thảo luận Topic: Why Humans Should Care thêm For Ecology and the Environment

blackpanther666 posted on Jun 12, 2012 at 12:36PM
Please add your opinion. As much as I love the natural environment, I will welcome anyone's opinions. However, I cannot promise not to argue with you about it, if I happen to disagree. I'm VERY passionate about the environment.

thảo luận 12 các câu trả lời

Click here to write a response...
hơn một năm qua whiteflame55 said…
Ecology is the reason we got here, the reason we're still here, and the reason why we will continue to be here. It's a relatively broad term that means more in context with the environment, so I won't focus on it too long, but it's the interaction between species within a given biosphere. Without it, we should have no farming, no domesticated animals, practically none of the good stuff we see. At the same time, we would not have disease, famine, and any number of horrible things. Our interaction with our environment doesn't always produce good results, but that ecology is essential to our existence.

But let's get into the environment, because that's really the central question. Why should we care? Well, for one thing, the environment is all around us. The environment is the plants and animals we interact with, the water we drink, the air we breathe. If we don't care about our plants and animals, our food sources disappear. On the plant side, it's even more important, since they're the main source of capturing energy on the planet due to photosynthesis. If not for plants and fungi, the sun would provide extremely little energy to us, and we would be stuck with what little energy remains here on Earth to sustain us all.

If we don't care about water, we doom ourselves even more extensively. Human beings are mostly water, and that water has to be clean and plentiful. If it's unclean, we get sick. If it's not plentiful, we don't get enough to sustain us. Every bit of pollution we put into the water supply becomes something we have to clean out, and we're getting worse and worse at that. Effects move beyond that of course. Undersea life is, perhaps, more important than the life on land. The vast majority of our oxygen comes from phytoplankton, and without them we would have severe problems breathing. Fish life has been an important source of food throughout our history, and we are seeing many of the problems that overfishing and pollution has caused to the industry. Water is the source of life in more ways than one.

Air pollution is an even deeper problem. What we breathe in certainly has an effect on us, but most gasses rise up into the atmosphere, and here's where Global Climate Change comes in. Experimental evidence suggests that CO2 and Methane gases have a substantial effect on that atmosphere, which wouldn't be so important if it weren't for UV radiation that constantly pummels it. Without that protective layer, we expose ourselves to skin cancers, a slew of problems involving many of the plants and animals of the planet, and a litany of other problems. We cannot ignore these as a problem, no matter what opposition rises against this scientific theory, unless someone can definitively disprove it.
hơn một năm qua bri-marie said…
^I couldn't have said it better.

We only have one planet to live on. If we destroy it, we're destroying ourselves.
hơn một năm qua blackpanther666 said…
That was what I was going to say, Whiteflame, I see we are on the same wavelength, yet again. The thing is... it goes even deeper than that. The problem is that humans just don't seem capable of change, unless it directly advocates something they want. While that isn't necessarily true for every human being, it certainly is for a large proportion of the population. It always seems to revolve around money. A lot of people don't want to acknowledge that the environment is in trouble, because, if they do, they will most certainly lose face and money for it. Another reason is that humans, in general (not every human being, but many of them), are inherently selfish and consider themselves to be more important than the environment.

So, I ask people out there, the ones who deem themself to be more important; what makes you so special that you can consider your needs to be more important than those of the natural environment around us, and other species around us, including their ecology?
hơn một năm qua whiteflame55 said…
That is indeed a problem, and a big one. Activity on behalf of the environment would be difficult, to be sure, but everyone seems to want to drag their feet. Hopefully, green technologies will become so effective and cost saving that this will no longer be a problem, but in the meantime, we're stuck watching a bad situation get exponentially worse.
hơn một năm qua blackpanther666 said…
Indeed, that is so. I think 'green' technology would be hugely beneficial, not just for the environment, but for the economy too. You see, the reason why the environment often gets spurned, is because the economy usually gets more attention. if we can meld the two together, then both will get more focus and equally so, which will honestly benefit our race and allow us to become more sustainable, as well as allow us to 'move foreward'.

However, you raised a great point earlier... What can humans do about the population crisis? From your Vonnegut quote, you raised the point that humans have reached the critical population levels for society and the natural environment. It is important that humans address that problem, because otherwise we will not be able to sustainably use our remaining resources, those that are finite. It would be fine if we could find 'infinite' resources, but that simply is not an option for many resources we deem important. There will never be an 'infinite' amount of oil, or gold, or wood... sure, we can continue to grow some of the following, but it would be more beneficial, for our planet, decrease the strain and consumption rate of humans.
hơn một năm qua hgfan5602 said…
As you guys mentioned earlier, what can humans do about the population crisis? Indeed, humans have reached the critical population levels for society and the environment. And it is important, crucial even, that humans address that problem. We would not be able to use our remaining resources, those that are finite, such as oil, etc.
hơn một năm qua tiagih said…
then what? what are we comparing this too
hơn một năm qua bri-marie said…
We're saying we (the general human population) need to care more about the environment than we do. We don't care about it enough.
hơn một năm qua tiagih said…
I guess I am ok with wanting to take care of the environment but to what extent is a question I would have. How much priority should the environment have over...? I will be honest, the state of the earth is not the top priority on my mind but I do my best by recycling and not littering.
hơn một năm qua ducky8abug4u said…
smile
Your passionate ecological views are welcomed. :)

I do have a question. Have you heard about the Amazonian mushroom that eats plastic. It's been discovered that pestalotiopsis microspora feeds on polyurethane.

I wonder if we could mass produce it in controlled environments, or in greenhouses. If anyone is willing to invest in this idea, maybe someone could build a greenhouse that specifically grows this type of rainforest fungus. That way, a new form of waste management business can be formed, whereby large quantities of hard plastic can be funneled through batches of this fungus, so that they can finally speed up the degradation of these materials.

When I think of this, I think of milllions of jobs being formed, both for biologists and waste management agencies. I wonder how profitable it could be.
hơn một năm qua blackpanther666 said…
@Tiagih. How much priority should the environment have over... what? What exactly?

You seem to be laboring under the impression that there are plenty of things out there that are more important. What could possibly be more important than taking care of the planet, by looking after its resources, using them sustainably and, by doing so, also taking care of humans... because, if you think about it, solving our environmental crises will also solve many other problems, like water, food, energy, waste, pollution, native animals/plants, other domesticated animals, and possibly even wars, if we were to control ourselves as species... because, like it or not, some people are out of control and have no empathy for anything, they just want to make more and more money... as James Rachels said in his book about moral philosophy, 'humans want more and more'... this quote has plenty of meaning, people always want more, even when they have more than most other people do, they still want more. This is probably the biggest problem, that egocentric view that they should be entitled to 'more and more.'

So, again, I ask, what is more important than the environmental problems of the age, when solving them could also solve many other problems of the age?
hơn một năm qua blackpanther666 said…
@ducky8abug4u. I think that is a brilliant idea. Yes, I have heard that somewhere and I was wondering about it. I never really looked it up. I think that could help to solve the environmental issues of the age, of which there are quite a few. Every little bit helps :)