Thursday, January 27, 2011

Blog 4

Although humans have made large strides in science and technology, leading to a large increases in the life expectancy, the improvement could be ultimately contributing to a lot of the environmental problems we have today. It is natural for organisms to fear death and to have a strong will to survive; however, we can not ignore the fact that death is a part of life. Creating a human population that reproduces at a quicker rate than the death rate itself is leading to over crowding and the destruction of animal habitats. Due to the expanding of human populations, other populations are suffering without the resources or space needed to reproduce and because of this populations are going extinct before new ones can emerge. I do not honestly understand how I can say we need to stop saving human lives at the expense of other organisms, but my opinion is one of human who cares more about my grandpa or grandma than a population of polar bears. It is justifiable to me to say my life is more valuable than that of an ant or a fly, but "we" all have the right to life. The earth is a "web of mutual dependence" and every population that dies will ultimately lead to trouble down the road for the rest of the planet. Can we justify saving al the human lives at the extent of animal populations and the earth down the road? Probably not, but I don't believe we understand the possible reprocussions of our actions.

1 comment:

  1. Interesting point Joel, but I dont think overpopulation is the single cause of the "polar bears" being endangered. I think we can instead look more to the fact that many people live extravagant and wasteful lifestyles. Or you can just follow Hardin's lifeboat ethics and let the majority of Africa starve to death and that would make a considerable amount of room for more consumption and allow the population to continue to rise. The combination of overconsumption and overpopulation has brought the world to the point it is today.

    ReplyDelete