A man named Robert Laughlin once said, "The Earth is very old and has suffered grievously: volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation and yet all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It's a survivor." Laughlin clearly believes in this quote that the Earth can take care of itself. The Earth has been through worse disasters than just pollution, and extinction of species and plants. Roderick Nash, an environmentalist and activist, says otherwise. In Nash published an essay, Island Civilization: A Vision For Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium, that clearly shows his negative view in humanity. He discusses the history between humans and nature and how humans have been biased against nature. He elaborates by talking about how when people explore the world, they are destroying it in one way or another. Nash also brings up other traits that humans have that should be considered helpful and great. Nash distinctively looks down upon human beings. He brings up scenarios that would benefit the planet. He emphasizes his vision, Island Civilization. He also mentions other scenarios such as garden, future primitive, and wasteland. Nash is constantly blaming humans for the destruction of nature and Earth's wounds, maybe it's true, but Nash under estimates Earth's self healing abilities. Humans can not be the only thing that is hurting the Earth. When you really think about it, Earth goes through a lot of natural disasters, which cannot be controlled. According to an activist, Tim Haering, “Tsunamis, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, disease nature kills more than we kill each other.” Earth throws in all of these natural ... ... middle of paper ... ...o get along with all of the different opinions, beliefs, religions, etc. Nash has little to no logic with his scenario. He does not consider human nature. If humans did not kill each other first, then disease would finally arise and kill off the species. Earth will outlive us all and when the human species eventually dies out, Earth will still be here fixing itself from the damage we have caused, yet continuing with the natural disasters. I do admit, we are polluting the planet, but there will always be some sort of life on Earth even if humans are not. People should not be too worried about destroying the planet because it will heal itself. If people begin to pollute it too much, Earth will kill us off. Roderick Nash, along with many other people, underestimates the power of the Earth. It can take care of itself just like how it has been for over a billion years.
In your essay “Island Civilization: a Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth in the Fourth Millennium”, several proposals are brought up with seemingly impossible solutions to the problem of environmental decay that is currently consuming, endangering and threatening our planet. Dr. Nash, you believe that humans have to do what they are capable of in order to restore the planet to its “natural” once prosperous condition. When humanity came into the picture, it began to manipulate the environment for its own personal benefits. The essay makes the point that the world is not ours to destroy and take from, but rather that people live alongside nature without disturbing it. You state that your proposal may be controversial due to some major changes, and that the ” whole purpose of this essay is to put forward for discussion a strategy for occupation of this planet that will work in the very long run, and for all the natural world.” The concepts brought up are quite controversial, and for that reason your points are arguable.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
In Roderick R. Nash’s essay “Island civilization: A vision for human occupancy of earth in the fourth millenium” he quotes “Of course a change like this one [Island civilization] involves compromises with human freedom.” Nashs plan for the future is to make self-sustaining “islands” of civilization. These civilizations would be clusters of the population, and quite similar to cities. His plan also relies on advanced technology that would not harm the Earth and that the “islands” remain isolated from each other. All food production, manufacturing, sanitation, and other services would take place directly within the civilization. This would mean that we as humans would lose many rights that we have had for hundreds of years such as human freedom. I do not believe that with all of the people obsessed with their rights that anything like island civilization will happen anytime soon.
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
In the wasteland scenario, earth is almost entirely neglected. Civilians no longer live amongst the wonders of nature instead live amongst trash and poison. A product of continual growth which led to the butchering of the ecosystems. From my perspective this scenario is the most logical for the future of Earth. At the rate of population growth, expansion and resource consumption, the inability to sustain our population seems to be leading to milking the Earth completely dry.
The article by Jared Diamond called “The End of The World as We Know Them” explains to us we have the chance to change our future from previous civilianization like Mayans. One alternative that we can infer is a stronger focus on benefiting the earth and not our self. For example instead of using war to gain more resources from other countries and cause more damage to other civilization, we should all live in peace and live natural energy from the sun like solar panels. If we keep the ground that we live on, we can keep our lives that we dwell on.
The articles “The Environmental issue from hell” by Bill McKibben and “The Obligation to Endure” by Rachel Carson both talk about the environmental consequences that people have caused. However, McKibben writes about Global warming and argues that it is a moral responsibility to preserve the earth, while on the other hand, Carson writes about pollution of the earth caused by man. McKibben article makes good points and supports his claim with facts which makes his article valid. Carson supports her idea with adequate information and factual evidence which also makes her article valid.
Humans are the cause of environmental damaging things like acid rain and global warming. People also damage other species by killing them till extinction or causing things like oil spills that cause them to die. Why destroy the only place the human species lives on, instead people can spend their time restoring the planet and making it better, they can learn to coexist with other species instead of learning how to be the dominant and overpowering species.
In scientific terms, Earth is considered many things; it harbours life, it’s the third planet away from the sun, it’s mostly made up of water, however amongst all it is home. Like any valued possession people must treat the Earth with the care and respect the planet deserves with cleanliness and preservation. Unfortunately due to the disbelief of cleanliness and lack of care, Earth is experiencing issues that happen when it’s nature isn’t preserved including climate changes and global warming. Climate change and global warming is not a myth and not enough is being done to preserve the Earth’s natural resources.
Our planet is suffering from severe pollution, which ranges from contaminated air, water and soil as well. Humans are doing nothing to reduce the amount of pollution that is harming our earth. To understand how pollution works first you must understand that there are different types of pollution. The most common types of pollution and the ones that I will be focusing on which are the ones doing the most harm to our planet are air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and littering. In order to help out and reduce pollution in our planet people need to be more aware of what these problems are and about the severe damages that they are causing our planet. Before industrialization really jumped into place and had an effect on large cities, nature had its own way of cleaning up its own air and itself. Wind scattered gases, rain washed many substances and the rest dissolved into the ground; while plants absorbed carbon dioxide and made it into oxygen. With big cities growing more every time and with more towns that were becoming more industrialized a lot of more waste began to be released into the environment and the atmosphere and soon this was more than enough for nature to handle. In order to stop and reduce pollution people need to understand the damage that it is causing our environment and our planet as well. People need to be more aware of how they can help out and do their part in reducing these problems that are causing our planet to die slowly with people not even noticing it.
From the beginning of time, the earth has provided its inhabitants with everything needed to sustain life at its most basic level. For instance, the ratio of land to fresh water as well as Earth’s natural cycles provided enough resources for animals to survive. Unfortunately, as the human population grew, the previously abundant natural resources started to become limited. In fact, engineers have recently been tasked with discovering new methods of harnessing energy, harvesting food, and collecting fresh water because the population is quickly depleting traditional techniques. Not only is the sheer number of people on Earth using up all of its natural resources, but humans’ modern desires are furthering the destruction of Earth. In developed
Though some of you may be aware of these problems, I know many are not, and thus may be shocked to learn about the degradation of our Earth and the people living in it. Indeed, I truly believe that "since the dawn of the industrial age, America has behaved like an alcoholic with a good job—prospering despite a lifestyle that jeopardizes the future and ruins much of what is good with irresponsible behavior."
There are many different ways that we as the earths population are destroying the environment. For example, the tall cooling towers used by industries. They do not remove pollutants but simply push them higher into the atmosphere, in this way they reduce their concentration at that particular area. The pollutants may then travel over large distances and produce negative effects in areas far away from the original site.
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.
Many people assume that the environment is not in danger. They believe that as technology advances, we do not need to worry about renewing natural resources, recycling, and finding new ways to produce energy. They state that one person in the world does not make a large difference. In reality, each individual's contribution greatly affects our environment. Our natural resources are slowly disappearing, and we must work together to save them and the Earth from ruin.