Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of human behaviour on the environment
Human effects on your ecosystem
Impact of human behaviour on the environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of human behaviour on the environment
When the first human came to earth, the longest conflict ever has started between human and nature. Human are consuming nature’s benefit for centuries. They use animals for works or to get meat, milk, honey etc. It is not wrong to use natural things; however, damaging to nature when doing these activites is an invitation of war. Although, people may be living longer and more healthily than in the past, there is only one winner of this war due to nature’s unmatchable power and human’s tendency to harm themselves. The nature will be the indubitable victor of this war. The first main point of why the nature will be the winner of this constant war is human’s power cannot compare with power of the nature because human are just a part of the nature. According to biology books human’s basic category is animal. Thus, biologically there is not any difference between human and animal. Human need to oxygen, water and food for keep on vital activities as animals and other creatures. Natural cycle keeps earth liveable with simple creature’s activities for all of species. This cycle habilitates all species each other. Holzman, (1997) reports that some insect species are natural cleaners of the earth. Dung beetles protecting the nature from segregated inclusions. That’s how nature is keeping itself liveable. Consequently, all creatures make nature habitable to each other for centuries. Humankind need to nature’s sources for staying alive. For this reason if the nature lose this war, human also lose this war. The second reason of victory of the nature is in the end human will kill themselves. While people are fighting each other they damage their living space, but they cannot realize or they rule out that situation. Leading countries tryin... ... middle of paper ... ...swer is very simple the nature never lose the war against human because human are just a small part of nature. That’s why nature’s defeat means humankind’s end. REFERENCES 1-)Holzman, D. C. (1997). Nature's own pooper-scoopers keep Earth livable for all of us. Smithsonian, 28(3), 116. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=34f0f04f-fcca-4aa4-bdf1-39f498478f69%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4210&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=edselc&AN=edselc.2-52.0-0003172982 2-)http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings/ Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings’ results. 3-)People Who Eat More Fish Live Longer. (cover story). (2013). Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter, 31(5), 1. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=9ffd13d6-1a7f-4553-a4e4-a5ba5a8b8619%40sessionmgr4003&vid=1&hid=4108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=f6h&AN=88428835
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
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 ...
The battle between humanity and nature began when the industrial civilization started threatening our environment and natural resources. Hunters, like Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, were the first Americans to realize that nature is something that we need to preserve. Leopold’s awakening was seeing a fierce green fire in the eyes of a wolf he had shot. He was able to understand what it means to take away pieces of life and how it affected the important role of earth’s grand scheme of nature. People started to become environmentalists when they experienced the same realization as
Man has destroyed nature, and for years now, man has not been living in nature. Instead, only little portions of nature are left in the world
In conclusion, it is the innate nature of mankind to choose survival above all needs which brings out the hidden savage in all of us kept only in check by the artificial restraints placed upon mankind by society. The descent into savagery, man's inherent desire to survive over anything else and the need for civilization and order shows how society unnaturally holds everyone together. The aspiration to endure is an intrinsic response that may lay dormant until the chains of society and civilization are removed; when that day arrives, their dormant instincts will arise and bring about a regression back to that of a savage.
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
Human beings have made much of purity and are repelled by blood, pollution, putrefaction (Snyder, 119). Nature is sacred. We are enjoying it and destroying it simultaneously. Sometimes it is easier to see charming things than the decomposition hidden in the “shade”.We only notice the beautiful side of nature, which are benefits that nature brings us: food, fresh air, water, landscapes. But we forget the other side, the rottenness of human destruction. That is how human beings create “the other side of the sacred”. We cut trees for papers, but we fail to recognize that the lack of trees is the lack of fresh air. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge “the other side of the
Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,
The external conflict of nature against man never becomes resolved, as nature ends the man and his goals. For example, the severe cold weather prevented the man fro...
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Man versus nature is a significant conflict in literature and in real life. This type of conflict is a problem in which nature is the antagonist, or villain, and the human protagonist , or good guy, is pitted against it. Nature is considered storms, climate, temperature, or the sea. It is also called man versus environment. This situation happens commonly in literature, such as books, the arts, such as paintings, and in life, now and earlier.
The poems, "The Bull Moose" by Alden Nowlan, "The Panther" by Rainer Maria Rilke, "Walking the Dog" by Howard Nemerov, and "The Fish" by Elizabeth Bishop, illustrate what happens when people and nature come together, but the way in which the people react to these encounters in these poems is very different. I believe that when humans and nature come together either they clash and conflict because individuals destroy and attempt to control nature, which is a reflection of their powerful need to control themselves, or humans live peacefully with nature because they not only respect and admire nature, but also they can see themselves in the nature.
Humans are destructive. Not a lot of us think about how what we do affects the world around us. We almost act like we are the only ones on this planet. We go around polluting and destroying our world with no regard for our actions. The things that live out in the wild are paying the price for it. Every day that passes there is another animal or plant that is placed on an endangered list. This is happening at an alarming rate. Because of man’s desire to expand and conquer their surroundings, there are animals and plants that are on the brink of extinction that will not be around for our kids and future generations to enjoy if something is not done about it now. This problem has been going on for hundreds of years. There are animals and plants that can only been seen in paintings or early photography. It is because of our early ancestors that we have this problem today and we have to do more to prevent more animals and plants from disappearing forever.
Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.
To understand the nature-society relationship means that humans must also understand the benefits as well as problems that arise within the formation of this relationship. Nature as an essence and natural limits are just two of the ways in which this relationship can be broken down in order to further get an understanding of the ways nature and society both shape one another. These concepts provide useful approaches in defining what nature is and how individuals perceive and treat