The modern human way of life is unsustainable because it is short sighted, and fails to take into account the finite amount of resources available. There are many underlying opinions and beliefs that lead to unsustainability. Three of the largest ones include imperialism, frontier ethics, and certain religious teachings. Imperialism occurs when powerful nations or groups of people attempt to conquer and utilize every available natural resource and piece of land in sight. Imperialism is never satisfied, and only stops when every resource has been exploited to its maximum potential. This system is unsustainable because it fails to take into account the limited resources available or take into consideration if more resources are necessary. Another …show more content…
The natural evolutionary urge to reproduce and expand until we are stopped by the carrying capacity of our environment does not take into consideration the needs of future generations. The solution is to adopt a system of sustainable ethics. This is made possible by the uniquely human ability to comprehend the problem at hand. Our intelligence can allow us to surpass our basic biological predispositions in favor of a better system. The results of unrestricted biological imperialism are likely to be a massive drop in human population and the destruction of most natural resources. A sustainable way of living creates far more optimal results, ending in a world with a steady human population and the continued existence of natural resources. Sustainable systems have the added benefit of working for a far greater amount of time. Theoretically, a perfectly sustainable society could exist indefinitely unless outside factors interfere. This is a far better outlook than to be doomed to mass human death and the destruction of the environment. A con of sustainable systems is that they are far more difficult to implement because they require long term thinking, a skill most humans find hard to grasp. The solution to this problem is a worldwide change in the way people think about the problem at hand. A paradigm shift could have the effect of turning people away from their natural imperialistic instincts. A shift towards critical thought and sustainable ethics could improve the quality of millions of lives, both human and
Among the fears of many environmentalists is that of overpopulation. Acutely aware of the finite resources that the planet possesses and the limitations of renewable resources, there are concerns that the planet may soon reach its maximum caring capacity. Since the First Great Transition ten thousand years ago, the planet has experienced an astounding increase in population. Generations later, the planet is beginning to feel the effects of continual population expansion. Over the years, numerous methods have been proposed or adopted to ensure that the Earth will not exhaust its resources. One of the most frightening adapted solutions was the eugenics movement.
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
Fewer people are becoming increasingly 'successful' and wealthy while a disproportionately larger population are also becoming even poorer. The developed nations, by systematic spoliation of the non-renewable resources of the world, are also destroying the ecosystem. Around the world, inequality is increasing, while the rest of the world is further globalising. In many cases, political interests have led to a diversion of available resources from domestic needs to western markets. Historically, politics and power play by the elite leaders and rulers has meant that people and their land can be controlled, which has further increased poverty and dependency.
In unit 3 we learned about sustainability, our ecological footprints, oil resources as well as trade. The sustainability dilemma is divided into three sections that each show a way the earth is struggling to sustain us. When studying population, we learned that the global population is slowing down, but will continue to increase for at least thirty years. Furthermore, in unit 4 we learned about population change. When studying exponential growth, we learned the United Nation has three predictions for the future global population. These predictions include our population increasing rapidly, decreasing rapidly and stabilizing. These two ideas are connected because they both explore the future of our population. The diagram represents
The overexploitation of Earth’s resources is a prime example of this. When people mine excessively, this shows how they tend to prioritize short-term self gains over the preservation of ecosystems. Also, industrialization and irresponsible waste disposal contributes to pollution which can affect the water, air, and soil quality. And pollution doesn’t just affect humans either; it endangers other species and ecosystems. There is also something to be said about the so-called “consumerism culture” which is the excess production of goods, thus leading to increased waste of resources.
While humans are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental issues that are occurring in the world, most human systems are still unsustainable. Being sustainable in a society means that humans treat Earth like it has a limited supply of resources that need to be carefully managed in order to prevent damage to the world around us (Chiras, D. D., 2016). So, being unsustainable is the opposite; when humans treat the world like they are dominant over it, as well as believing that the Earth has an unlimited supply of resources that should be consumed by humans. Human beliefs and practices influence unsustainability, which can, and often do, correspond with the root cause of the problem.
By providing foreign food aid to underprivileged nations, the root cause is not solved because although immediate hunger is alleviated, the underlying issue of resource scarcity and overpopulation is left unresolved (Hardin, 2001, p. 36). Hardin also opposes permissive immigration policies, arguing that unrestricted immigration causes strain on available resources within these nations (Hardin, 2001, p. 44). Allowing a large number of people to migrate to wealthier countries leads to environmental degradation, social tension, and decreased quality of life for the native population as well as for the immigrants. These policies ignore the ecological carrying capacity of areas and perpetuate the cycle of population growth, which is unsustainable. From an environmentalist perspective, there could be a conflict between humanitarianism and land ethic.
Hardin argues how the world only has so many resources and opportunities for agriculture to be expanded. Therefore, with enough increase in population, these resources will become extinct. Thus, humans will run out of food and eventually starve to death. As Hardin declares, “a finite world can only support a finite population” (Hardin 98). Simon goes on to discuss how humans always seem to come up with the means to satisfy their needs.
However, they are unwilling to accomplish this due to their own personal greed and need for self gratification, creating an economic and social divide in society. The greed of humanity has created an interpersonal disconnect in the population, where each individual is focused on their own fabricated needs and desires as opposed to the overall wellness of humans as a species. Furthermore, the act of helping one another through hardships is fading away as self preservation and consumerism begins to take over the modern day human mindset, inevitably leading to an entire societal collapse. Yet, despite the social turmoil greed has caused, the most concerning act of human destruction is their reckless abuse of the environment. Humans have disregarded the environment for their own personal gain for centuries, and have finally begun to see the repercussions in the form of global warming and severe
consumption and even further.” Our current global food system is not sustainable. It does not
This problem of population growth leads to a number of solutions that could have significant implications on the quality of life. Taking no action and allowing population to grow unchecked could possibly risk the entire human species if food or clean water were to become unavailable worldwide. Aiming for zero population growth would in theory maintain the existing quality of life since a stable population would not increase their use of resources. However not all resources are renewable, so scarcities could still occur with a fixed population size. In an extreme case permanent resource depletion under zero population growth could have the same extinction effect that unchecked growth can lead to. Despite the escalating risk of unchecked population growth, technological advances necessitated by the increase in population will at least maintain the quality of life and could possibly improve conditions.
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.
Though several people see large rapidly growing populations in developing regions as the primary culprit in environmental decline, we need to focus on the costly environmental outcomes of overconsumption among the gradually increasing populations of the developed nations. These differing emphases naturally point to fundamentally different solutions: slow population increase in less-developed nations or change destructive consumption and production patterns in the more-developed nations. This debate, however, assumes a one-step answer to the complex problems created by population pressures on the environment. Both population size and consumption ...
Humans have become a threat to our own way of life by consuming more resources than needed, blind to the consequences that we may face in the future. As of 2016 the world population is at 7.4 billion and it is estimated to be at 11.2 billion by the year 2100. However 10 billion is the maximum population that can be sustained in terms of food security, only one of the many factors to global sustainability. Due to the fact that human consumption exceeds the amount of resources available, the United Nations “recognizes that eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge” in A/RES/70/1. Sustainable development is not only required to fulfill the necessities of the present but to guarantee the capability for future generations to satisfy theirs.
Overpopulation can be seen as one of the key factors responsible for the state of our rapidly decaying earth. Developments in medicine, agriculture and technology have allowed for the human race to take over all other species and be excluded from the natural food chain. Humans, particularly westerners, lead lives of extreme consumption that take huge tolls not only on the earth but also on certain groups within society. A great division has developed between the western world and the third world.