EDUindex News

EDUindex News


   Imagine a world in which people would not see trees and a blue sky when they go outside. Imagine stepping out of a house and not being able to walk a few feet without getting winded because of the amount of pollution in the air. This might become a reality if our society as a whole does not start to think about the repercussions of our actions. The irrevocable decisions that we make today will ultimately be the arbiter of what the world will be like in the future. The environment is a very fragile thing and if we do not take care of it, future generations will not be able to enjoy it.

             There are many ways in which we can begin to better our environment. One of which is to recycle. One does not have to be an erudite person to know the numerous advantages of recycling. By recycling daily material in our lives, we will perpetuate a lifetime of useful material without using Earth's transient resources. If our waste is not recycled, then it is sent to landfills, where the harmful substances are left to permeate into the soil. The simple task of recycling is a very powerful way for renewing our supply of natural resources and helping the environment.
             Another way in which we can improve the environment is to conserve energy. The energy that is used to power our lights and televisions is provided by large power plants that can sometimes inadvertently harm our environment. If we retrench the amount of energy that we use at home, than we are able to reduce the chance of harming our fragile ecosystem. With the flick of the switch when the light is not needed, there will be a salutary effect on the environment, even if it is just a nominal amount.
 Our gossamer world is not something that society should take for granted. If we choose to take care of our environment now, the world might become a much better place.
Mankind's effect on the environment has been one of the most controversial social issues in recent years. The environment has constantly been in the forefront in most political debates. There are two sides to every story. Chris Bright says that yes, mankind is dangerously harming the environment. On the other side, Bjorn Lomborg, says the environment is in fact improving, not declining. I'm going to be discussing both sides of this issue and then giving my own opinion.


  Much of the information on development in the 1960s was based on the belief that all of mankind would prosper. It really ignored the strong effects of development on the environment and assumed that the readiness of raw materials would not be a factor. The thinking was that all people working together would get richer because they would be investing in new technologies that would bring more wealth to all.

             By the end of the 1960s, a marine scientist Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, had an enormous impact on the public. Her book noticed the loss of birds to pesticides. Her book also made all classes of the population to realise that the pollution affects everyone, not just the rich.
 Another professor, Paul Ehrlich, was worried about overpopulation being the demise of mankind. He thought that the population was about five times too large, and we were using our resources to not only overpopulate but to also over use our environment. We were poisoning the ecological systems which we were dependent on for all of our food and oxygen. Chris Bright said the world population would double to 8 billion sometime between 2010 and 2020. That means at the same time that the population is growing, people are striving to get richer, which in turn means that they would consume more, pollute more and use up all of our resources. He also thought that humans would disturb the ecological system.