Impact of Industrialization on the Environment
During the past several hundred years, humans have begun to industrialize rapidly. Tons of new technologies with all sorts of capabilities have sprung up. In many cases, these added capabilities have been used to manipulate natural things for human benefit, often at the expense of other things. On the other hand, technological advancement has required that humans come to a better understanding of the world, bringing with it a greater potential to do good, to manipulate things for the benefit of the planet. Technological advancement has essentially given us the “can”, and so now the question becomes “should”. Should we do something because we can? Industrialization has increased the effect humans have on the environment, for good or for bad.
It is hard to argue that industrialization has not brought humans a greater ability to manipulate their environment. The list of things that we are now capable of is staggering. Computers, mind-bogglingly sophisticated machines in and of themselves, have enable a world of things to be possible, including the reading of genetic code, prompting Rifkin, in an interview, to deem genes “the raw resource of the biotech industry”. The genetic material that governs every aspect of the development of life is now merely a material for the manipulation of an entire industry. We can clone things (not very well, but still), creating identical creatures at will. “we can go to the moon, orbit earth in space for weeks at a time, send television images around the world in a matter of seconds, and transplant hearts” (Southwick, 170). We can so alter our environment that we are completely unaware of the natural things around us. A room in Japan can completel...
... middle of paper ...
...dearly-held, unconscious collective assumptions may impede our chances for survival. Or, as Poliakoff, et. al., noted, “fundamental changes in technology are adopted… only when they provide real advantage” (810). Are human beings inherently selfish, or are they capable of rising above that? Will we use this power we have developed to help ourselves, or to attempt to help the world? “Why can’t we achieve a better balance between people, resources, and the environment? … The complete answers to these questions lie deeply within the complex realms of science, philosophy, religion, economics, and politics.” (170). The answers may be complicated. The truth is, industrialization has changed our relationship to the environment. It has enabled us to hurt it far more than any other species, but it has also given us the ability to help. The power of choice now lies with us.
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
When humans discovered fire, it was misused by being used as a weapon of war and hunting against both humans and animals which led to massive destruction left by occurrences such as forest fires. When humans developed a successful method of transportation it has led to environmental set backs. For example, when horses were the primary mode of transportation, manure was left everywhere in the streets of cities which understandably, led to the cultivation of numerous diseases. When gasoline cars took a rise due to their convenience, the Earth took a horrible environmental toll and the quality of life degraded to the rising levels of greenhouse gases. It seems that with every technological advancement introduced, there are always potential set
Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is opposed by a vast majority of American’s and people around the world. Leaders in Marijuana prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose the substance, as do many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the use of illegal drugs, are making headlines. They are influencing decision making thru legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate here in the United States and in other countries. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S. It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups use a variety of strategies, which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of medicalization, control legalization through taxation. However, drugs like marijuana are addicting and should not be legalized. Marijuana should not be legalized because it can cause overwhelming damage to the society as a whole. As Bennett says, “Drug use- especially heavy drug use- destroys human character. It destroys dignity and autonomy, it burns away the sense of responsibility, it subverts productivity, it makes a mockery of virtue” (Husak 663). People throughout the nation have witnessed law changes regarding the possession of marijuana to its physical and social effects on society. Marijuana should not be legalized for the following reasons namely for the legal, physical, and social aspects of its use.
Today, we take many of our natural resources for granted without think about the consequences. For example, cutting down trees, burning fossil fuel, and the consumption of meat. Our ozone layer is becoming weaker and weaker to due factories burning too much fossil fuel. This causes too much carbon dioxide, which affects our ozone layer. If we can limit the amount of natural resources we use on a daily basis, we will be able to see a big change in society.
...such as recycling and reducing waste has significantly helped our environment and will continue to if future generations practice these same habits. For deforestation, many organizations have strived to plant more trees and add more oxygen to the atmosphere as well as nutrients for the soil. Seeing that although humans create many negative impacts in our global environment, there are many positive arrangements in correcting these issues.
Shah, Vivek, and Kamlesh T. Mehta. "Workforce, Information Technology and Global Unemployment." Industrial Management + Data Systems 98.5 (1998): 226-31. ProQuest. PROQUESTMS. 3 Mar. 2014
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of the earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans through the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools.
Every day when looking out a window, people see a beautiful earth. The earth is intriguing, but hinges on a delicate balance. Many natural resources keep the grass green and the sky blue. Man has made quite an impression on our world, and has transformed the earth's resources into tools to make life easy. However, mans' manipulation on earth has become detrimental to the health of our planet and the safety of mankind. Through the use and production of resources such as oil and energy, man is gradually poisoning the earth. Pollution has become such a dilemma in society; there is no real control or a feasible solution to society's recklessness. Without complete change, our system will collapse. The earth will eventually retaliate with disaster, or corporate control of our economy will cause hysteria and depression. Evaluation of the consequences and repercussion of worldwide pollution, may give people a better idea of what the future holds.
Human population growth was relatively slow for most of human history. Within the past 500 years, however, the advances made in the industrial, transportation, economic, medical, and agricultural revolutions have helped foster an exponential, "J-shaped" rise in human population (Southwick, Figure 15.1, p. 160). The statistics associated with this type of growth are particularly striking: "Human beings took more than 3 million years to reach a population of 1 billion people...The second billion came in only 130 years, the third billion in 30 years, the fourth billion in 15 years, the fifth billion in 12 years..." (Southwick, p. 159). As human population has grown, there has been simultaneous growth within the industrial sector. Both of these increases have greatly contributed to environmental problems, such as natural resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, and global climate change. Also linked with the increasing human population are many social problems, such as poverty and disease. These issues need to be addressed by policy makers in the near future in order to ensure the survival and sustainability of human life.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
Autism is most common and most missed diagnosed disease. Autism is considered as a spectrum because each person have their own personal trait and characteristic. “Diagnosing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) can be difficult, since there is no medical test, like blood test, to diagnose the disorders. They look at the child’s behavior to make a diagnosis” (www.cdc.gov). Some parents are in denial with this disease and will not get the early intervention that could help. We need to educate as much as possible about autism. Autism is a lifelong condition and with early detection, intervention and therapy. This can help to increase skills and abilities to help children grow and reduce the symptoms cause by this
William F. Baxter exemplifies this anthropocentric viewpoint. In his book People or Penguins: The Case of Optimal Pollution, he argues that society should respect and attempt to preserve environmental balance only if the benefits to humans outweigh the costs. Baxter claims that, since there is no normative definition of “pure” air or water, society should aim for a level of pol...
Humans, like all other species, exploit their surroundings for the resources they need to survive. Our current exploitation of the world, however, is greater than those of most species. There are many reasons for this exploitation but we will focus on one and that is our technology, which is used for various purposes. Like a few other species, we use tools, but the hand-held tools that we originally used could only adjust extremely local conditions. Today we are able to shape entire regions and our technology has progressed to the point where we can level mountains and control the flow of rivers, something that was simply impossible a relatively short while ago. We can now modify our world relatively easily and quickly.
Efforts to improve the standard of living for humans--through the control of nature and the development of new products--have also resulted in the pollution, or contamination, of the environment. Much of the world's air, water, and land is now partially poisoned by chemical wastes. Some places have become uninhabitable. This pollution exposes people all around the globe to new risks from disease. Many species of plants and animals have become endangered or are now extinct. As a result of these developments, governments have passed laws to limit or reverse the threat of environmental pollution.
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.