I don't know, I can see the argument going both ways. As an environmental biology major at the college of
environmental science and forestry, I'm a firm believer that we should be taking better care of the planet. Do I believe that humans are just another species, one of millions, living on this planet and we shouldn't be destroying it the way we are? Absolutely. However at the same time, that is also my personal viewpoint and opinion. I can see how people can perceive that as forcing a certain viewpoint. Some people believe that man was destined to inherit the earth, that we were meant to conquer.
Quote:
|
The problem I see dealing with college students is that they are taught these topics without any perspective. Students think that the extinction of a species or even a sub-species is a huge catastrophe that warrants any amount of money and effort to stop. They aren't taught that the number of extant species is tiny compared to the number of extinct ones, or that extinctions are a natural part of evolution. I do think that if humans are responsible for destroying habitats, that limiting development on the remaining habitat is appropriate, but there should be limits.
|
Species extinction is a common thing, yes. And there have been uncounted number of extinct species. But what you are ignoring is the fact that while extinction is a natural thing, the rate at which species have been going extinct is far greater than what has been seen throughout history. Humans are decimating species and populations at tremendous rates.
As for the "climate change is natural" arguement. Well... I'm not quite exactly sure how to respond to that. It is indeed natural, but our current predicament I am not so sure about. I believe humas have an impact. The larger body of science and academia has already seemed to have accepted this idea as well (but yes, the larger body of scientists have been wrong in the past). Ignoring the sensationalist articles that the mass media seem to publish consantly "omgz we are all dead and doomed", there are already many scientific papers being published on the matter. Science, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, just published a paper on the effect of global warming on tree mortality. My school has done a number of research projects on these effects as well.
I can't understand why people are skeptical about it. Firstly people deny that climate change doesnt exist, which is just stupid. Whether it is natural or anthropogenic, it exists. As for the people who believe it is natural well...again there may not be a single smoking gun but the evidence leans heavily towards humans are having a big impact. I think part of the reason is that because people say "hey, the winters are still freezing and getting even worse from year to year". Their perception is that they see nothing abnormal. To which I respond with, the label of "global warming" (changed to 'global climate change') is highly misleading. A better title would be global climate disruption.
Lastly, even if this warming is indeed natural, what is so wrong with making a "cleaner" planet? Tell me what is so profound and controversial about developing energy efficiencies and trying to clean up pollution? There is not a damn thing that is bad about taking an environmental stance.