We Are Destroying Our Planet

“The primary concern is that a world of over six billion people striving materialistic satisfaction is drawing ever more heavily from finite supplies of natural resources to fuel an economic growth model destined to lead to an ecological disaster and global poverty without precedence” (Harder and Harder 1). As Harder and Harder explain, we must find an economic way of life that is economically stable. There are many different perspectives that view economic growth in different aspects. Advocates of economic growth have a very optimistic viewpoint about the future of economic growth. “Their operational logic reflects their sense of duty to develop latent resources into their actualized state for the benefit of a global

Earth has not yet, reached its carrying capacity. Many people believe that Earth’s resources are running out due to the human population exponential growth, and the linear growth of food supply. The document, “Has Earth Reached its Carrying Capacity?” by Julia Layton, points out the fact that if the human population does more to extend the amount of resources available to us, we can increase Earth’s carrying capacity. For example, On page one, Paragraph four, Layton writes, “...technological advancement... they(scientist) have argued that this human ability allows food production to grow exponentially, as well.” Many advances in technology have giving us a wide range of information. Some of which could help us, now or in the future, to create

The earths resources are finite and we are very close to meeting the earths carrying capacity. We created the era of a constant want and desire for material products which has created the concept of supply and demand; which inevitably led to corporations to go multinational, also known as transitional companies. These transitional companies are what have created sweat shops in third world countries therefore we are not only destroying our own resources to fill this supply and demand, we are also creating an idea of power and dominance over ourselves which has ultimately led to economic disparity. We should be trying to salvage our resources and share amongst ourselves of whatever we have left, not using everything until it’s gone and leaving people better off than others. This constant want and desire for materialistic items has blinded us, forgetting every time we create a phone or a laptop we are taking from the earth and what we are taking can not be replenished.

Over 20 percent of the global population live in unsustainable impoverished conditions, surviving on less than a dollar a day, with approximately 50 percent living on less than two dollars. Over 2 ½ billion people have a 10% infant mortality rate versus the 0.006% of infant deaths in developed countries. As conditions worsen the poor-rich gap widens through progressive decades, reaching an average per capita income of 74:1 in 1997.1 A debate has emerged as the whether developed countries possess a duty to ameliorate the living condition of the global poor and on what grounds said duty is justified.

On November 8th, American citizens will go to the polls and vote for the next president of the United States. During the presidential campaign, both candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have their own different points of view on environmental issues. Hillary Clinton affirms her commitment to the fight against climate change. She supports the Paris Agreement, which is an agreement among many nations to respond to the threat of global warming and to reverse the worst effects of climate change. Donald Trump, by contrast, does not believe that the shift in the climate is a manmade disaster. He claims that global warming just is a hoax and current global warming is just a part of a natural cycle that is naturally occurring. Donald Trump, then, promises to dismantle the agreement if he becomes the U.S. President. It is important to note that many people and scientists share this same belief with Trump, protesting that global warming is a natural phenomenon. The debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump raises an important issue. Are people primary responsible for global warming? Global warming is due to many reasons; specifically, human activities are the major factors causing the planet to get gradually warmer over time.

Justice to future generations requires us to pass along the beauty and bounty of Earth diminished. Our politics, economy, and media betray an almost infantile fixation on the present moment, seeking or selling instant gratification, oblivious to history. We need to develop a culture worthy or adults, one that recognizes our actions have consequences. If we take more than we need from the riches of the planet, if we drain aquifers, squander topsoil, or fish the seas bare, we are stealing from our children. If we fill dumps with toxic waste, fill barrels with radioactive debris, spew poisons into the atmosphere and oceans, we will leave our descendants a legacy of grief. Conservation aims to avoid causing harm to our children, or their children, or to any children ever” (Sanders

Garrett Hardin, biologist from Stanford, used the metaphor of Earth being a “spaceship” persuading other countries, industries and people to stop polluting and washing natural resources of the world. He illustrates that the “spaceship” is represented by the wealthy countries, and the natural resources are represented as the poorer countries of the world. The wealthy people of the world have all the resources they need to survive and more, while other hand the poorer countries are unfortunate. Their rations are broken up into smaller and smaller portions because of their growing population and it lessens the resources to everyone of that country. Hardin's argument is based on sharing. He proposes that the bigger countries should share what

His main premise is the difference in population growth rates between the wealthy and unwealthy nations. He argues that if a poor country becomes heavily dependent on an affluent nation, whose population grows far less quickly, their population will quickly overtake that of the providing nation and make further aid to them infeasible. He also alleges that, using the example of the proposed World Food Bank, that any country’s population will eventually level out to an amount which can be supported relatively easily by said nation’s natural resources if and only if it is not heavily dependent on another country, in which case its dependency will only increase with time. I find his arguments to be completely plausible, if not somewhat oversimplified, though it is of course impossible to take all factors into account.

The planets sustainability is under attack from human dependency on the convenience of plastic and are failing in the proper disposal of those items. Advocacy groups the like of Cairns and Far North Environment Centre (cafnec) who are offering solutions through education awareness and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who are offering grants for marine debris removal, educational programs and research. In an article from cafnec (2013) they pointed out that 80% of plastic debris comes from land and during beach clean up the most common item found have been plastic bottle caps, bags and pellets. These items are being are in dead seabirds gizzards as they cannot distinguish plastic debris from food. Human littering of

The destruction of the Earth’s environment is known by almost every human alive. Our planet is time and again being attacked by the dominant human race. People treat the earth as if it does not have a role in our survival as a species. This assault on the environment has been going on for centuries and has brought about consequences that many of us cannot even fathom. If the world is anything like the environment depicted in the novel He, She, and It, the world we know today will be seen as a haven. The environment in the novel as horrible as it may be, is not far from reality. Deterioration of the earth’s environment, population growth, depletion of our resources and world poverty are all issues that point to the future shown in He, She and It. The possibility that we could annihilate ourselves has never been more real. However, our species is one of the most adaptable creatures on Earth, and with our developing technology we might just be able to salvage the world we have left.

The concept of ‘sustainable development’ is one that has faced heated debates for decades now. A seemingly harmless concept, it raises a lot of questions as to what it really entails and how exactly it can be achieved. But with more than 1.3 billion people living in abject poverty (less than $1.25 a day), and with a reported 22,000 children dying every day as a result of poverty (UNICEF), the debate for Sustainable Development becomes interesting as it questions the extremity of economic growth policies, in the war against poverty. Many note economic growth and development as the only tool for poverty alleviation. Roemer and Gugerty, for example, report that GDP growth of 10% per year is associated with income growth of 10% for the poorest 40% of the population. However, others question the extent to which economic growth should be put above other socio-economic factors. Lele points out that the focus on economic growth has led to important ecological and social sustainability, taking the backseat. He argues that due to strong emphasis on economic growth, not enough attention is paid to social equity, and economic stability within the development discourse.

Unfortunately, it was estimated that roughly 1.2 billion people in 1993 lived in extreme or absolute poverty, that which Robert McNamara regards “‘a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable standard of human dignity’” (Singer 219, 220). These estimates can be projected at nearly 2 billion today. A large majority of the people living in absolute poverty resides in underdeveloped countries. Among the nearly 4.4 billion people in these countries, “3/5 lives in societies lacking basic sanitation; 1/3 go without safe drinking water; 1/4 lack adequate housing; 1/5 are undernourished, and 1.3 billion live on less than $1 a day” (Speth 1).

People tend to focus on the flaws when it comes to humanity’s ability to provide goods and services. News stories on income inequality, lack of adequate healthcare services for hundreds of millions of people, the large number of people who go hungry every day, etc. often capture the attention of humanity better than any other type of story. Combine this with an increasing population, the doomsay predictions about global warming, and the recent economic recession, and it appears that solutions to many of the world’s current and future problems are out of reach. This, though, is not the viewpoint taken by Peter H. Diamandis and Steven Kolter in their book Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think. They acknowledge that the world have

Poverty is a major menace to humanity existence in recent times majorly in the third world countries; it is one of the greatest threats to stability and peace more than other tussles like terrorism. The Sustainable Development Goal of the United Nations to eradicate poverty everywhere in all its form and ensure quality education by 2030 shows the global commitment to ensure a higher standard of living for mankind.

Earth is uninhabitable because of rising oceans, worldwide storms, in addition to nuclear warfare. We have narrowed down our options to other planets that are suitable for humans to live in. A team of experts has come to the conclusion that human civilization needs to go back to its roots of early cities. They are afraid that our economy has gone astray and we need to connect back to basic human origins. A group of five thousand is sent down to inhabit this new planet and see if humankind can survive.