The feeling of being apart of the universe is really evident in this film, as it should be right. I mean were no different then the rest of the mammals and creatures that live here too. We all evolved over time, learning to adapt and live with the changing seasons and elements nature throws at us.
Its true about what David Suzuki said, how we have forgotten our part in the environment, the fact that we don’t just live in it, we are a part of it, our actions affect its outcome. Its kinda sad in a way that only certain cultures are still living with nature, instead of on top of it..so to speak.
He kinda goes on to talk about our thirst for evolution, our growing dependence on technology, and the fact that we have lost that connection, strayed from the path, forgotten about mother earth. This got me thinking, how often do I find myself really involved with nature and the one thing that comes up is camping. I love to do it, love to fish, explore, just be outdoors, in the wilderness in general. Living off the surrounding so to speak.
The following is my take on a selection from Environmental Studies, by Thomas Easton. This is it in a nutshell, tried to get the just of what the author was saying. Please leave a comment of your take on these issues.
Every year, roughly the equivalent of the population of Germany is being added to the global population. It will perhaps take thirty to fifty of this equivalence before the Earth will not be able to sustain its population.
There are many risks to think about when dealing with a sustainable population for our environment and future. Restrictions and guidelines may not be the solution to our population problem. Also the claims that there is no connection between these environmental problems and population are inaccurate.
The main concern should be about how much resources we take from the Earth before it can no longer renew those that we depend on, and is permanently damaged. This idea is represented by the equation I=PAT[i]. This takes into account the size of our population (P), multiplied by the amount of resources we consume per person (A), multiplied by the damage created to extract resources with the given technologies in use at the time (T); these variables will equal the environmental impact we have on the Earth. The AT variables of the equation are also referred to as the amount of high energy we use. Examples of this high energy are things like production and use of vehicles, heating and powering of our homes and cutting down or mining for resources; all of which if not carefully planned to be sustainable are harmful to the planet. As result as our population increases, so does our impact on Earth.
Although we use this energy in our societies, some forms of energy are more efficient than others. For instance, it is hard to measure the actual impacts of say cutting down trees for fire wood to heat homes, to that of plugging in your electric car. Both use energy, but some are better for the environment than others.
Our impacts can be said to be due to our increasing population, and the harmful impacts that it has on our planet. Impacts include actions such as deforestation, polluting the air and water, and destroying our fertile land, all of which can be seen as the ending to these natural cycles that naturally replenish themselves, while provide us with the resources we need. Destroying these systems not only diminishes the amount of resources on society, but also deprives us of the free services they provide; such as clean air, water and fertile land.
The misconception that out of control birthrates of developing nations are to blame for our over population and environmental issues is exactly the opposite of what is really happening. It is in fact the developed nations are at fault, as they consume more resources than developing nations.
If we continue to attack the Earth like this; taking more than we put back, we will be left with a large population that has no resources to support itself or future generations.
The fact that most of us want elaborate commodities, spacious homes and room to get away, leads us to a sustainable population of about one third of our current population i of approximately two billion people. This number is based on the amount of energy we use, roughly thirteen terawatts globally. This means if we want a larger population sustainably, we either need to cut back on the things we want, or improved technology to produce these commodities.
When looking at necessities, there are three resources that should be at the top of the list; topsoil, ground water, and biodiversity. Today however, we are using up these resources at an unnatural replacement rate.
We are pumping out ground water for irrigation faster than it can replenish itself, putting our and future generations at risk of water shortages.
Top soil is eroding at inches per decade, alarming because it usually grows at inches per millennium.
The most import of these three factors is the loss of biodiversity. Too many species and organisms are being taken or killed off, damaging the systems that keep our planets ecosystems working. Species diversity is diminishing at an alarming rate compared to the natural extinction rate that occurs over time. This type of extinction hasn’t occurred since the extermination of the dinosaurs, some sixty five million years ago. i
At the rate we are going, our energy use is not sustainable in the long run, we are digging ourselves a deeper hole with every increase in population. Antics claim that technology will save us but at a thirteen terawatt addiction to power, based on limited fossil fuels, technology can only do so much. If we hope to be sustainable the number needs to be four to six terawatts, living comfortably.
Our population won’t stop expanding until it levels off at about ten billion, leaving the condition of our environment uncertain. There is no humane way of reducing the number of humans alive; we can only hope to reduce the population by means of birthrate regulation.
To be sustainable, total fertility rates (TFR) will need to be reduced and regulated if we hope to live sustainable with the environment. However countries like China, have populations so enormous, that even if we capped birthrates and reduces TFR, their population would still grow by about half a billion before levelling off.
Governments around the world will have to own up to their countries responsibility, regulating and maintaining low TFR, by promoting good family practices that lower overall population to a sustainable level.
Lower populations with good resource management will be needed for future generations to flourish.
The following is my take on a selection from Environmental Studies, by Thomas Easton. This is it in a nutshell, tried to get the just of what the author was saying. Please leave a comment of your take on these issues.
Humans have comparable inheritances and similarities in our shared environment; therefore, things that occur in one region, whether human or animal influenced, have an impact elsewhere in the world. Our evolution has not strayed far from the “ancient recipe.” [i] This is why except for a few differences humans are compared close to other animals such as gorillas and turtles. Testing on lab animals has given us answers to the side effects of industrial chemicals we are now seeing in humans.
The side effects of industrial chemicals on humans and animals have accumulated in our body fat. Further more if these chemicals are affecting animals in a negative way, we should not doubt that they will affect us in a similar manner. Although, arguments on the testing on lab mice, debate whether the results accurately portray what to expect in humans. For example, concerns of over exposure on the lab mice to these toxic chemicals can cause the results to be misinterpreted.
Studying the effects on animals gives us knowledge that all mammals have the hormone guide development. This is seen in lab reports that mimic those of pregnant mothers who used diethylstilbestrol (DES) during their pregnancy. Using DES in the laboratory and in pregnancy has revealed that both low and high concentrations can have alarming results; however in some cases over exposure to DES may not result in such severe damage.
Fred Vom Saal explains the results of over exposure, is like an upside down U, meaning that there is not always an increased risk or response with a higher dose. This means that sometimes the results can vary depending on the amount of a chemical introduced, and caution should be taken to find all the risks involved.
In the case of endocrine disruption and their effects on humans, a lot has been left unanswered. In 1991 heads of multiple scientific fields met in Wisconsin, to address this issue. Results showed the effect of these hormone disruptors on animal species, also harmed humans. i A warning that these chemical disruptors were harmful to the embryonic development was published. This warning stated that people were being exposed to these chemicals and that humans were at risk of permanent damage.
Overall, the signs that these chemicals are already evident in humans is hard to recognize because of its long lag time before symptoms appear, and the lack of research in this field. However, some signs have been noticed by paediatricians in this the United States, such as genital abnormalities in children. Until signs are more evident we may have to cross the tipping point before more can be done in this field.
The following is my take on a selection from Environmental Studies, by Thomas Easton. This is it in a nutshell, tried to get the just of what the author was saying. Please leave a comment of your take on these issues.
This reading is based on why societies fail or succeed, and what sets them apart.
Collapses are not usually one big extinguishment, but instead a series of failures that lead to an overall collapse.[i] Things like political changes and economic changes can cause these minor declines that aid in a collapse. The lively hood of neighbouring societies can have a serious affect on the well being of your own society. Societies that experience these changes on a major scale are places like Easter Island in the Pacific, where events unfold and the collapse is a result.
Seeing monumental structures these societies have created, leaves us wondering how such a powerful place could fail. The assumption that even great societies can fail leads us to believe that our modern society, as technology advanced we are, could still suffer the same effect.
Evidence from leading scientists in various fields of science has showed that environmental degradation leads to some of these collapses. Things like deforestation, erosion, water management, over hunting, introduction of new species, over population and an increased appetite for resources are the variables that can lead to collapse. Societies damage their environment and are left with no resources to keep it alive, as a result it faces countless declines and collapse.
The overlying theme is that as a population grows, it depends on more resources that are taken from the environment. As a result resources are farmed from new, less fertile places, or are not extracted sustainably. This aids in the collapse of societies as the environment is usually poorly maintained and damaged to the extent of it not producing those resources anymore.
Today we face the same environmental degradation as past societies, we are growing to fast, damaging our environment in the process, creating new problems; human-caused climate changed, build up of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, and full human utilization of the Earths photosynthetic capacity. i
If we do not correct these bad habits now, we face the same fate as their past societies that have failed. This time because of the lack of resources, disease, and war over resources. However some argue that with our technology today, it will help solve our problems. One can not wonder if there mighty societies of the past, with their engineering, and monumental structures, had thought the same thing about their technologies.
Can we learn from their mistakes and apply what they have taught us to our society today? Its hard to say if something that has worked for past societies will have the same outcomes in today’s day and age.
We now know the seriousness of our impact on the environment, compared to past societies. Our knowledge could help us evade this environmental collapse. Signs are all around us, telling us on bathroom walls, in the news and on television, warning us to lower our environmental footprint (or impact).
Looking at past collapsed societies and those that have not, we have come to some distinguished signs that can either help us understand society collapse better, or help us avoid it altogether. There are five factors that will aid or hurt the outcome of a society.
1. How fragile or resilient a society is; based on environmental services such as forest degradation, how fertile the land around you is, how many species spawn and flourish in the environment will greatly affect your society’s survival
2. Climate. Humans aren’t the only factor affecting the Earth’s climate. Things like solar output, volcanic activity, Earths tilt, and plate tectonics can greatly affect a survival or collapse.
3. Neighbouring societies (hostile). If a society is close to another, there may be hostile activity between the two that can result in collapse for either. This is amplified if you account previous reasons such as susceptibility and health of one’s society. If a society is weak, it may be at risk.
4. Abandonment by neighbouring societies. If a society counts on another society for resources or general well being, if something happens to one, it will be felt by both. On the extreme side if one society is lost and can no longer supply the other for trade, both could collapse.
5. Response; take action or not. Based on government, monetary possession, and cultural values, the type of response will be greatly affected. Some societies choose to react to a problem, while others may not, or choose a different reaction all together. These choices can affect the outcome of a society’s success or collapse.
Today we have too sides to our environmental reactions that either can aid or hurt the survival of our society. On one side the believers, also known as the environmentalists. This group believes our response to global environmental problems (over population, sustainability, etc) should be resolved before anything else to aid in our societies survival.
The other side are the non-environmentalists; this group believes that our planet can support further growth (population, economic, etc) and that the environmental concerns are exaggerated and mislead.
Author Jared Diamond, sees himself as one who is partially environmentalist, as he has had a love for birds, the wilderness and his family for many years. But also sees himself as someone whos been in big business throughout his life, feeling for his former employers.
Diamond believes some big businesses are beneficial to the environment, and have little to no affect on the landscape and wildlife, while other businesses are destructive and aid in the degredation of our environment. Diamond goes on to say that to make sustainable changes, environmentalists need to engage with the non environmentalists, instead of pointing fingers are each other, needing to work together for positive, long lasting environmental protection.
