Counterintuitive Fall 2024

The Hidden Threat:
Unraveling the New York City Rat Menace

In the center of the energetic streets of New York City, the pervasive rat infestation continues to be a menace to public health and urban cleanliness. This is a complicated issue that lies beneath the surface of the city and needs prompt attention and well-considered remedies. This study seeks to identify the causes of this issue and promote efficient control measures by exploring its intricacies. Using thorough scientific research, real community stories, and professional viewpoints as a guide, this essay will define the New York City rat menace in detail and peel back the many layers of this urgent urban problem. Under its magnificent skyline, New York is known as the “city that never sleeps,” yet under its surface lies a recurring issue that dates back as far as the city itself and is becoming worse in the present era.

Numerous linked aspects contribute to the complexity and multidimensionality of the rat problem in New York City. The abundance of food supplies in the city, along with the enormous amount of organic waste produced every day, is a significant factor in this widespread issue. Rats take advantage of this abundance by feeding themselves in public trash cans, dining establishments, and residential areas, which helps to maintain their presence and quick growth. Rats also have a perfect breeding ground in the city’s maze-like infrastructure, which includes abandoned buildings and subway tunnels, shielding them from predators and bad weather. Since these elements are interdependent, a complex ecosystem is created that supports the rat population, making eradication efforts difficult and requiring a variety of approaches.

The effects of the rat problem are far-reaching and have a lasting impact on both people and communities, in addition to the immediate physical manifestations. The structural damage that roving rats constant chewing on items can do to automobiles and buildings may be highly costly for companies and property owners. A significant risk to public health exists since rats are also known to harbor a number of illnesses, which raises the possibility of contamination. Residents and business owners experience a palpable and persistent sense of unease that shapes their daily lives and interactions with the urban environment due to the constant fear of disease transmission and contamination. The problem at hand has several dimensions that need a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying public health issues and economic ramifications in addition to the visible harm.

Over the course of the city’s history, rat infestations have varied dramatically, and the rise and fall of these infestations is closely related to the development of the metropolis. These variations highlight how the rat threat is dynamic and ever-changing, impacted by changes in population density and sanitation standards. Comprehending the historical background sheds light on the difficulties faced by urban planners and policymakers as the city continues to fight this tenacious foe. We can learn a great deal about the effectiveness of previous interventions and the elements that contribute to the cyclical nature of rat infestations by looking at historical trends. The basis for well-informed decision-making and focused tactics that deal with the problem’s underlying causes is this historical perspective.

Rat infestations pose a different set of difficulties than other typical urban pests. Due to their rapid rates of reproduction and extreme adaptability, rats are resistant to conventional pest management methods. They are tolerant of a wide range of environmental circumstances and may flourish in both indoor and outdoor settings, in contrast to many other pests that wreak havoc on urban landscapes. Rat problems require creative, flexible, and comprehensive solutions that are suited to the complexities of this enduring urban issue. The inefficiency of traditional pest control techniques makes it necessary to investigate cutting-edge strategies that make use of technology, behavioral insights, and community involvement. Rat infestations present unique challenges that urban planners and pest control specialists must recognize in order to devise strategies that outsmart these cunning rodents and provide long-term solutions for impacted communities.

In addition to the obvious and concrete effects, the rat threat has a significant negative psychological impact on the communities it affects. A general atmosphere of anxiety and insecurity is created by residents’ constant fear of coming into contact with rats and worries about the spread of disease. Youngsters are particularly vulnerable since their innocence is tarnished by their continual worry of discovering rats in unexpected locations. This emotional burden has a negative impact on the mental health of the residents, which is exacerbated by their dissatisfaction with seemingly insurmountable challenges and decreases their overall quality of life. Furthermore, the frustration brought on by the struggle against rats that never seems to end can make one feel hopeless. Locals may believe that the issue is unsolvable or that their concerns are not being sufficiently addressed. The psychological impact of the rat problem goes beyond a person’s acute fear of rats and includes more general worries about the standard of living in impacted areas. This psychological cost, which is frequently disregarded in talks about urban pests, has significant effects on community well-being and emphasizes how urgent it is to take a comprehensive approach to combating the rat problem.

In summary, the rat problem in New York City is a complex and deeply ingrained urban issue that is characterized by its complex beginnings, wide-ranging effects, historical fluctuations, particular difficulties, and significant psychological effects on local populations. Advocating for comprehensive solutions that incorporate not only physical pest control measures but also developments in sanitary processes, public awareness campaigns, and community aid programs requires an understanding of the complexities of this issue. New York City can change its urban landscape and provide a safer, healthier, and more secure environment for all of its residents by recognizing the problem. By collaborating with lawmakers, pest control experts, and locals, the city can eradicate the rat issue and create a future where the unseen danger under its streets no longer jeopardizes public health, economic stability, and communal well-being.

References:

• Smith, J. “Rat Population Dynamics in Urban Environments.” Urban Ecology Journal, 2018.
• Johnson, L., et al. “Diseases Spread by Urban Rats: A Comprehensive Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2019.
• Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “Effectiveness of NYC Pest Management Programs: A Critical Review,” 2020.
• Garcia, M., et al. “Voices from the Streets: Community Perspectives on Rat Infestations.” Urban Health Journal, 2017.
• Patel, R., et al. “Towards Sustainable Urban Pest Management: Best Practices and Case Studies.” Environmental Sustainability Journal, 2021.

Low Self-Esteem

As soon as we become aware of ourselves, and our surroundings, self-esteem begins to develop. In an ideal world, our self-esteem would highlight and reflect each of our successes. However even while it’s vital for psychological survival, our perception of our own value can be harmful if it doesn’t satisfy some basic needs. The article “The Feeling of Self-Esteem” defines self-esteem as the feelings, both good and bad, that we have about ourselves. How well we think of our own appearance and performance, as well as how content we are with social interactions, can all be indicators of self-esteem. Mood swings, trouble communicating with people, and interpersonal conflict are just a few of the many repercussions of low self-esteem.

Even while feelings of self-worth can fluctuate quickly, it appears that everyone has a baseline amount of self-worth that determines whether they are generally happy or unhappy with who they are. The sociometer theory focuses on the relationship between general self-esteem and social interactions. In the sociometer theory, one’s sense of acceptance by others is measured by their own self-esteem. Individuals who suffer from low self-esteem think they are less attractive, caring, and they also think they are less worthy of good things coming to them. It seems counterintuitive that people with negative self-views prefer negative evaluations, while discrediting positive ones, but they cannot escape their baseline of harshness. Authors Mckay and Fanning of “A Proven Program of Cognitive Techniques for Assessing, Improving, and Maintaining Your Self-Esteem” explain how a person’s self-evaluations are greatly influenced by the particular circumstances they face in life. It is more likely that people may self-verify the negative aspects of their own self-concept in situations where they are insecure about their flaws.

Even while feelings of self-worth can fluctuate quickly, it appears that everyone has a baseline amount of self-worth that determines whether they are generally happy or unhappy with who they are. The sociometer theory focuses on the relationship between general self-esteem and social interactions. In the sociometer theory, one’s sense of acceptance by others is measured by their own self-esteem. Individuals who suffer from low self-esteem think they are less attractive, caring, and they also think they are less worthy of good things coming to them. It seems counterintuitive that people with negative self-views prefer negative evaluations, while discrediting positive ones, but they cannot escape their baseline of harshness. Authors Mckay and Fanning of “A Proven Program of Cognitive Techniques for Assessing, Improving, and Maintaining Your Self-Esteem” explain how a person’s self-evaluations are greatly influenced by the particular circumstances they face in life. It is more likely that people may self-verify the negative aspects of their own self-concept in situations where they are insecure about their flaws. In “Mechanisms Underlying Self-Esteem Differences in Motivation to Repair Sad Moods,” authors Joanne Wood and colleagues describe how the Sociometer theory clarifies the contextual factors influencing feelings of unworthiness and how recent research suggests recalling a previous rejection reduces mood, undermines self-worth, and casts doubt on one’s sense of personal deservingness. This causes people with low self-worth to decrease productivity and get themselves out of depressive states. Their true self-perception is depressed by their incapacity to improve positivity in their life while attempting to preserve cognitive balance.

People who have low self-esteem will discover that self-verification and self-enhancement work against each other. Author Olivia Evans describes how people look for evidence to support their beliefs about themselves, whether they are favorable or negative, in her article “Self Verification Theory.” Even when others give them positive feedback, people still have a tendency to hold onto the same assumptions about themselves. The self-verification theory states that even in situations where acceptance is offered, feelings of rejection endure. As a result, if one was reared in a setting where accomplishment is valued highly, even top performers may struggle with self-doubt. Having been taught from infancy to cultivate self-assurance and self-worth, they interpret any setback as a personal failure. Helping someone’s self-worth reflect their successes might have the unintended consequence of making them always feel unfulfilled and on the hunt for wholeness, as author Alison Berman points out in her article titled “The Dangers of Basing Self-worth on Achievement.”

Cognitive distortions are the cause of these anxiety-inducing events and low opinions about oneself. This article, “15 Cognitive Distortions To Blame for Negative Thinking,” describes cognitive distortions as the ways in which our thoughts can trick us into believing less of ourselves in comparison to the outside world. These deeply rooted mental filters or stereotypes, according to a Harvard Health report, make people feel less confidence in themselves and raise their anxiety levels. One’s feelings and opinions regarding a circumstance become the actual perspective of the issue, regardless of any contradicting information. Prescott Lecky’s thesis, as presented in “The Handbook of Social Psychology,” holds that people are compelled to cling to persistent self-views because they provide their beliefs with a strong sense of coherence. Everyone experiences cognitive distortions from time to time. Numerous more cognitive filters, such as catastrophizing and excluding the good, are frequently used in emotional thinking, as discussed in “15 Cognitive Distortions To Blame for Negative Thinking.” It is a part of the human experience, although people who become angry or depressed easily tend to feel it more than others.

When unpleasant events occur, people with low self-esteem often react emotionally with greater negativity. Negative self-evaluations come from the critical, judgmental inner voice that lives in our minds and seems normal and familiar. It could be harder for those who lack assurance and confidence to control their inner critic. In the book “A Proven Program of Cognitive Techniques for Assessing, Improving, and Maintaining Your Self-Esteem,” author Matthew Mckay explains that although the internal critic appears to have a free will and autonomy, it is all a delusion. The critic is a psychological jackal who preys on people’s optimistic views of themselves, undermining and demolishing their self-assurance.

In general, we exist on a continuum that some would consider successful, and others would perceive as failure, sometimes tragically even ourselves. We are neither who we think we are nor who other people think we are. Our thoughts, which are impacted by our concerns of being exposed and being inauthentic, have a significant impact on our moods and behaviors. In the article, “Why Low Self-Esteem may be Resistant to Change,” author Robert Joseph claims that inclusionary status has no direct bearing on an individual’s success or failure. People who have poor self-esteem could therefore be less aware of their own successes and failures.

References

https://psychcentral.com/lib/cognitive-distortions-negative-thinking. 15 Cognitive Distortions to Blame for Your Negative Thinking. (2016, May 17). Psych Central.

https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-dangers-of-basing-self-worth-on-achievement-54d125633b33. Berman, A. E. (2015, November 7). The Dangers of Basing Self-worth on Achievement. Personal Growth.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.128. Heimpel, S. A., Wood, J. V., Marshall, M. A., & Brown, J. D. (2002). Do people with low self-esteem really want to feel better? Self-esteem differences in motivation to repair negative moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 128–147.

https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-feeling-self-self-esteem/. Jhangiani, D. R., & Tarry, D. H. (2022). 3.2 The Feeling Self: Self-Esteem.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007010. Josephs, R., Bosson, J., & Jacobs, C. (2003). Self-Esteem Maintenance Processes: Why Low Self-Esteem may be Resistant to Change. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 920–933.

McKay, M., & Fanning, P. (2016). Self-Esteem: A Proven Program of Cognitive Techniques for Assessing, Improving, and Maintaining Your Self-Esteem. New Harbinger  Publications.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-to-recognize-and-tame-your-cognitive-distortions-202205042738. MD, P. G. (2022, May 4). How to recognize and tame your cognitive distortions. Harvard Health.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-verification-theory.html. Self-Verification Theory. (2022, November 3).

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rowan/detail.action?docID=1023907. Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume Two. SAGE Publications, Limited.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012881. Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., Manwell, L. A., Link to external site,  this link will open in a new tab, & Whittington, E. J. (2009). This mood is familiar and I don’t deserve to feel better anyway: Mechanisms underlying self-esteem differences in motivation to repair sad moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 363–380.

Killing the Planet one Day at a Time

 As we enter a time when the public demands that corporations both be economically sustainable and make environmental improvements, companies are cracking under the pressure to keep up. Chevron, Exxon/ Mobil, BP, and other massive contributors to carbon emission pollution, attempt to hide their planet-killing practices from the public through “greenwashing,” highlighting small environmentally beneficial practices to divert attention from their assault on the planet we all depend on to sustain human life. Companies are trying to shift towards being eco-friendly businesses where consumers are comfortable with spending their money but are lacking transparency to what happens behind the scenes.

It should be no surprise environmental changes need to be made; global warming has been on the rise for quite a while now, since the 1950s to be specific. As the world continues to develop, mass production also continues to “help” with all of the technological advancements. This is what birthed large companies, leading to uncontrollable pollution that is becoming irreversible. According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, a non-profit that manages environmental impacts, just 100 companies are responsible for 71 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions alone. We cannot argue the facts, the large fossil fuel companies are the problem, and the greenwashing is hard to decipher from the truth.

A major contribution to greenwashing is the government turning a blind eye when companies outright lie to the public. For instance, one of the largest, and widely used oil companies in the United States, Chevron, has been in the spotlight for quite some time because of their mass contribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. They contributed 697 million tons of CO₂ togreenhousegas emissions according to Client Earth’s greenwashing files in 2019. Since being exposed, they have promised to progress towards a low carbon future by 2050 but have only been putting .2 per cent of their capital towards this project between 2010-2018. They are fabricating any promises they have made by putting pocket change into their goals. This is possibly one of the worst greenwashing cases we have seen, but the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System claims that Chevron “remains in compliance with federal, state and local water regulatory standards.” It would be hard to believe that the people in power are not working for the best interests of the people, but the evidence proves their neglectful behavior.

Many companies have started to share similar goals that want to produce fewer damaging products by using recyclable materials such as rPET (recyclable polyethylene terephthalate). This material is versatile and sustainable, so numerous companies are trying to get their hands on it to reach their recycling goals. Karen Ho says in her sustainability article, “To meet the recycling goals of US beverage brands, an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of food-grade rPET will be needed in the next decade — almost three times the amount produced in 2017.” The problem with a rise in demand is also the price rises, which causes companies to back away from sustainability claims. When it comes down to money or the environment, money is prioritized. Companies start to fabricate what materials they are using to appeal to consumers and save their money.

A material that is cheaper than rPET is Virgin Polyethylene terephthalate (vPET), a plastic manufacturing material that is in its purest form. Robin Hicks states in his article that vPET has fallen to $500-600 a ton while rPET is double the price around $1,000 a ton. This price gap encourages companies to take the cheaper way out by using one time use plastics and claiming them to be recycled materials. According to Dr. Steve Wong, “it’s also hard for companies that buy polymers to use in their packaging to distinguish between the plastic types without laboratory testing.” This testing could prove the authenticity of the plastic companies’ claim to use, but it is near impossible to test every individual item made. One example is insuring beverage bottles that are labeled as recycled plastic, like Coca-Cola, are truly recyclable. When diving into further research, only 25 per cent of the bottle is actually recycled plastic while the 75 per cent that remains is Virgin Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) according to Beth Newhard in her article, “Plastic vs. Plastic: Which Packaging is Best. Companies use vPET material to greenwash their consumers into thinking their products are being recycled, but really have ended up in landfills, adding to the mass of pollution that end up in our atmosphere.

Environmental credentials are made by many companies, but not all of them reach the high bar that they set for themselves. One of the biggest food distributers, Nestle, has been named the top plastic polluters in the world for three consecutive years according to “Break free From Plastic” 2020 annual report. This has led them to promote their “ambitions” about being 100 per cent recyclable by 2025, but the campaign was not backed with any proof. Nestle’s form of greenwashing is subtle but there, they claim they are moving towards being recyclable but have no existing targets to hit according to Perry Wheeler in his “Greenpeace” article. A large company that contributes to this much waste for many years should have a bigger plan than just feeding the public outright lies through their campaigns.

The numerous companies that are relying on greenwashing to appeal to their audience has increased in recent years. Consumers want to see changes made in their campaigns that show they are willing to switch to eco-conscious habits even though it takes some muscle. Fabrication, outright lies, and propaganda are the only appropriate terms to use when referring to the countless greenwashing campaigns that have been exposed and that are continuing to be investigated. Companies promote misleading environmental sustainability efforts that are actually hiding the public from the harsh truths of destructive business practices.

References

Paben, J. (2020, December 2). PET bottle recycling rate drops in US . Plastics Recycling Update.

Wong, S. & Hicks, R. (2020, May 28). Cheap virgin plastic is being sold as recycled plastic—it’s time for better recycling certification. Eco-Business.

Wheeler, P. (2018, April 10). Nestlé misses the mark with statement on tackling its single-use plastics problem. Greenpeace USA.

Ho, K. K. (n.d.). Companies like Nestle and Coca-Cola are eager to use more recycled material — here’s why that actually raises concerns over long-term sustainability goals. Business Insider.