McKibben and Quiz Response

From McKibben's podcast, the speaker clearly states that people and the growth that comes along with people is creating numerous problem for the environment. Bill McKibben wants agriculture to be more local and contain less fossil fuels, the reason for this is because of how people try to mass produce items  such as food, but do not do so in the smartest way. McKibben highlights that humans need to stop thinking about growth and instead focus on durability, meaning people cannot base production on making the most items in order to make the most money, but make items that will last and are solid, durable items that are safer and better for humans and the environment. The author also mentions the term "videophilia," which McKibben describes as kids being unconnected to the outside world and the environment because of new technologies like the internet and cell phones. "Videophilia" can lead to a massive problem because the next generation will be even more uneducated then the current one. When reading over the quiz, noticing how many questions could be left unanswered, people of our generation and age could be easily just as ignorant to our environment as young children. There were questions that seemed like only a scientist should know the answer to, not a high school or college student.

Comment on Bill McKibben's podcast

For the most part I agree with Bill Mckibben's ideas. He states that he is not looking for a way to make a Utopia, which many people struggle and fail to do, but he is looking for better ways to move forward. Like many other people, he wants agriculture that is local and does not have to travel far and does not depend on fossil fuel. I strongly agree with this. I also like when he says that "growth is not the mantra." Bigger is not always better and we need to stop thinking we can keep growing at this rate and not have anymore consequences.

Deforestation

Deforestation

            One of many major issues that could be solved with the enforcement of “island civilization,” is the enormous problem of deforestation. This is also known as the destruction of indigenous forests and woodlands. It is a huge problem that is taking away the habitats of millions of species and also having an effect on climate change. A high percentage of these forests will never be seen again because they have been built over by homes, communities and even entire cities. Deforestation can happen because of fires, logging, new highways, but it mainly occurs because of population growth and city expansion. If the idea of humans being contained to certain islands worked, these forests that have been completely cut down would have the chance of growing back without being disturbed.

            There was an article by National Geographic that highlighted the speed at which deforestation is occurring and the negative effects it is having on our environment and life forms. The article noted that deforestation is even contributing to global warming. With a reduced amount of forests, more greenhouse gases are escaping into the environment because there are fewer trees to absorb these gases. A solution suggested was to eliminate the process of clear-cutting and instead plant new trees every time old ones are cut down. This process will slowly begin to balance out the amount of trees being destructed.

            Brazil is one of the greatest countries being affected by deforestation. Brazil is home to the Amazon, which has seen the greatest amount of forest destruction. Part of the destruction is caused by farmers who need more space for growing crops and livestock. These farmers, like many others, use the slash and burn technique, which destroys the trees quickly and easily. Other reasons for deforestation in Brazil are due to logging, soybean production and mining activities. It is estimated that by the year 2030, the Amazon will be reduced by forty percent.

           

Island Civilization

Response to “Island Civilization”

            In “Island Civilization,” Nash highlights the environmental issues of Earth and how humans are basically taking over the entire planet, not leaving much room for any other life form. He proposes that we look further into our futures, not just fifty years from now, but also hundreds and even thousands for a plan to preserve our planet. Nash’s main concern is the destruction and civilizing of the “wild.” He introduces the reader to a plan that most people would never even think of and some may even be afraid to pursue.

As humans, we saw the need to digress away from the ways of hunting and gathering and to have pastures, farms and tamed animals. The progress that we as humans were making was helping us, but harming the planet and nature. Nash completely disagrees with the way humans have progressed. He wants to see a society where we travel back to the ways of finding our own food and letting nature happen on its own. In his article, Nash suggests the idea of “island civilization.” By this he means small confined places where humans live with boundaries instead of the wilderness living with boundaries. Furthermore, Nash wants the human population to be reduced so the focus can be put back on other life forms. He even believes that technology can become so advanced that humans will be able to build cities underwater and in the sky, out of the way of everyone else. With this advanced technology, Nash also believes humans will not even have a need for transportation such as cars anymore, because we will have teleportation. Nash’s reasoning behind his ideas is that we need to put Earth before people if we want to save our planet from becoming a wasteland.

As I was reading this article, it was easy for me to understand where Nash is coming from. We are slowly destructing our planet day by day and our progress does have a negative effect on many different factors, but I believe Nash’s way of solving this problem is much too extreme. When trying to resolve issues, the best way to go about it is to take baby steps; giant leaps are most of the time unrealistic. I agree that we need to make changes to the way humans live to save Earth, the environment and the wild, but Nash’s way seems too harsh.

To me it seems strange to confine ourselves to bounded parts of the Earth. We as humans and every other form of life should have the freedom to roam and live where we choose. As of now every life form can go wherever they want. Organizations such as national parks and reservations are even there to protect parts of the wild and keep them separated from the harmful ways of humans. The idea of an “island civilization” seems too much like a dictatorship or communist government. A second problem I see with Nash’s idea is how unrealistic his plans are. I am not saying people should not dream big, but why plan things that would never be possible in a lifetime? We should be focusing on the present and how the present will impact the future. I always find that taking baby steps gets you much farther than taking on more than you can handle.