay deep in â€Å"the differences of the ante-Nicene doctrine of the Logos, especially in the two contradictory half truths of Origens Christology, which was claimed by both archrivals ― the full divinity of Christ and his eternal distinctness from the Father.6 Conclusively, the Arians were the catalysts, rather than the main participants.7 II.1. ARIUS AND HIS DOCTRINE Trained in the Lucian School, Arius was called one of the heretical fathers of Arianism.8 Arianism was a heretical doctrine of theological rationalism, based on the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, and Neoplatonic theory of subordinationism.9 Arius wrote very little and only a few fragments survived. Thalia was his only own writing which Athanasius recited.10 Most information about Arius life and his doctrine came from Athanasius writings.11 Influenced by Origen, Arius rejected the term ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š (consubstantial) and insisted the concrete and distinct three persons (Ï€ÏÆ'Ï„Î ±ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹Ãâ€š) of the Godhead, a separate essence and the subordination of the Son to Father.12 Nicene split the church into two major groups: 1) The ‘Nicene party― consisted of the West, the school of Antioch and other in the East like Athanasius. They affirmed the full deity of Jesus Christ, but were less clear on the eternal threeness of the Godhead. They did not deny the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e. they were not Monarchians), but they did not state it as forcefully as the Origenists wanted and so appeared to them to be Monarchian. (2) The Origenists ― were strong on the threeness of the Godhead, but less clear on the deity of Jesus Christ. They were not Arians (i.e. they did not see Jesus Christ as a creature made out of nothing), but they held him to be inferior t o the Father and so appeared Arian to the Nicene party. Cf. Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought (Rev. ed., London: TT Clark, 2006), 30. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology (3rd ed.; Toronto, New York London: Funk Wagnalls Company, 1894, Vol. 1) 134137. Cf. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010). Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 30-31. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 134-137. Cf. http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html (29 April 2010). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7. Ephiphanius, Panarion 69,4. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,4. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 15. Note: Scholars still debate over the ideological forerunner of Arius doctrine, whether it was derived from the theories of Origen, or of Paul of Samosata, or of Lucian of Antioch. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 6-8. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I.5,6; Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T T Clark Ltd., 1988), 11. And a few sources from the church historians of the fourth and fifth centuries, and from the letters of St. Basil and of Epiphanius of Salamis. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10-13. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 134-137. John Behr, The Way to Nicaea: The Formation of Christian Theology (3 vols.; Crestwood, New York: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001, Vol. 1), 200-201. Arius denied all internal divine relations existing between the Father and the Son ― the eternal deity of Christ and his equality with the Father (ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ±).13 II.2. A SUMMARY OF ARIUS THEOLOGY Arius basic doctrine:14 (1) Godhead is uncreated, unbegotten (ÃŽ ³ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ·Ãâ€žÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š), without beginning;15 (2) The Son of God cannot be truly God. The Son is the first of Gods creatures, a secondary God, â€Å"god by participation.† Like the other creations, â€Å"the Son is not unbegotten (ÃŽ ³ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ·Ãâ€žÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š),† â€Å"he is one of the things fashioned and made,† 16 brought out ex nihilo (ÃŽ ¾ ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ º ÃŽ ½Ãâ€žÃâ€°ÃŽ ½). â€Å"There was a time when the Son of God was not (ÃŽ ½ Ï„Î µ ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ º ÃŽ ½).†17 â€Å"Neither does the Son indeed know his own substance as it is,† â€Å"he was created for our sake, rather than we for his.† â€Å"He is the Son of God not in the metaphysical, but in the moral sense of the word.†18 By the will of God, the Son has his statute and character (á ¼ ¥ÃŽ »ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ºÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š ÃŽ ºÃŽ ±Ã¡ ¼ ° ÏÆ'ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š).† â€Å"The Son is by his nature; changeable, mutable, equally with other rational beings.† The Father is ineffable to the Son; for neither does the Word (Logos) perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he perfectly see Him (the Father).†19 (3) â€Å"The title of God is improper for the Son of God, since the only true God adopted him as Son in prevision of his merits.† This sonship by adoption insists â€Å"no real participation in the divinity and no true likeness to it;† Thus, the absolute and eternal divinity of Christ 13 Epiphanius, Panarion 69.6.1ff. Theodoret of Cyrus, Haereticarum fabularum compendium (History of Heresies) I.5. Cf. Philip Schaff, ‘Arius in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology,139. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7-8. 14 Epiphanius, Panarion 69,6. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,5,1-4. Athanasius, De Synodis 15. Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,6. Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia conc. Nic. 2,3. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8, 14, 15-16.Cf. Athanasius, Epistula encyclical ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae, 12. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters (Philip Schaff ed.; Grand Rapids, Mi: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1892), 229. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_229.html (25 April 2011). 15 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1.4.1. See also the conclusion in Arius first Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10. 16 Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16. 17 See the Arius conclusion in his first Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Athanius, De Synodis, II.26. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 10. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 8. 18 Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Aegypti 12. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 16. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. 19 Italic words are mine. Athanasius, De Synodis 15. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 7. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 15. 3 is to be denied.20 (4) The Logos is created by God as the instrument of creation. The Logos holds a middle place between God and the world is made flesh by the will of the Father and fulfilled in Jesus Christ the function of a soul, â€Å"though divine, was less than fully divine.† 21 (5) The Holy Spirit is the first creature of the Logos, and is still less God than the Word. III. ATHANASIUS AND HIS THEOLOGY Though Athanasius was not a systematic theologian, his greatest dedication in life was the fierce defence of orthodox Christianity against the Arian heresy. 22 He was so identified with the cause that the successive history of the Arian controversy is best told by following Athanasius life.†23 The three discourses of Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, were his main dogmatic writings targeted against Arianism.24 The first discourse contained the definition of the Nicene Council ― there is a unity of divine essence between the Father and the Son, and the Son is eternal, increated (ÃŽ ³ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ½ÃŽ ·Ãâ€žÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š) and unchangeable.25 III.1. ATHANASIUS Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8. Cf. the following citation: â€Å"The leaders in the Arian movement (Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris and Theognis) received their training under Lucian and always venerated him as their master and the founder of their system. Later critics of Lucian, including Alexander of Alexandria, during the Council of Nicaea in 325, associated his school with Ariuss rejection of the absolute divinity of Christ. No one before Lucian of Antioch and Arius had taught that the Logos is categorically different from God.† of ‘Lucian of Antioch in New Word Encyclopedia. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lucian_of_Antioch (10 April 2011). Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 100-101. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 67-68. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66. Justo L. Gonzà ¡lez, The Story of Christianity, 166. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 26. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 26. The systematic and reliable ancient account of Athanasius could be found in the framework, such as Historia acephala and Festal Index.26 Ordained as deacon to his bishop Alexander in Alexandria, Athanasius accompanied Alexander to the Council at Nicaea (325). Later he succeeded Alexander and became the bishop of Alexandria (328-373).27 Athanasius, as a leading Christian writer of NeoAlexandrine School, adopted the historic-grammatical interpretation of Scripture (which the School of Antioch advocated) in all polemical and theological controversy with the Arians.28 The Arians enlisted the support of secular power and corrupt church authority to silence and destroy Athanasius. When Athanasius refused Constantines order to readmit Arius to communion, his opponents launched all kind of allegations, causing calumnies further to increase.29 For instance, under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the bishops of the Tyrian Synod condemned Athanasius with charges which he could not escape. They exiled Athanasius to Trier and restored Arius to church communion and reinstate him into the rank of the clergy.30 The history about Athanasius life is also found in his own writings and the Syriac introduction to his Festal Letters, also in Historia acephala or called Historia Athanasii, Gregory Nazianzens Oration 21, and some fragments of a Coptic eulogy. Cf. Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (2nd Printing 1994; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 5. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. ‘Athanasius in Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Mainentry=t100.e116 (18 March 2011). Cf. David Hugh Farmer, ‘Athanasius in The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003). Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 20. Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 1. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 20. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20-21. Athanasius was firstly charged with murder (sorcery and murder of Arsenius, a Meletian bishop in the Thebaid). His second charge was a political kind (he had threatened to stop the Alexandrian corn-ships).His third charge was his order to assault the presbyter Ischyras. Cf. ‘St. Athanasius (ca. 297 373), Patriarch of Alexandria in Christian Classic Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius (18 March 2011). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 9. Archibald Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria: Edited, with Prolegomena, Indices, and Titles (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Cushing-Malloy Inc., 1978), lxxxvi. John Behr, The Nicene Faith Part1, 165-166. For the letter, see H.I. Bell, Jesus and Christians in Egypt (London: 1924), 53-71. Because of Arian controversy, Athanasius spent seventeen of his forty-five years as bishop in five different exiles.31 This situation happened, probably â€Å"because his Defence against the Arians gave so full an account.†32 Athanasius was likened to â€Å"a modern gangster,† â€Å"an unscrupulous politician,†33 because of â€Å"his oppressive and violent authoritative nature.†34 However he had never been formally charged with heresy,35 and some mentioned that he was the pillar of the church;†36 And the Roman Church hailed him among the four great Fathers of the East.37 III.2. ATHANASIUS THEOLOGY Alexander and his successor Athanasius laid emphasis on Origens insistence on the Sons eternal divinity related to the existence of God as Father rather than creator, which had led to the Nicene doctrine of the identity of substance (ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ±). Athanasius prioritized faith over reason, contrary to Arians rationalistic tendency.38 Athanasius theological approach was centred on Soteriology.39 He was committed to monotheism.40 But Arius account of God was incoherent since on one interpretation it was similar to the radical Judaic monotheism, and the other interpretation of it (one that emphasized â€Å"the Son is god in some secondary sense†) was equivalent to a kind of polytheism ― two gods, namely one God who is ingenerate and 31 Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, . Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. ‘St. Athanasius (ca. 297 373), Patriarch of Alexandria in Christian Classic Ethereal Library. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/atha nasius (18 March, 2011). See also, Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 20. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 239-273, 422. Cf. David M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Controversy (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 2. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 6. John Behr, The Nicene Faith Part 1, 167. Cf. Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, (6 vols; trans. Neil Buchanan; New York: Dover Publications,1961, Vol. 4), 62. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma4.ii.ii.i.i.iii.html (25 April 2011). Gregory of Nazianzus, The Orations 21, 26. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. The four great Fathers of the Eastern Church ― John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius of Alexandria ― were recognized in 1568 by Pope St. Pius V. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 20. ‘Church Fathers in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Church (6 April 2011). Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia mihi tradita sunt, 6. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 423. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 425. one who is generated. This resulted in two incongruous accusations against the Arians that they were no better than Jews and that they were identical with pagans. 41 Unlike the Arians, who needed the Son as a lower god to reconcile an incomparable and impassable God with the Scriptural message that God suffered for humankinds salvation, Athanasius dealt with the self-revelation of God who had come into the closest contact with His creation (Jn 14:9).42 Athanasius endeavoured to substantiate â€Å"the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.† Athanasius maintained, â€Å"I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it.† The tradition was that the one God is a Triad.43 Trinity At the heart of Athanasiuss theology of Incarnation lay his doctrine of Trinity,44 summed up as follows: There is a Trinity, holy and complete, consistent, eternal and indivisible in nature, not composed of one that creates and one that originated, but all creative, called to be God in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father does all things â€Å"through the Word (the Son) in the Holy Spirit†. Their activity is one, and their unity is preserved. The Trinity is Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos III.67, I.17, 18, III.16. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424-425. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 426. Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 28-33. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66. Brian LePort, An Introduction to the Letters of Serapion on the Holy Spirit by Athanasius of Alexandria, 18. http://westernseminary.academia.edu/BrianLePort/Papers/172851/An_Introduction_to_the_Letters_of_Serapi on_on_the_Holy_Spirit_by_Athanasius_of_Alexandria. (21 April 2011). Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos III.15; Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 402. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_402.html (20 April 2011). R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424-425. â€Å"not only in name and form of speech but in truth and actuality.† Thus one God, â€Å"who is overall (Eph. 4:6), and through all and in all.†45 Athanasius constantly defended the ontological unity of the Father and the Son through his Scriptural argument. He proved the divinity of Christ and of Holy Spirit,46 because â€Å"if we participate in Christ, we must then participate in God, if our redemption is to be assured.† 47 Athanasius refuted Arius claims that the Son was a creature and had come into being from ‘non-existence, and that â€Å"there was a time when He was not.† Athanasius argued that there can be only one Son ― the eternal Word and Wisdom of the substance of God the Father, and that the Word is always coexistent with the Father, who is the creator and Lord of all, to whom all things owed their existence.48 Athanasius rejected the Arian position that the very name ‘Son presumes His being generated, and that the Son (th e Word) is a work of the will of God for the creation of the world. Athanasius argued that to be begotten implies to be â€Å"an offspring of the Fathers essence, not of His will,† since â€Å"begetting in God differs from human begetting† because of Gods indivisibility. Because the Son is in the Father and proper to Him, as the radiance in the light and stream from fountain, Athanasius asserted that the Sons eternal relation to the Father is essential Italic words are mine. Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 2, 12, 14, 16, 19-20, 25, 27, 31; III, 15. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos II.24, 25. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 66-67. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 427. Athanasius, De incarnation et contra Arianos, 13-19. Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 422. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 29. Kurt Aland, A History of Christianity: From the Beginnings to the Threshold of the Reformation (Trans. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980, Vol. 1), 191. Athanasius, Vita antonii, 69. Athanasius, Depositio Arii, 2, 3. Athanasius, Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi, 11. Athanasius, â€Å"On Luke X.22 (Matt. XI.27)† in In Illud ‘Omnia mihi tradita sunt, 4. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, III.4; Cf. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 214. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_214.html (15 April 2011). Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 70. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_70.html (15 April 2011). Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 89. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_89.html (18 April 2011). Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. and not merely moral as Arius viewed.49 Also, Athanasius refuted the Docetic views of the Arians and Apollonarians on the relationship of the historical Christ to the eternal Son. 50 Arius maintained, based on Proverbs 8:22ff, that the Sons mediatory ontological status between God and creation was necessary, because â€Å"the Father was too high and mighty, or too proud to carry out the work of creation himself,† and â€Å"therefore begot the Son† as â€Å"the minister of the intentions of the Father.†51 However, Athanasius argued that the terms applied to the Incarnate and not the pre-existent Christ; Thus, Athanasius implied that the mediating activity of the Son is not in his position within the Godhead, but in his becoming Incarnate. So, Athanasius placed the Son (Logos) on the side of God, opposite Arius placement of the Son on the side of the creatures.52 Athanasius insisted that â€Å"the Son has in common with the Father the fullness of the Fathers Godhead† and â€Å"the Son is entirely God.†53 Against Arius subordination of the Son, Athanasius argued that if the Son says, â€Å"The Father is greater than I,† He means that, â€Å"The Father is the origin, the Son the derivation.†54 â€Å"Eternally begotten, the Son is the Fathers substance, He is consubstantial to the Father, He is ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š.†55 Athanasius also rejected the term ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š as unacceptable. So, Athanasius defended the term ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š against the Arians and Semi-Arians.56 Consequently, Athanasius disapproved what the Arians claim ― a ‘proceeding origin for the Father and the Son.57 Athanasius, Epistula ad Afros episcopos, 3-6. Cf. J ohannes Quasten, Pathology, 56, 67-68. Athanasius, Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi, 9. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 59. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos II.24-25. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 101. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, II.25; I.16; III.3, 6; II.41; III.3,4. Athanasius, Epistula ad Afros episcopos, 3-6. Cf. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318381, 424. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 67. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos I.16; III.6. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 68. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos III, 3; Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. Athanasius, De Synodis 41. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69. Athanasius, De Synodis 41. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 69-70. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God, 434. Logos and Redemption Athanasius theology of the Logos centred upon the concept of redemption.58 For Athanasius, the redeeming will of God necessitated the incarnation of Christ and his death. If God Himself had not become man, and if Christ were not God, there would not have been redemption for mankind.59 This can only required that Christ was God by nature, not by participation, because the latter could never have formed the likeness of God in anyone. Thus, Athanasius refuted the Arian concept of the Son as god by participation.60 Christology Athanasius theology upheld the real distinction between the divinity and humanity after the Incarnation, yet emphasized the personal unity of Christ. Consequently, whatever the Lord did as God and as human being belongs to the same person.61 Athanasius refuted the Arian charge of creature-worship directed against the Nicene Christology with the argument, that Catholics do not worship the humanity of Christ, but the Lord of creation, the Word Incarnate.62 Holy Spirit By maintaining that the Spirit â€Å"is no creature, but is one with the Son as the Son is one with the Father, [the Spirit] is glorified with the Father and the Son, and confessed as God with the Word,† Athanasius rejected the idea of the Holy Spirit being one of the Athanasius, De incarnatione et contra Arianos, 9, 54. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 70-71. Athanasius, De incarnatione et contra Arianos, 8. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 71. Athanasius, De Synodis 51. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 71-72. Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 9. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology,72. Athanasius, Epistula ad Adelphium et confessorem, 3. Athanasius, â€Å"Letter LX. ― To Adelphius, Bishop and Confessor: against the Arians† in NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 575. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_575.html (20 April 2011). Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, ministering spiritual creatures, and insisted the Godhead of the Holy Spirit according t o the Nicene Creed.63 Athanasius defended the non-scriptural Nicene term ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š (consubstantial) and ÃŽ º Ï„Ï‚ ÃŽ ¿ÃÆ'ÃŽ ±Ãâ€š (of the essence). He claimed that these terms were to be found in the Scripture, and they had already been used by the Church Fathers, including Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria and Theognostus.64 Against the claims of the heretic Arians and Tropicists, Athanasius gave the reasons for adopting the word ÏÅ'ÃŽ ¼ÃŽ ¿ÃŽ ¿Ã ÃÆ'ÃŽ ¹ÃŽ ¿Ãâ€š (consubstantial) for both the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father, and proved that the Nicaeas Trinitarian formula was in accordance with Scripture.65 Athanasius accused the Arians of teaching that God was not always a Trinity since the Son has not always existed, and also of dividing the Trinity because they attributed different natures to the Father and the Son.66 Arianism attacks the very nature of Christianity because it denotes â€Å"a God who was not a true God at all†, who was â€Å"in no position to communicate salvation† to humans, and therefore â€Å"incapable for redeeming mankind†.67 The Arian doctrine, which formed a canon Athanasius, Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum, I, 1, 15-21, 27, 31; III.1. Athanasius, Oratinones contra Arianos II, 25, 26, 73, 74. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 56, 67. For a discussion of Athanasiuss use of homoousious of the Spirit, see Kilian McDonald, The other hand of God: the Holy Spirit as the Universal Touch and Goal (Collegeville, Minnesota, USA: Liturgical Press, 2003), 18, 74, 126. Athanasius, Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi, 18. Athanasius, NPNG2-04. Athanasius: Select Work and Letters, 163. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/Page_163.html (20 April 2011). Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 61. Epistula de decretis Nicaenae synodi (Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea) was written about 350/351 and addressed by Athanasius to one of his friends, to whom the Arian claim had caused confusion. Whereas and Epistulae IV ad Serapionem episcopum Thmuitanum (the four letters concerning the Holy Spirit) was written by Athanasius around 359/360 and addressed to Serapion to refute the heretic tropicists, who opposed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 57, 61. Kilian McDonald, The other hand of God: the Holy Spirit as the Universal Touch and Goal, 18. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381, 424. Athanasius, De synodis 51. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 8. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 7. of scriptural misinterpretation, was a slander against the Fathers. 68 The worship which the Arians offered to God was a blasphemous idolatry. 69 Athanasius defended the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, successfully explained the nature and generation of the Logos, built the ground of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrine of the Church, and thus established the theological foundation for centuries to come.70 Athanasius Christological weakness In his Christology, Athanasius did not assign any important role to the human soul of Christ. In fact, When the Arians objected the divinity of Christ by referring to the Scriptural passages which mention the inner suffering, fear and affliction of the Logos, Athanasius never made use the opportunity and never attacked the Arians in this error, because it dealt with the human soul of Christ. 71 Christs death is to Athanasius is a separation of Logos and body.72 Athanasius theology was based on Logos-Sarx theology. In relation to Orationes contra Arianos (III.35-37) its weakness was revealed when Athanasius could not comment to the Arians in: (1) the connecting link between the Logos and his flesh; (2) the existence of a human soul in Christ.73 Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 1. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Arianism through the centuries, 8. Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos I.8, II.43, III.16. Athanasius, Ad Episcopos Aegypti 13. Cf. Maurice F. Wiles, Archetypal heresy: Ari What are the impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity? What are the impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity? Thesis: the greatest impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity are the possible invasion of escapees, the degradation of the environment, particularly through eutrophication, and the greater risk of harm caused to a wild population. LINK TO IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY (EFFECT) AQUACULTURE (CAUSE) Intro Aquaculture can be thought of as a practice that it similar to farming. It involves the cultivation of aquatic dwelling organisms either on land, in a tank system or artificial pond (offshore), or in a naturally occurring waterbody using nets or cages to contain the farmed organisms (Lee and Yoo 2014; Rabasso and Hernandez 2015). Aquaculture as an industry has grown significantly in the past few decades, growing to meet the demanding needs of the human food supply network (Diaz-Almela et al. 2008; Borja et al. 2009; Rabasso and Hernandez 2015), as it is an important natural resource (Ormerod 2003). This increase in captive cultivation has slowed the unsustainable practice of mass catching wild stocks as a supply (Santos et al. 2015; Frazer 2009). Aquaculture exists as one of the fastest growing industries in the world today (Naylor et al. 2001), and this growth is projected to increase ever further (Froehlic et al. 2017). Despite this, many of these cultured organisms can have a nega tive impact on the environment that they inhabit (Fleming et al. 1996; Boyd 2003), in part because of its proximity with the natural environment (Abdou et al. 2017). Aquaculture has the ability to greatly impact biodiversity as well if not carefully managed. These impacts on biodiversity can resonate through multiple trophic levels, and can completely change the natural environment. The greatest impacts of aquaculture on biodiversity are the possible invasion of escapees, the degradation of the environment, particularly through eutrophication, and the greater risk of harm caused to a wild population. Through these modes of disruption, aquaculture has the ability to drastically alter the present biodiversity if not managed appropriately. #1: the possible invasion of escapees The possibility of escaped organisms invading a habitat, and pushing out a native species is quite high when aquaculture is in or near existing waterbodies. A wide variety of organisms are farmed in the world (Naylor et al. 2001). From this, Aquaculture has led to the introduction of many invasive species into the ecosystem, and poor practices may cause invasion occurrences to happen more often (Naylor et al. 2001). The escape of cultured organisms can threaten both the habitats and gene pool of wild populations, causing them, and the surrounding biodiversity to change drastically (Fleming et al. 1996). The organisms that are either intentionally, or unintentionally released are able to reproduce in their new habitat rather successfully (Fleming et al. 1996; Volpe 2000). Many escapes such as salmon, are able to out compete, and out number the wild populations, thus threatening their survival (Fleming et al. 1996). Their invasion may lead to a change in ecosystem dynamics, effectively impacting the natural biodiversity that would otherwise be present. #2: the degradation of the environment, particularly through eutrophication The degradation of the natural environment is just one of the many drawbacks that Aquaculture presents. As a result of the exponential growth of the industry, the sustainability and environmental impact of Aquaculture is often scrutinized (Rabasso and Hernandez 2015) for the elevated levels of greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient pollution, water use, and land use that has followed (Gephart et al. 2016). There are many detrimental practices to Aquaculture such as: water pollution from pond discharge, the excessive use of antibiotics to combat disease, Salinization of land from pond leeching, and the mass consumption of freshwater for farming purposes (Boyd 2003). Many of these practices degrade the environment, and threaten biodiversity in such a way that is irreversible. Aquaculture, and in particular fish farms, are an increasing cause of anthropogenic disturbance [in] benthic communities, (Diaz-Almela et al. 2008). Often when farmed within an natural waterbody, fish cages and nets s ee the release of large quantities of organic waste matter that are spread by water-flow and may lead to biochemical changes, and cause the deoxygenation of the aquatic environment, further impacting benthic communities (Zhang and Kitazawa 2016; Diaz-Almela et al. 2008; OCarroll et al. 2016). In the aquaculture industry, fish farming can promote an increased rate of eutrophication which can severely damage coastal ecosystems (Yu et al. 2016) through the addition of elements such as Nitrogen and Phosphorous (Penczak et al. 1982). The damage caused by eutrophication can lead to a disturbance like effect, which can in turn, cause a significant decrease in the biodiversity of that area (Abdou et al. 2017), further degrading the environment. In an attempt to combat the damage caused when farming within a natural ecosystem, many countries of the European Union (including Canada, the United States, and Australia) are beginning to establish offshore farming with the hope for improved sustainability (Froehlic et al. 2017). Social Learning Theory: Outline and Evaluate Social Learning Theory: Outline and Evaluate Ellie Thomas Criminology Outline what is meant by the term identification in relation to the social learning theory approach. [2 marks] Identification is a psychological process whereby someone identifies with something from another person, typically a model of theirs, and then uses this in order to change their personality. For example, a little boy may identify with his older brother because they are both male, and so when he sees him stealing from a shop, he copies. Explain one limitation of the social learning theory approach. [3 marks] This approach is less determinist than the behaviourist approach. Reciprocal determination, introduced by Bandura, is the idea that we are not just influenced by environmental factors, however but merely influences and directs us to behave a certain way. This suggests that we have a sense of free will in our behaviour, and doesnt just stick to one theory as to why we behave the way that we do. Outline and evaluate the social learning theory approach. Refer to the behaviourist approach as part of your evaluation. Even though the social learning theory (SLT) does agree with the behaviourist theory that most of our behaviour is learned through experience Bandura also propose the idea that people can learn through different way, e.g. observation and imitation. Learning does occur through classical and operant conditioning; however, we can also learn indirectly through watching others and learning from mistakes. Another word for this is vicarious reinforcement; learning through observing and imitating; indirectly. An individual observes the behaviour of someone and if the behaviour is received positively, they would learn that they can do that, and if it is received negatively, they will know to never do it. So, if someone is punished we learn not to copy the behaviour, and if someone is rewarded we know that we should or could repeat that behaviour! A huge idea throughout the SLT approach is the role of mediational processes. This is the concept that mental processes effect our behaviour. These mental factors, or mediational processes, created by Bandura, are: attention the extent to which we notice certain behaviours; retention how well the behaviour is remembered; motor reproduction the ability to perform the behaviour; and motivation the will to perform the behaviour. Identification is also a key concept in SLT. This is when people are more likely to imitate the behaviour of people we identify with. These are known as models. We can find models in people we find attractive, family, friends, and peers, and people of high status. If we see our model behaving in a certain way, we are more lily to copy it (imitate it). One strength of the social learning theory is that it is less determinist than the behaviourist approach. Reciprocal determination, introduced by Bandura, is the idea that we are not just influenced by environmental factors, however but merely influences and directs us to behave a certain way. This suggests that we have a sense of free will in our behaviour, and doesnt just stick to one theory as to why we behave the way that we do. Another strength of this approach is that it explains cultural differences in behaviour. This theory can explain how people living in Nigeria behave differently to people living in England, for example, because it says our behaviour is through learning from those around us and the societies in which we live. This has been a useful concept in understanding why children from different countries act differently, for example how they come to understand their gender role. A final strength of the social learning theory approach is that it shows the importance of cognitive factors in learning. Conditioning alone, whether it operant, classical, or both, cannot provide a good enough explanation for behaviour. Humans and animals alike learn and remember behaviours which they should do. For example, from a young child children learn from their older siblings mistakes and therefore avoid doing that punished behaviour. Bandura observed a similar thing with his bobo doll, as when children were shown an adult hitting a bobo doll and getting away with it, they repeated the behaviour, however when they saw an adult getting in trouble for it, they didnt. Therefore, this is a strength because it provides a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of behaviour. However, a weakness of the SLT approach is that it over-relies on evidence from lab studies. Many of the ideas that Bandura developed were all tested through lab studies, and not real life situations. Studies done in labs can often not be a true reflection of what the researcher is investigating because of this. For example, the children in Banduras bobo doll experiment may have understood that as they were not in a real-life situation being shown a video of an aggressive adult, for example they were supposed to copy the behaviours of the adult or they may have acted the way they thought they were supposed to. Therefore, the research may tell us little about how the children truly would have behaved. A final evaluation point of this approach is the weakness that the SLT underestimates the influence of biological factors. Little reference to biological factors are mentioned by Bandura in this approach. However, we can see from his studies that biology does take a toll. For example, boys were found to be more aggressive towards the bobo doll, however we know that testosterone is a hormone found naturally in males, that makes them more aggressive by nature. Therefore, we cannot put down their behaviour entirely to learning, as biology must play a role in it.