Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle, which states “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” should be considered when discussing all of our environmental regulations (CEPA Environmental Registry, 2007). This isn’t to say that all chemicals and substances require a thorough assessment; rather that chemicals and substances that have the potential to harm human health or the health of the environment should be evaluated. Many companies research only the aspects of their product that they want to promote, thus ignoring significant effects that it may have under other circumstances. Only so much research can be completed before funds and time run out. But this doesn’t mean that caution shouldn’t be used once the product leaves the trial run stages.
Should there be any negative consequences to applying the precautionary principle, major companies will initially be the ones to show any adverse effects. In order to make the effort of preventing a major crisis, time, effort, and funds are required for proper planning and assessment of products and services. Major companies depend on the success of their products, which then provide many jobs and benefits to the public. By applying this principle, it may take a lot longer to get the product or service onto the market, thus decreasing the amount of profit coming in. However, if this principle is not considered, then the negative effects will be felt by the public. If this was the case, then a clean-up would be in order, which in many cases costs the company and the government more time and effort then the research that could have been done in the first place.
The Media in a Critical Light
The media is responsible for presenting the current issues that members in society are debating. How seriously the viewer or reader may take the presented information depends on the source it came from. There are two main forms of media, print and non-print. Printed material can further be divided into investigative journalism and columns. All these forms vary in their amount of credibility.
Non-print media, or what people see on news stations or hear on the radio, often presents a story summarized into a thirty second event with the hope of getting a certain reaction. Therefore, the accuracy, precision, breadth, and depth of the information does not exist. At the time it may seem relevant and even logical, but upon further consideration it will show contradictions and a lack of information. The purpose is often to get a reaction from the public, not to present the story. In this fashion, the telling of what happened during this event would have many holes in the plot, for details are often omitted for the sake of getting the headline told more quickly. This is not said to prevent people from watching news channels, but rather to remind them to keep an open mind.
Columns in newspapers share many similarities with the broadcast perspective. Columnists are presenting one take on the event, concentrating on the details that he or she deem important. As a result, clarity is provided because the columnist will make sure that the public understands why this perspective is the right view. Therefore precision, or detail, and support relevant to that view will be provided. However, in terms of breadth and depth of an argument, this is where the article will lack. A perspective must show both views so that a person can establish his or her own opinion. Accuracy of information is most clearly seen when both views with supporting evidence are written side-by-side. However, columns can be credited for sticking to the purpose of making the public share their opinions on a given event or topic.
Hence, investigative journalism is said to be the most accurate of media forms because they are supposed to present all the observed details on a given situation. The article should have clarity, or be written in a way that everyone understands what happened and how this event may play out. Therefore, precision through necessary details about the event, as well as relevance and accuracy should be shown. Breadth can be revealed through insights from other related incidents, and depth may be shown with further analysis of the situation. Though no point of view is supposed to be evident, it is not possible to keep certain assumptions out of the work.
A good way to compare media sources is to find related reports in a journal, a newspaper column, and a television broadcast. For example, the news is often comparing the various government parties and the actions of certain key members. How the television channel portrays that person is completely different than the papers. The images published of a given politician or celebrity often reveals the biases of the person writing the story.
CEPA Environmental Registry. CEPA 1999 guiding principles and other policies. [Online]. Avail from: http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceparegistry/subs_list/
ExSubOverview/overviewofesp_p2.cfm [2007 Apr 19]
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Online Activity...
Talks Yann Arthus-Bertrand Captures Fragile Earth in Wide-Angle
“We don’t want to believe what we know” (Arthrus-Bertrand, 2009). This line was repeated several times throughout Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s discussion on the impact people are having on our planet. People are aware of the degradation they are causing, as well as the knowledge that many of the Earth’s resources will be depleted in the near future. Yet, this looming catastrophe has often been ignored as people continue to meet their needs without considering the needs of the natural systems which provide these goods and services. Through unsustainable practices, the trees, the fish, and many other resources have begun to disappear. Everything in life is dependent on the well-being of our planet, hence binding people together as we all share the need for what the Earth has to offer. Therefore, as a whole, we need to begin implementing solutions and change our ways so as to not further endanger our future. We know what we are doing; we just do not want to admit the changes that are necessary in order to combat the consequences of today’s actions.
As I have come to understand, change is not a fast process. In fact, it is often a very slow or gradual process. Why does change occur so slowly? For many people, change is something they fear. We all fear the unknown. We fear losing control as well as changing our patterns and actions that make up our daily routines. Without a routine, how would we know where to go? How would we know what to do? Well, you just put one foot in front of the other and start down the path presented before you. Sometimes wrong turns may be taken, but who hasn’t heard of mistakes and corrections? In some ways this is how we must approach the future. Obviously, our current actions, such as motor vehicle use, our need for plastic, and consumptive goods, have not created a sustainable environment. This brings up the question, what is a sustainable environment? At one of the first environmental meetings, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “the ability to meet humanity’s current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Therefore, creating a sustainable environment would involve people implementing ways to gather what they need from the natural systems around them, such as the forests, watersheds, and soils, without in any way degrading that system so that the same goods or services could be received in the future.
Sustainability also depends on balancing the social, economic, and environmental pillars of society. Each of these categories is interconnected. For example, the fish population has seen drastic declines in recent years. Environmentally, we need to stop fishing and allow that population to grow back to original levels. Economically and socially we cannot allow that. People depend on the fish for food and to make a living. Similar situations include our forests, the coral reefs, which are major tourist attractions, and oil exploitation. For many years, people only considered the social and economic pillars. Yet, without the environment providing that resource or system, there would be nothing to exploit.
So, where does this change need to begin? That is not an easy question to answer. Everyone must get involved. Becoming aware of our own actions, and the consequences of those actions, is often the first step. Small steps forward will encourage others around you to do the same. People can be a powerful force, and when they work together amazing things can be accomplished. Many animal species that we currently share our environment with have begun to adapt to the changes, and society can to.
Arthus-Bertrand Y. Yann Arthus-Bertrand captures fragile Earth in wide-angle. TED [Online]. Avail from: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/yann_arthus_
bertrand_captures_fragile_earth_ in_wide_angle.html [2009 Feb]
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future, chapter 2: towards sustainable development. [Online]. Avail from: http://www.un-documents.net/k-001303.htm [1987 June]
“We don’t want to believe what we know” (Arthrus-Bertrand, 2009). This line was repeated several times throughout Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s discussion on the impact people are having on our planet. People are aware of the degradation they are causing, as well as the knowledge that many of the Earth’s resources will be depleted in the near future. Yet, this looming catastrophe has often been ignored as people continue to meet their needs without considering the needs of the natural systems which provide these goods and services. Through unsustainable practices, the trees, the fish, and many other resources have begun to disappear. Everything in life is dependent on the well-being of our planet, hence binding people together as we all share the need for what the Earth has to offer. Therefore, as a whole, we need to begin implementing solutions and change our ways so as to not further endanger our future. We know what we are doing; we just do not want to admit the changes that are necessary in order to combat the consequences of today’s actions.
As I have come to understand, change is not a fast process. In fact, it is often a very slow or gradual process. Why does change occur so slowly? For many people, change is something they fear. We all fear the unknown. We fear losing control as well as changing our patterns and actions that make up our daily routines. Without a routine, how would we know where to go? How would we know what to do? Well, you just put one foot in front of the other and start down the path presented before you. Sometimes wrong turns may be taken, but who hasn’t heard of mistakes and corrections? In some ways this is how we must approach the future. Obviously, our current actions, such as motor vehicle use, our need for plastic, and consumptive goods, have not created a sustainable environment. This brings up the question, what is a sustainable environment? At one of the first environmental meetings, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “the ability to meet humanity’s current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Therefore, creating a sustainable environment would involve people implementing ways to gather what they need from the natural systems around them, such as the forests, watersheds, and soils, without in any way degrading that system so that the same goods or services could be received in the future.
Sustainability also depends on balancing the social, economic, and environmental pillars of society. Each of these categories is interconnected. For example, the fish population has seen drastic declines in recent years. Environmentally, we need to stop fishing and allow that population to grow back to original levels. Economically and socially we cannot allow that. People depend on the fish for food and to make a living. Similar situations include our forests, the coral reefs, which are major tourist attractions, and oil exploitation. For many years, people only considered the social and economic pillars. Yet, without the environment providing that resource or system, there would be nothing to exploit.
So, where does this change need to begin? That is not an easy question to answer. Everyone must get involved. Becoming aware of our own actions, and the consequences of those actions, is often the first step. Small steps forward will encourage others around you to do the same. People can be a powerful force, and when they work together amazing things can be accomplished. Many animal species that we currently share our environment with have begun to adapt to the changes, and society can to.
Arthus-Bertrand Y. Yann Arthus-Bertrand captures fragile Earth in wide-angle. TED [Online]. Avail from: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/yann_arthus_
bertrand_captures_fragile_earth_ in_wide_angle.html [2009 Feb]
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future, chapter 2: towards sustainable development. [Online]. Avail from: http://www.un-documents.net/k-001303.htm [1987 June]
Selection 36
The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What We Should Do About It
The degradation of our environment has been linked to the expansion of our human population. However, Ehrlich and Ehrlich have pointed out that the dramatic increase in recent years of our population is not the only issue surrounding environmental degradation. Summarized in the formula I=PAT, where I is the environmental impact, A represents affluence and consumption of goods, and T stands for the effects surrounding technology such as energy consumption and creation, we can do basic calculations of our overall impact to the planet. In light of this knowledge, it soon becomes apparent that not every country consumes the same amount of resources, or uses the same amount of energy. Therefore, there is a difference between the largest population that our planet is able to sustain versus the optimal population. More people can be supported if they choose to give up unnecessary aspects of their lifestyles. At the current rates of growth, many people believe our planet will eventually be unable to support the demands of the people. In order to control our population, which in turn may address some of the other issues surrounding environmental degradation, birth rates need to be reduced. This goal is met through improvements in health care and sanitation, education and economic opportunities for both men and women, the control of important resources, and the implementation of a fair and responsible government. In short, the human population plays a key role in the degradation of our environment. The overconsumption of resources and energy and a large population growth rate will soon irreversibly degrade the earth.
Six billion people. This is a staggering number that is only going to increase in the near future. Yet, in light of the fact that no one knows for sure how many more people our planet can support, our population continues in its exponential growth. These figures are unimaginable, just as picturing over six million dollars sitting in front of you on a table (or several tables). This may be why many people cannot begin to comprehend the overall effect of so many people on one planet. What keeps coming to mind is the fact that for every person we add, we have to cut out some other organism or plant to make room for that person. Sharing resources and habitat with other life forms is also an essential component for our planet’s survival. Therefore, for the sake of everyone’s well being, wouldn’t we at least want to try and alter our growth rate and our rate of consumption?
Both education and access to technology have allowed Canadians, Americans, and many others to experience the freedom of living a very different life from those in less developed countries. When it comes down to the debate of who harms the environment more, the lesser developed countries often become the scapegoat because they have higher populations and population growth rates. In the eyes of society, more people mean more problems. However, this is not a fair accusation. Those areas may have more people, and therefore may require more resources, but we must also consider the over-consumption of energy and resources of developed countries. Developed countries have a higher per capita consumption than lesser developed countries. Vehicles, factories, shopping malls, and food production all demand energy. To get that energy we have been burning immense amounts of fossil fuels. Lesser developed countries use energy as well, but they use it to meet their basic needs, not to enjoy a good lifestyle. If blame is to be placed for our current situation, it should be accepted equally by all parties.
Instead of placing blame, however, it would be more logical to look towards rectifying the problem of overpopulation, which in turn is causing environmental degradation. Actually dealing with an issue is harder than pointing fingers and implying it’s not our problem so we don’t have to fix it, but ignoring this responsibility will only make the situation worse in the future. We all share one planet, and therefore we all share the responsibility of looking after it.
If developed countries were to go into lesser developed countries and provide some basic education and technology, population growth rates would decline. In less developed countries, families are often required to be large so that the labour force is present to provide the means for survival. Education leads to the discovery of technology, which in turn leads to the creation of machines that would reduce the need for so many people. Of a greater importance would be to educate the women. In most cases, though obviously not all, women are the ones to raise the families. Raising families involves passing on knowledge so that those individuals in the next generation can improve their living standard and support their own families. As a result of inequality, many women are not allowed the privilege of being educated, so their placement in their country or society remains the same, as does their families.
Though this selection shares the view of a population biologist, it also brings into focus many of the economic struggles that countries are facing. Inefficiency of resource production, unemployment, and improper distribution of resources are prominent issues in today’s societies. Comparing various countries in terms of their energy usage, and then looking to a global scale to predict the amount needed in future years was a good eye opener as to how much we consume. It also highlighted how much damage or degradation we can do to our environment by trying to meet this demand. In the end, a large population may not be beneficial to the well-being of our planet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find economical and environmental ways of dealing with it.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 183-8.
The degradation of our environment has been linked to the expansion of our human population. However, Ehrlich and Ehrlich have pointed out that the dramatic increase in recent years of our population is not the only issue surrounding environmental degradation. Summarized in the formula I=PAT, where I is the environmental impact, A represents affluence and consumption of goods, and T stands for the effects surrounding technology such as energy consumption and creation, we can do basic calculations of our overall impact to the planet. In light of this knowledge, it soon becomes apparent that not every country consumes the same amount of resources, or uses the same amount of energy. Therefore, there is a difference between the largest population that our planet is able to sustain versus the optimal population. More people can be supported if they choose to give up unnecessary aspects of their lifestyles. At the current rates of growth, many people believe our planet will eventually be unable to support the demands of the people. In order to control our population, which in turn may address some of the other issues surrounding environmental degradation, birth rates need to be reduced. This goal is met through improvements in health care and sanitation, education and economic opportunities for both men and women, the control of important resources, and the implementation of a fair and responsible government. In short, the human population plays a key role in the degradation of our environment. The overconsumption of resources and energy and a large population growth rate will soon irreversibly degrade the earth.
Six billion people. This is a staggering number that is only going to increase in the near future. Yet, in light of the fact that no one knows for sure how many more people our planet can support, our population continues in its exponential growth. These figures are unimaginable, just as picturing over six million dollars sitting in front of you on a table (or several tables). This may be why many people cannot begin to comprehend the overall effect of so many people on one planet. What keeps coming to mind is the fact that for every person we add, we have to cut out some other organism or plant to make room for that person. Sharing resources and habitat with other life forms is also an essential component for our planet’s survival. Therefore, for the sake of everyone’s well being, wouldn’t we at least want to try and alter our growth rate and our rate of consumption?
Both education and access to technology have allowed Canadians, Americans, and many others to experience the freedom of living a very different life from those in less developed countries. When it comes down to the debate of who harms the environment more, the lesser developed countries often become the scapegoat because they have higher populations and population growth rates. In the eyes of society, more people mean more problems. However, this is not a fair accusation. Those areas may have more people, and therefore may require more resources, but we must also consider the over-consumption of energy and resources of developed countries. Developed countries have a higher per capita consumption than lesser developed countries. Vehicles, factories, shopping malls, and food production all demand energy. To get that energy we have been burning immense amounts of fossil fuels. Lesser developed countries use energy as well, but they use it to meet their basic needs, not to enjoy a good lifestyle. If blame is to be placed for our current situation, it should be accepted equally by all parties.
Instead of placing blame, however, it would be more logical to look towards rectifying the problem of overpopulation, which in turn is causing environmental degradation. Actually dealing with an issue is harder than pointing fingers and implying it’s not our problem so we don’t have to fix it, but ignoring this responsibility will only make the situation worse in the future. We all share one planet, and therefore we all share the responsibility of looking after it.
If developed countries were to go into lesser developed countries and provide some basic education and technology, population growth rates would decline. In less developed countries, families are often required to be large so that the labour force is present to provide the means for survival. Education leads to the discovery of technology, which in turn leads to the creation of machines that would reduce the need for so many people. Of a greater importance would be to educate the women. In most cases, though obviously not all, women are the ones to raise the families. Raising families involves passing on knowledge so that those individuals in the next generation can improve their living standard and support their own families. As a result of inequality, many women are not allowed the privilege of being educated, so their placement in their country or society remains the same, as does their families.
Though this selection shares the view of a population biologist, it also brings into focus many of the economic struggles that countries are facing. Inefficiency of resource production, unemployment, and improper distribution of resources are prominent issues in today’s societies. Comparing various countries in terms of their energy usage, and then looking to a global scale to predict the amount needed in future years was a good eye opener as to how much we consume. It also highlighted how much damage or degradation we can do to our environment by trying to meet this demand. In the end, a large population may not be beneficial to the well-being of our planet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find economical and environmental ways of dealing with it.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 183-8.
Selection 32
Our Stolen Future
Humans and animals share one environment. To hear many people speak of the environment, it seems that these two entities are separate. Though different in many aspects, such as intelligence, appearance, and overall body systems, we share the natural systems that provide the framework of our existence. Humans and animals fight for the same resources of water, air, and space to live. Everything living is interconnected either directly or indirectly. Therefore, changes to our environment may have similar effects on both animals and people. The introduction of synthetic chemicals into the ecosystems by man not only affects animals, but has also been seen to affect humans. Synthetic chemicals, since they are man-made, do not break down in natural systems including the body. Instead, they accumulate in the adipose tissues, eventually leading to contamination. There has also been a noted effect of these chemicals on the endocrine system. In the endocrine systems, it has been observed that chemicals take the place of or interfere with the hormones responsible for transmitting messages of the body. Scientists have come to startling conclusions through the testing of various chemicals on laboratory animals, and have issued several warnings. But, because of their belief that animals and humans have no connection, many people do not heed these warnings. In the past, the warnings concerning effects seen on animals have come true for humans. Chemicals in our environments may not show apparent problems in the present, but if these warnings are not heeded they may become prominent problems in the future.
Newspapers and magazines often rave about the newest medication, the must-have lawn chemicals, and the newest beautifying products. However, these products are often introduced to the market before they are fully tested. If it was just created, how do we know what the long term effects are, either on people or our environment where these substances will eventually end up? With an ever-changing planet, it is hard to predict the reactions that chemicals might have once they are introduced to the external surroundings. Chemicals may be fine on their own, but once mixed with several others, they may be bad news. Hence, when first presented to the public, we should use a precautionary step and only try a sample. Only then, if no severely harmful effects are found, should more of the substance be introduced. Likewise, chemicals that might be causing problems should be examined. Are the consequences of inaction going to lead to severe damage, or is there the chance that the environment will balance out the effect? Because we are unsure of the answer, ignoring what we don’t fully understand could lead to many harmful problems in the long run. For me, one of the most memorable examples where caution was not used involved the bald eagles. The pesticide DDT was sprayed on fields, and inevitably ended up in water systems. It later became a major factor in the rapid decline of bald eagle populations because it affected their eggs and reproductive cycles. Though this is only one example, we could be creating more similar situations by introducing new products to our markets.
Overall, this selection was accurate and logical. Since everything is interconnected it only makes sense for one thing to affect another, either through indirect means or direct means. It could, however, have offered up some recent events where warnings had been presented, yet not heeded. Relevant data would have made the argument a little more authoritative. Just mentioning that cases had been seen where chemicals affected animals and humans alike does not prove to the reader that it was a significant situation. Knowledge of how that particular chemical similarly and conversely affected the animal and human, combined with what we have learned from that case, would be beneficial to the public so that an accurate interpretation of future cases can be made when they are presented by the media and scientists.
It should be noted that our market today often provides natural products that can be used instead of the well-advertised synthetic product. Consumers can be reducing their use of synthetic materials through purchasing and using natural products. This in turn would reduce a lot of the chemicals being added to the environment, even though the major polluters are manufacturing companies. In order to see a major decrease in the use of synthetic chemicals, the government needs to provide incentives or laws directed at the public and the companies.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 162-4.
Humans and animals share one environment. To hear many people speak of the environment, it seems that these two entities are separate. Though different in many aspects, such as intelligence, appearance, and overall body systems, we share the natural systems that provide the framework of our existence. Humans and animals fight for the same resources of water, air, and space to live. Everything living is interconnected either directly or indirectly. Therefore, changes to our environment may have similar effects on both animals and people. The introduction of synthetic chemicals into the ecosystems by man not only affects animals, but has also been seen to affect humans. Synthetic chemicals, since they are man-made, do not break down in natural systems including the body. Instead, they accumulate in the adipose tissues, eventually leading to contamination. There has also been a noted effect of these chemicals on the endocrine system. In the endocrine systems, it has been observed that chemicals take the place of or interfere with the hormones responsible for transmitting messages of the body. Scientists have come to startling conclusions through the testing of various chemicals on laboratory animals, and have issued several warnings. But, because of their belief that animals and humans have no connection, many people do not heed these warnings. In the past, the warnings concerning effects seen on animals have come true for humans. Chemicals in our environments may not show apparent problems in the present, but if these warnings are not heeded they may become prominent problems in the future.
Newspapers and magazines often rave about the newest medication, the must-have lawn chemicals, and the newest beautifying products. However, these products are often introduced to the market before they are fully tested. If it was just created, how do we know what the long term effects are, either on people or our environment where these substances will eventually end up? With an ever-changing planet, it is hard to predict the reactions that chemicals might have once they are introduced to the external surroundings. Chemicals may be fine on their own, but once mixed with several others, they may be bad news. Hence, when first presented to the public, we should use a precautionary step and only try a sample. Only then, if no severely harmful effects are found, should more of the substance be introduced. Likewise, chemicals that might be causing problems should be examined. Are the consequences of inaction going to lead to severe damage, or is there the chance that the environment will balance out the effect? Because we are unsure of the answer, ignoring what we don’t fully understand could lead to many harmful problems in the long run. For me, one of the most memorable examples where caution was not used involved the bald eagles. The pesticide DDT was sprayed on fields, and inevitably ended up in water systems. It later became a major factor in the rapid decline of bald eagle populations because it affected their eggs and reproductive cycles. Though this is only one example, we could be creating more similar situations by introducing new products to our markets.
Overall, this selection was accurate and logical. Since everything is interconnected it only makes sense for one thing to affect another, either through indirect means or direct means. It could, however, have offered up some recent events where warnings had been presented, yet not heeded. Relevant data would have made the argument a little more authoritative. Just mentioning that cases had been seen where chemicals affected animals and humans alike does not prove to the reader that it was a significant situation. Knowledge of how that particular chemical similarly and conversely affected the animal and human, combined with what we have learned from that case, would be beneficial to the public so that an accurate interpretation of future cases can be made when they are presented by the media and scientists.
It should be noted that our market today often provides natural products that can be used instead of the well-advertised synthetic product. Consumers can be reducing their use of synthetic materials through purchasing and using natural products. This in turn would reduce a lot of the chemicals being added to the environment, even though the major polluters are manufacturing companies. In order to see a major decrease in the use of synthetic chemicals, the government needs to provide incentives or laws directed at the public and the companies.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 162-4.
Selection 42
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
People fear the thought of history repeating itself, and the idea that our society may be the next in line to collapse. Smaller societies have been known to vanish in the past, while others have learned from their mistakes and re-built themselves. However, instead of addressing such a small scale, we are now discussing global proportions. Diamond talks of ecocide-ecological suicide-that seems to be a pronounced cause for a society’s collapse. He is quick to mention, though, that ecocide is not the only factor contributing to the collapse of a society. Climate change, hostile neighbours, the dependence of societies on their friendly neighbours, and the responses of a society to address such problems also plays a major role. The fact that not all societies vanish completely, but rather that some have avoided catastrophe and now manage themselves according to the resources available, provides the hope that our planet will not burn itself out. The past mistakes along with present advancements, such as technology and improved health care, must be considered when predicting the outcome of society. Technology has already removed us from some problems and looks as though it may have to do so in the future as well. This poses another issue; the issue of businesses and environmentalists working together to promote longevity of our resources, and decrease the amount of harm brought to the environment on which we depend. Everyone must set aside their misconceptions of where other people stand in society and work together to provide a healthy, sustainable planet for the future.
From the point of view of a biologist, it is easy to observe why Diamond focused first on environmental degradation as the leading cause of a society’s collapse. Biologists often consider the interactions between a species and their environment. However, he showed good insight to mention other factors that also contribute to such outcomes, providing accurate historical events to back them up. For example, through history we have learned about the escapades of the barbarians and the Romans fighting each other in hopes of conquering the continent. Each factor was well explained, and also informed the reader on the consequences of one factor coupled with another in terms of a society’s outcome.
In terms of technology saving us, my feelings are mixed. If advancements are made soon enough, we can create systems that will begin to fix the problems that we have created. It may not return the topsoil that was once part of productive croplands, or return the lakes in oil sand areas to their former condition, but it can reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reduce the amount of waste that is put into landfills. But, if we don’t act before irreversible changes occur, then there is no hope whatsoever of technology saving us. The United States is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world today, especially in health care. Yet, they have thousands of people dying as a result of no access to that health care. This, in turn, brings in the knowledge that technology is not evenly distributed. Lesser developed countries have very little technology when compared to countries like Canada and the United States. In many ways one can see the conflict rich versus poor, and the fight for equality within each nation.
There is also the concern of war and hostile relationships between neighbouring countries. Entire communities have been devastated by war, and many continue to feel the effects of present and past events. Whether it is for religious reasons, over resources, or just a result of plain stupidity, fighting is not going to solve the problem. One group of people will easily fill the place of the other in the line for the land, necessary amenities, and title. Also, the energy spent on combat and making weapons could be used instead to provide some of the technological capital to meet the needs of its people. Every person has different thoughts, views, and opinions on how something should be done, so just think how much of this undiscovered knowledge is being wasted on a battle field.
While getting the business world and the environmental world to work together is a great start, it is also necessary to note that government involvement is necessary as well. Governments have the power to enforce changes on their people. They can take what the corporations and scientists have to say and then make decisions that they feel are best for the society as a whole. As it stands, many governments do not seem to be making much progress on environmental issues, but at least they are starting. Ten years ago there was hardly any mention of how human activities were influencing the environment. Now, the media is often filled with stories of shifting weather patterns, water scarcities, and growing amounts of waste. Change is a slow process sometimes, but at least members of the population recognize this and are starting to make small, but mighty leaps to change bad habits and become friendlier to the environment, and thus sustain their society.
Easton T. Classic edition courses: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 213-8.
People fear the thought of history repeating itself, and the idea that our society may be the next in line to collapse. Smaller societies have been known to vanish in the past, while others have learned from their mistakes and re-built themselves. However, instead of addressing such a small scale, we are now discussing global proportions. Diamond talks of ecocide-ecological suicide-that seems to be a pronounced cause for a society’s collapse. He is quick to mention, though, that ecocide is not the only factor contributing to the collapse of a society. Climate change, hostile neighbours, the dependence of societies on their friendly neighbours, and the responses of a society to address such problems also plays a major role. The fact that not all societies vanish completely, but rather that some have avoided catastrophe and now manage themselves according to the resources available, provides the hope that our planet will not burn itself out. The past mistakes along with present advancements, such as technology and improved health care, must be considered when predicting the outcome of society. Technology has already removed us from some problems and looks as though it may have to do so in the future as well. This poses another issue; the issue of businesses and environmentalists working together to promote longevity of our resources, and decrease the amount of harm brought to the environment on which we depend. Everyone must set aside their misconceptions of where other people stand in society and work together to provide a healthy, sustainable planet for the future.
From the point of view of a biologist, it is easy to observe why Diamond focused first on environmental degradation as the leading cause of a society’s collapse. Biologists often consider the interactions between a species and their environment. However, he showed good insight to mention other factors that also contribute to such outcomes, providing accurate historical events to back them up. For example, through history we have learned about the escapades of the barbarians and the Romans fighting each other in hopes of conquering the continent. Each factor was well explained, and also informed the reader on the consequences of one factor coupled with another in terms of a society’s outcome.
In terms of technology saving us, my feelings are mixed. If advancements are made soon enough, we can create systems that will begin to fix the problems that we have created. It may not return the topsoil that was once part of productive croplands, or return the lakes in oil sand areas to their former condition, but it can reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reduce the amount of waste that is put into landfills. But, if we don’t act before irreversible changes occur, then there is no hope whatsoever of technology saving us. The United States is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world today, especially in health care. Yet, they have thousands of people dying as a result of no access to that health care. This, in turn, brings in the knowledge that technology is not evenly distributed. Lesser developed countries have very little technology when compared to countries like Canada and the United States. In many ways one can see the conflict rich versus poor, and the fight for equality within each nation.
There is also the concern of war and hostile relationships between neighbouring countries. Entire communities have been devastated by war, and many continue to feel the effects of present and past events. Whether it is for religious reasons, over resources, or just a result of plain stupidity, fighting is not going to solve the problem. One group of people will easily fill the place of the other in the line for the land, necessary amenities, and title. Also, the energy spent on combat and making weapons could be used instead to provide some of the technological capital to meet the needs of its people. Every person has different thoughts, views, and opinions on how something should be done, so just think how much of this undiscovered knowledge is being wasted on a battle field.
While getting the business world and the environmental world to work together is a great start, it is also necessary to note that government involvement is necessary as well. Governments have the power to enforce changes on their people. They can take what the corporations and scientists have to say and then make decisions that they feel are best for the society as a whole. As it stands, many governments do not seem to be making much progress on environmental issues, but at least they are starting. Ten years ago there was hardly any mention of how human activities were influencing the environment. Now, the media is often filled with stories of shifting weather patterns, water scarcities, and growing amounts of waste. Change is a slow process sometimes, but at least members of the population recognize this and are starting to make small, but mighty leaps to change bad habits and become friendlier to the environment, and thus sustain their society.
Easton T. Classic edition courses: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 213-8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)