|
|
Friends, as you know God has made the earth the only and perfect home for human beings and other living objects. We cannot live without this environment. Yet, we have been destroying the environment that protects us and provide us with the essential life giving and life saving elements. The worst we are doing to our environment is cutting trees ruthlessly. Other factors are related polluting air with harmful gases and materials like carbon monoxide and lead and disposing solid wastes into water reserves and open land. Such irresponsible behavior on man’s part has cost a lot in the form of deadly diseases, shortage of clean air to breath and water to use. How do you thing can we live without air water and food if we survive the killing rays from space striking our bodies directly.
Please think and post any suggestions for your fellow humans.
Shouldn't this topic be in the religious section of frihost? But in answer to your other questions there is a way to save the earth. Launch every nuclear missle in the world in order to kill every human in existence and there you go your problems solved. Don't worry about radiation fall out the planet will eventually recover from that.
but seriously if we do end up killing our selves oh well, animals go extinct thats a fact. And yes we are animals dispite what you may think. If you want to be exact then mammels but hey who wants to be specific anymore? Besides if we do manage to kill our entire race I assure you it wont happen in our life times. Mabe in say 3 or 4 generations but certainly not in our life time.
The environmental movement (sometimes inclusive of the conservation or green movements) is a diverse global social and political movement, which advocates for the protection, sustainable management and restoration of the natural environment in an effort to satisfy human needs, including spiritual and social needs, as well as for its own sake. Towards these aims, environmentalists usually engage in or support advocacy for social change, public policy reforms, and changes in the behaviour of individuals, governments and firms. The movement is united by a commitment to maintain the health of natural systems, and in its recognition of humanity as a part of and not separate to ecosystems. The environmental movement is closely linked with a rising standard of living in industrialized nations and is largely limited to upper and middle income groups.
# he Conservation movement which sought to protect natural areas on traditional aesthetic, consumptive use (hunting, fishing, trapping), and spiritual grounds.
# The Environmental movement is broader in scope, including all landscapes and human activities.
# Environmental health movement dating at least to Progressive Era urban reforms including clean water supply, more efficient removal of raw sewage and and reduction in crowded and unsanitary living conditions. Today Environmental health is more related to nutrition, preventive medicine, aging well and other concerns specific to the human body's well-being. In these, the natural environment is of interest mostly as an early warning system for what may happen to humans.
# Ecology movement which focused on Gaia theory, value of Earth and other interrelations between human sciences and human responsibilities. Its spinoff Deep Ecology was more spiritual but often claimed to be science.
# Environmental Justice is a movement that began in the U.S. in the 1980s and seeks an end to environmental racism. Often, low-income and minority communities are located close to highways, garbage dumps, and factories, where they are exposed to greater pollution and environmental health risk than the rest of the population. The Environmental Justice movement seeks to link "social" and "ecological" environmental concerns, while at the same time keeping environmentalists conscious of the dynamics in their own movement, i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, and other malaises of dominant culture.
Many environmental lawsuits turn on the question of who has standing; are the legal issues limited to property owners, or does the general public have a right to intervene? Christopher D. Stone's 1972 essay, "Should trees have standing?" seriously addressed the question of whether natural objects themselves should have legal rights, including the right to participate in lawsuits. Stone suggested that there was nothing absurd in this view, and noted that many entities now regarded as having legal rights were, in the past, regarded as "things" that were regarded as legally rightless; for example, aliens, children and women. His essay is sometimes regarded as an example of the fallacy of hypostatization.
One of the earliest lawsuits to establish that citizens may sue for environmental and aesthetic harms was Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, decided in 1965 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The case helped halt the construction of a power plant on Storm King Mountain in New York State. See also United States environmental law and David Sive, an attorney who was involved in the case.
Largely due to this political critique and confusion, and a growing concern with the environmental health problems caused by pesticides, some serious biologists and ecologists created the scientific ecology movement which would not confuse empirical data with visions of a desirable future world.
Today it is the science of ecology, rather than any aesthetic goals, that provide the basis of unity to most environmentalists. All would accept some level of scientific input into decisions about biodiversity or forest use. Conservation biology is an important and rapidly developing field.
One way to avoid the stigma of an "ism" was to evolve early anti-nuclear groups into the more scientific Green Parties, sprout new NGOs such as Greenpeace and Earth Action, and devoted groups to protecting global biodiversity and preventing climate change. But in the process, much of the emotional appeal, and many of the original aesthetic goals were lost - these groups have well-defined ethical and political views, backed by hard science.
the environmental movement today persists in many smaller local groups, usually within ecoregions, furthering spiritual and aesthetic values which Thoreau or those who rewrote Chief Seattle's Reply would recognize. Some resemble the old U.S. conservation movement - whose modern expression is the Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society and National Geographic Society - American organizations with a worldwide influence.
These "politically neutral" groups tend to avoid global conflicts and view the settlement of inter-human conflict as separate from regard for nature - in direct contradiction to the ecology movement and peace movement which have increasingly close links: While Green Parties and Greenpeace, and groups like the ACTivist Magazine for example, regard ecology, biodiversity and an end to non-human extinction as absolutely basic to peace, the local groups may not, and may see a high degree of global competition and conflict as justifiable if it lets them preserve their own local uniqueness. This seems selfish to some. However, such groups tend not to "burn out" and to sustain for long periods, even generations, protecting the same local treasures. The Water Keepers Alliance is a good example of such a group that sticks to local questions.
The visions and confusions, however, persist. The new tribalist vision of society, for example, echoes the concerns of the original environmentalists to a degree. And the more local groups increasingly find that they benefit from collaboration, e.g. on consensus decision making methods, or making simultaneous policy, or relying on common legal resources, or even sometimes a common glossary. However, the differences between the various groups that make up the modern environmental movement tend to outweigh such similarities, and they rarely co-operate directly except on a few major global questions.
Groups such as The Bioregional Revolution are calling on the need to bridge these differences, as the converging problems of the 21st century they claim compel us to unite and to take decisive action. They promote bioregionalism, permaculture, and local economies as solutions to these problems, overpopulation, climate change, global epidemics, and water scarcity, but most notably to "peak oil"--the prediction that we are likely to reach a maximum in global oil production which could spell drastic changes in many aspects of our everyday lives
It seems that most of us are not ready to take the issue seriously thus letting the degradation of earth’s recourses and of human race picking pace. We see more and more people catching diseases like all kinds of cancers, breathing problems and many more deadly ones and we know the causes yet we don’t care. Perhaps we believe that nothing is wrong with us, at least, and are content with this idea. We believe, as my friend Reaper said, if something real destructive happens it will not be in our lifetime, means it would be the next generations who will actually suffer for our today’s negligence. How pathetic!
Well it seems that all people is talk about the environment problems, no one is actually doing any thing. It's going to take a big event to get peolpe motivated to take action. the politicans just talk and about it and dont really care, peolpe still drive gas guzelers and dont think twice about it. Very little money is being invested in alternet feul sources. As some one said before we are getting a lot more health problems now, but still no one cares.Its sad that it will take a major disator to make people change thier habbits...regrads
| myonline wrote: | | Such irresponsible behavior on man’s part has cost a lot in the form of deadly diseases, shortage of clean air to breath and water to use. |
I'd like to think that diseases are Mother Earth's only way to harm human race. Kind of a self defence.
One must pay attention to our daily actions in order to avoid polluting our environment.
bah, it involves earth so science it is.
earth would not be saved unless the creatures inhabiting it will start cooperating with each other and earth itself. Its easy to say that we should save the earth yadayada. I think that everybody knows how we could save it. (like not littering, helping on lessing the combustion problem, etc) some even form NGOs to fully support drives like this.
People could be hearing things over and over again but it will not change unless we act.
|
