Progress at what cost?

B

Bullpup_two

Active member
"Some people believe that the Earth is being harmed by human activities. Others believe that human activity makes the Earth a better place to live. What's your opinion? Use specific reasons."
(Question from the TOEFL test in the past)
Not my original question but essay is my original.


Human activity is actually harming the Earth. There is so much to talk about but I only talk about 3 aspects, as they are really serious problem. First is global warming, rising temperature. Next is Ozone layer, the ozone hole is getting bigger. The last one is destruction of rainforest, changing climates.


First, global warming, global warming is the problem of too much carbon dioxide (CO²) in the air, carbon dioxide store the heat from the Sun so the temperature goes up. Scientist said that the temperature would rise from 2 to 5 degrees. If the temperature goes up, the ice in the North Pole will melt and sea level would go up which causes some land to sink (doesn't really sink, just go under the water). If there is less land, it's already too dense because of over-population but it would be denser. This problem is caused by over-population, human development such as invention of car, which produces a lot of CO² and destruction of rainforest. This global warming can cause desertification.


Next, Ozone layer, Ozone is the molecule of three Oxygen combined together (O³) which absorbs the Sun UVs which if it go through straight to animal's (including human of course) skin, they can get cancer. These days there is a hole in Ozone layer called ozone hole mainly in South Pole. This hole can be spread around the world if they keep getting worse. Using too much air-conditioner causes this problem and also CFCs gases that are produced by fridge and car are making this Ozone hole.


Last, Destruction of rainforest, rainforests are important that they on balance produce Oxygen from CO² . This destruction of rainforest causes global warming and desertification. This problem is caused because people want paper, make furniture and build houses.


Humans are doing some activities that are benefit for Earth, but on balance, there are more bad aspects than good aspects. So right now human activities are hurting the Earth. These three reasons are being done to develop our lives but ironically, we can't live here anymore if our planet, Earth gets hurt. To keep living in our Earth, human activities have to be changed.


Thank you for reading this essay…I'm waiting for your reply!!:-D
 
So we should leave the rainforst up and continue to suffer from being unable to feed the current population? This forest land is being converted into farms in order to boost food production.
 
Bullpup_two, I totally agree with your concern for the rainforests. Here in America, we have more forest covered land than when there was no one here except the American Indians. That is because of proper land management and farming of trees. All forests must be tended just like a flower bed or only one large species of tree will remain because of it being dominant.

I'm still studying the global warming problem being caused by Humans. There are arguments on both sides. One side says that the Earth undergoes Ice Ages and Tropical Ages in a natural cycle of time periods. The hole in the Ozone layer has been part of Earth's history since time began and changes from small to large even in our times. One thing is sure, it changes size and position.

Natural phenomena such as active volcanoes do more damage to the Ozone layer in 100 years than all of mankind since there has been a mankind. CFCs are an infinitesimally small affect on our atmosphere. We, as Humans give ourselves too much credit for being able to destroy our atmosphere.
 
PUP2 - you left out some germain information.

The deforestation, according to some experts, has been overstated.

Total square acreage figures for "leafage" has steadily risen over the last 100 years. One of the reasons can be attributed to the lumber industry replacing trees that are cut down at a faster rate than their removal from the natural oxygen generation mechanism of Mother Earth.

Deforestation of the Amazon has had a different impact than the one you argued. It is estimated that there are thousands of new flora and fauna within the confines of the Amazon that are being destroyed at an alarming rate.

Some of these new phyla may very well lead to new medicines that could eradicate many diseases that do not have cures today and may not be available tomorrow because they are extinct.

That is NOT to say that deforestation of the Amazon is NOT affecting oxygen production - it is, just not at the levels the doomsayers would have you believe.

The greatest danger to oxygen generation through natural means, is from all of the toxic trash that is being generated by man, his machines and industries. All of this chemical soup affect a plant's abilities to process carbon dioxide, drastically decreasing the amount of oxygen each plant can generate.

YES - MAN IS POLLUTING THE PLANET'S ABILITY TO GENERATE OXYGEN.

The greatest danger to oxygen is also the greatest danger facing the ozone layer - namely the toxic soup that is spread to every corner and every environment on Planet Earth.

Many of these chemicals floating in the ozone layer are capable of destroying ozone molecules through purely chemical processes.

YES - MAN IS POLLUTING THE PLANET'S ABILITY TO PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER OVER THE NORTH POLAR CAP.

The final thrust of your essay addresses what is the major stumbling block when dangers facing Mother Nature are being discussed.

Global Warming is the red flag of politicians the world over that are more interested in increasing their country's ability to compete in the world market than having to pass regulations that would require businesses to spend trillions of dollars to decrease "out-gasses".

The most common approach to the warming question, is to appoint another fact finding commission and then to ignore any finding that doesn't support the politician's and businessman's opposition to industry regulations.

Where will this ultimately take us?

So far, the data doesn't support worldwide increases in the "mean" temperature index that can lead to the Global Warning which certain "green" nature groups are so worried about.

Yes, there is an indication that the "hole" observed at the North Pole has changed as more chemicals have been thrown into our airs.

Depending on who's data you are using - the hole has gotten bigger - the hole has gotten smaller - the hole has remained rather stable.

One of the problems, is that it takes many many years to come up with accurate information and even then it can be misleading. Changes within the various natural systems that make up Mother Nature have been observed to be cyclic.

Mother Nature has the ability to heal itself if we can just learn to stop polluting the air, water and ground.

YES - MAN IS TRYING TO DESTROY THE PLANET'S ABILITY TO PROTECT US FROM DANGEROUS RAYS FROM OUR OWN LIFE GIVING SUN.

Where will it ultimately lead homosapien?

The cost (if you believe the doomsayers), is that man will become extinct and the lowly cockroach will inherit the earth - radiation doesn't kill a cockroach like it can a man.
 
Last edited:
Ahem... actually, human activity is a double-edged sword. While it harms the habitat, there are many species that benefit from deforestation. For example, the removal of old growth provides room for new growth and a subsequent population explosion of herbivores in an area. AS long as this activity is kept in check and the majority of negative impacts can be stabilized or balanced, human activity such as forestry is beneficial

consider raccoons- instead of foraging at night, all they have to do is head to your nearest Taco Bell dumpster- Humberto Fontova
 
deerslayer said:
Ahem... actually, human activity is a double-edged sword. While it harms the habitat, there are many species that benefit from deforestation. For example, the removal of old growth provides room for new growth and a subsequent population explosion of herbivores in an area. AS long as this activity is kept in check and the majority of negative impacts can be stabilized or balanced, human activity such as forestry is beneficial

consider raccoons- instead of foraging at night, all they have to do is head to your nearest Taco Bell dumpster- Humberto Fontova
Click to expand...

I have to agree with deerslayer on the double-edged sword. Although Chief has a few good points, specifically about the flora/fauna that is destroyed due to foresting.

Does man have an impact on his environment? Yes, this has been the case since recorded history. You get too many of one species in an area and they either die off or the area changes. Such is nature.

Does modern man have more of an impact than those in history? Yes, with greater technology comes a greater ability to affect the Earth with less effort.

Is man acting responsibly in regards to his impact on the environment? In some cases yes, in some cases no. I personally believe that we are more aware and have a bit less of an impact than we did 20 years ago. Better monitoring of various companies and their toxic waste disposal, vehicle emmissions, CFCs, etc etc.

It all depends on how you look at it as to whether or not we are having a more positive or mor enegative impact on the world as a whole.
 
Last edited:
The lush forests that conservationists love to look at in photographs are not as ecologically sound as, say, a patch of forest that has had a cutting operation followed by a small burn. You have to destroy old growth somewhere along the line for new life to flourish. While I hate to see trees done away with needlessly by CFCs, factories, and other pollutants, it's a greater crime not to work to conserve nature. Why do these greenies think we burn marshes? For ecological stability!
 
I drove through thousands of acres of burned forest in Oregon this past Summer. Lightening had started a fire where vehicles couldn't reach it and density of the canopy stopped enough of the water and surfactant drops that the underbrush caught the big trees afire. What a waste, but Mother Nature decided that an adjustment was needed.
 
and by next spring, that part of oregon will be enjoying lush new growth. I'm tellin' ya, man, fire's good for the environment.

Anyone here aware of deer management or DMAP? Or perhaps chronic wasting disease? That's what happens when you DON'T thin a population- diseases like CWD.
 
bulldogg said:
So we should leave the rainforst up and continue to suffer from being unable to feed the current population? This forest land is being converted into farms in order to boost food production.
Click to expand...
We have to cut down trees if the world is shortage of land; there are better places to convert into farm other than rainforest because they are really important. Also I think some country just donate or sell food by cheap to the country with problem of hunger. I've seen in the news that Japan just throws away rice because it's just too much. I believe that they can do something better other than just throwing them away...And thank you Bulldogg it's perfect example of tree being cut down by overpopulation.

Missileer said:
I'm still studying the global warming problem being caused by Humans. There are arguments on both sides. One side says that the Earth undergoes Ice Ages and Tropical Ages in a natural cycle of time periods. The hole in the Ozone layer has been part of Earth's history since time began and changes from small to large even in our times. One thing is sure, it changes size and position.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that some experts say that it's a cycle and now is just in bad tern, it will be fine. But as there is no proof, we at least should do something about it just in case, even if it’s good enough; if we can make the Ozone layer or temperature better, it’s benefit for the Earth anyways.

Chief Bones said:
The deforestation, according to some experts, has been overstated.
Click to expand...
I never knew that, well, from what I‘ve heard and what I‘ve read, the Earth is in danger and even the experts can’t predict the future for 100%, so I believe that we should at least take care of the Earth. I will do some more research on it…

deerslayer said:
Ahem... actually, human activity is a double-edged sword. While it harms the habitat, there are many species that benefit from deforestation. For example, the removal of old growth provides room for new growth and a subsequent population explosion of herbivores in an area. AS long as this activity is kept in check and the majority of negative impacts can be stabilized or balanced, human activity such as forestry is beneficial
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with that, it is surely double-edged sword, but what I was arguing was benefit for the Earth not other species. My point is that is deforestation benefit for the Earth if it’s benefit for the other species?

Hmm I’ll come back later, I’m so hungry,,,
 
Bullpup_two (said)
:drink: Hmm I’ll come back later, I’m so hungry,,,,,,,,,:coffee:
Hmmm mmMmm mmMmm!
Click to expand...

Whatever it was it must have been good. heeheehee



Couldn't resist!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top