Human development threatens ecosystem health as infrastructure degrades surrounding environments. The anthropogenic degradation adversely affects both the ecological community and human community. Due to the importance of the biotic community, extensive research has been conducted to discover preventative plan to prevent detrimental, irreversible issues. Unfortunately, a vast majority of the planet's ecosystems already face the harmful impacts of human development -- eroded land, biodiversity loss, extinction, and many other ecological tragedies. However, the bleak future of degraded ecosystems melts in the hope for a better future through the process of rewilding natural ecosystems. Rewilding will restore ecological biodiversity in areas …show more content…
While future is uncertain, a positive ecological future seems within a reasonable reach with the use of recent environmental innovation such as rewilding. Similarly to the future, rewilding is also uncertain. However, we can scientifically hypothesize that positive futures will arise from the use of the method. “In ways distinct from other forms of conservation, these rewildings mobilize the past to govern the present and to anticipate particular futures. These interventions entangle science and myth, reconciling engineering, bureaucracy, and the technologies of political economy with enchanting appeals to an aesthetic primordial.” (Lorimer and Driessen, pg. 633). The key aspect is that the “particular futures” created through rewilding are merely anticipated - meaning the “wild” approach as nature reclaims and restores itself contains some uncertainty. The partial ambiguity of the future resulting from the wilderness combined with the guideline of the past opens the door to imagination -- one not restrained by previous conservation efforts. One of these creative solutions is Pleistocene rewilding, which “would be achieved through a series of carefully managed ecosystem manipulations using closely related species as proxies for extinct large vertebrates, and would change the underlying premise of conservation biology from managing extinction …show more content…
Evidence has shown that, if used, rewilding will be able to restore natural ecosystems -- presenting itself as a very realistic option. Rewilding does reside in the hope that humanity will desire a better future, but this vision is not far from reality. Second, critics argue that with the increased imagination, rewilding has yet to the significant gain focus it needs to become a solution. “Rewilding has gained increasing attention from scientists, conservationists, and the mass media. Yet, it has raised highly divergent perspectives as to which ecological processes and species assemblages should be restored.” (Fernandez, Navarro and Pereira, pg. 267). However, the temporary divergence may be remedied as scientist gain a sort of consensus on the most important elements of conservation through rewilding. Though such an agreement may be more difficult to achieve, the benefits on the ecological systems justify efforts to come to such an understanding. The fractionalization is, therefore, rightly criticized, as such an agreement should improve conservation. Rewilding imagines a good future with a plethora of useful solutions that have yet to gain consensus, yet the method is a significant conservation solution and should be considered as a means to produce a better
...rupt native species and ecosystem hence making the restoration of both evolutional and ecological potential almost impossible. Whereas Donlan (2005) concluded that re-wilding North American is the best conservation strategy to the African and Asian threatened megafauna, meanwhile re-wilding will restores the evolutionary and ecological potentials in the process. In my point of view, Pleistocene re-wilding must not be implemented simply because the introduced species might fail to adapt to the new environment. High costs and disease outbreak are another challenge that can’t be ignored.
Daniel Duane addresses a pressing modern anxiety surrounding technology’s destruction of the natural world. Duane is an author of seven books and many articles featured in The New York Times and Food & Wine. Also an editor for Men’s Journal, Duane’s experiences in rock climbing, science, and the beauty of the outdoors make his writings seem more passionate and credible. He recently wrote the article “The Unnatural Kingdom” in The New York Times explaining his ideas towards technological advancements and their effects on wildlife. In his article, Duane offers insights to the question, “If technology helps save the wilderness, will the wilderness still be wild?” (Duane 1). He utilizes kairos, pathos, ethos, logos, and other rhetorical devices,
Species reintroduction has become a hotly debated topic, especially in the states experiencing actual reintroduction efforts. The reintroduction of the lynx into Colorado appeals to many who would like to return the area to it's pristine, pre-developed state. However, the actual costs, both financial and emotional, make this program impractical and illogical.
Ecosystem instability is a problem that we can no longer put off to the side. We are being confronted with this problem and we need to find ways to resolve the present situations. The forms of confrontation are through foriegn invaders and lack of apex predators (to name a few). We must realize that through research as well as changes in lifestyle we can save our planet. These changes must occur individually for them to be a true success.
Humans have played major roles in destroying and protecting a variety of ecosystems. Currently there are many people involved in changing others views on protective earth practices and aware of their impact on changing environments. This is best seen in climate change, conservation movements, and hunting and fishing practices and policies. However, there are already major impacts from climate change, particularly in northern areas, the future impact of a changing climate is rarely considered when determining land-use, including environmental assessments. With expanding resource removal behaviours, the impact of a changing climate and human activities on vulnerable wild life and ecosystems is a big problem. Adding to the problem is a lack of
It’s no doubt that since the beginning of the new millennium and even before, environmental conservation has been a big issue. It only makes sense that people would hotly contest such a topic. Some argue that it might get a little too overblown sometimes, and others say we need to hear it more. Some, like Edward O. Wilson, just want to see an agreement met. In his 2002 book The Future of Life, Wilson satirizes the bull-headed and uncooperative criticism that the two sides often give each other. In his fictitious discourse, Wilson clearly demonstrates how a stalemate can occur between opposing extremes by using stylistic mirroring, over-the-top generalizations, and grandiose diction.
Rees begins with the by filling the audience in on how the world is “getting easier and better,” and medical and technological advances have lead to the rapid growth of the population. (25) The advances and “progress” we have made has lead to a long and comfortable life. The author then lists multiple failed management endeavors, which had initially thought to alleviate or reverse environmental issues. He cites that the reason for the failures is that the models did not reflect the stress of the human demand, “The sheer scale of human demands on nature has pushed many socioecosystems into unfamiliar and often unfriendly territory.” (27) Ecologists have supposed that when socio-ecosystems lose their
In spite of the overwhelming amount of negative speculation, the practice of de-extinction might potentially produce some positive ramifications. According to Stewart Brand, a writer for National Geographic, humans should bring back extinct species “to preserve biodiversity, to restore diminished ecosystems...and to undo harm that humans have caused in the past.” If humans were to tamper with nature and bring back an extinct animal, desolate ecosystems which previously thrived, such as deserted islands, could be partially restored through their
Through millions of years of evolution, well-balanced habitats have co-evolved to provide for the wide variety of species and their needs. Trees have adapted to weeds, weeds have adapted to the predation from herbivores, and so on up the food chain. Similar scenarios are seen throughout the world. Through the process of natural selection, specific species or broad species families will go extinct. However, these occurrences have largely been due to the natural flow and evolution of time. It wasn’t until recently that dominant species, such as humans, have taken the course of nature into their own hands.
De-extinction is a process that has been experimented with for many years, but has never been completely successful. The ethics and consequences of this idea have been questioned but, de-extinction has the potential to be truly helpful to humans and the environment, and many of the scenarios that people think could happen, are actually impossible. To actually revive a species, there are certain conditions that must be met, and the terrible situations that people think could happen, are unable to actually occur because of the lack of . Bringing species back that are beneficial to the environment could preserve biodiversity, restore diminished ecosystems, advance the science of preventing extinctions, and undo the harm that people have caused in the past. The true potential of the revival of species cannot be realized because people overdramatize the effects and possible outcomes. Once we realize and understand how beneficial the process of de-extinction can be we can better improve our world, our lives, and our ecosystems.
Berry argues that scientific progression is a romantic ideal, where the destruction of the environment is all that will be left to show for it, yet each time science has pushed ahead too far, there has been a scientific advance to begin the process of remediatio...
The degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity is increasing at an alarming rate every year. Humans are certainly not the only reason for this, but they are the main contributors. The well-being of ecosystems affects our everyday lives - consumption and consumerism depend on natural resources. Everything humans use is derived from them, in seemingly indirect and direct ways. Yet despite the fact that humans are destroying the environment, many continue to and neglect to take important measures to protect it.
According to World WildLife Fund, many ecosystems around the world are being destroyed, eliminating many plant and animal species that inhabit them (“Pollution”).
There is no doubt that human activity is having a significant impact on our environment. These environmental impacts include depleting our natural resources, air and water pollution, climate change, destruction of habitats, and loss of biodiversity. Because of these growing concerns, we need to learn how to live sustainably. Living sustainably will allow us to conserve our limited resources more wisely so they will be available for future generations (Withgott & Brennan, 2011, Chapter 1).
Scientists have begun to say that we have to do more to protect our ecosystem, because our very existence is depending upon it. When the ecosystem is not functioning properly the continuation of plant, animal and human life ecosystems would be impossible. Life cycles can not function without ecosystems. The ecosystem provides us with clean air, water, habitats for fish and other services. They also aid in the mod...