Human and nature have collaborated; normally people say that human activities destroy nature. However, we should understand why humans destroy nature. Destroying nature are not an individual initiative people destroy nature to meet their basic requirements.
Naturally, the number of people living on earth has increased meaning that natural resources are over-utilized. As society evolves, the population has grown, and natural resources needed to facilitate the needs of the expanded population have been overused. The shift to modern lifestyle has enhanced the need for natural resource changing the human perception of nature. In the modern times, humans have failed to value nature. Humankind suffers because of the destruction of nature; humans are forced to withstand harsh temperatures due to deforestation.
Despite several attempts to conserve the natural resources other forms of natural disasters is still a challenge for human survival.
The world is becoming worse due to the destruction of natural processes. It will reach a point where all the natural resources will be depleted; there will be no oil or fertile land or fresh air to breathe. There will be many toxins hovering around reminding us of our past activities of destroying nature. Humans keep on abusing power over nature destroying the original pure nature that once existed. All shows the truth that human and nature no longer exist in harmony instead humans are destroying nature.
Humans need to collaborate with nature to change the world for the better. For people, relationships with other humans or with natural communities bring in notions of mutual respect and fairness that are reflected, for example, in universally recognized moral principles like the Golden Rule.
The commonwealth of life extends these notions of common features, fair sharing, and interdependence to the entire community of living beings on the earth. Nearly all life on the earth has been made possible by the power of the sun, which over eons has fueled the creation of living structures of increasing complexity and interdependence. These range from single-cell organisms to elephant, honey bee, or human societies, as well as the intertwined communities of plants, animals, insects, and other biota that constitute a forest.
In the commonwealth of all life, the actions of each individual member or species affect the entire commonwealth, however small the result might be. We human beings are now in a position to have far greater impact on the commonwealth of life than most of the other life forms with which we share the planet.
Therefore we have the responsibility and privilege to consider other beings and ecosystems when we engage in any sort of social action, including an economy. An Economy in Right Relationship Our species has arrived at its present precarious condition through a history of development driven, in part, by economic relationships and interactions. But though it has facilitated convenience in material living over the centuries, building and maintaining human societies has often had disastrous effects on human and natural communities—the ruin of the Mayan, Roman, and Easter Island civilizations are examples.
By objective measures, the kind of globalized economy that has seized the world since World War II is one of the most disastrous of all. Far more catastrophic collapses are likely to hit human and ecological communities in the near future, and the long-run prospect is dire indeed unless a shift from wrong to right relationships becomes part of human culture. The postwar financial success of a globalized economy has led to the continuing expansion of finance and consumption and to prosperity for hundreds of millions of people, but it has also trapped the nations of the world in a relentless pursuit of economic growth with no thermostat or shutoff valve.
Especially since the end of the Cold War and the easing of any threat of a competing ideology, an increasingly unregulated global capitalistic economy, as developed most enthusiastically in the United States, has dismantled decades-old institutions and structures that had previously succeeded at more evenly distributing prosperity and reducing market abuses. Like putting water into the tar sands, placing the human economy above the well-being of the natural world creates a lethal, poisonous wrong relationship.
So how can people shift from an economy based on greed and unquestioned growth to a whole earth economy that is based on right relationship with the commonwealth of life? How does it work? How big is too big? What is fair?
How should it be governed? Question 1: What Is the Economy For? What are people aiming for, individually and collectively, in the myriad interdependent transactions that make up the economy? They assume, despite having little or no serious argument or data, that more consumption and economic activity will result in greater well-being. Yet this answer makes no sense. To begin with, in mainstream economic terms, growth is not measured in terms of benefits, but simply keeps track of overall economic activity in terms of exchanges of money.
Many such exchanges create negative side effects, such as pollution, but money spent on cleaning up the resulting pollution is measured as positive growth—and hence adds to dominant measures like gross domestic product GDP. So, for example, the current economic model sees the money spent cleaning up the Exxon Valdez oil spill as an increase in GDP and therefore beneficial.
Similarly, when a person suffers a fatal car accident, the economic exchanges, in terms of ambulances, insurance agents, funeral homes, and so forth, increase GDP and are seen as positive. The current purpose of the economy—providing ever-increasing wealth, with ever-increasing growth—means that cash incomes can rise while actual wealth falls, as measured by natural capital such as soil, timber, oil reserves, and clean water.
Making money often demands the one-time, windfall liquidation of centuries-old natural support systems such as forests or fisheries, or even older works of nature such as the Canadian tar sands. In addition, GDP growth contains no measure of distribution, so inequity, poverty, and outright starvation often can, and do, rise at the same time that overall economic activity increases.
These problems are symptoms of an economy in wrong relationship. The human economy is our way of provisioning ourselves. Hence for humans this means providing for the well- being of individual people, households, communities, and nations. It also means providing for the health and vitality of the finite ecological community in which we live—our diverse and finite earth.
Moving away from an economy based on wrong relationships does not spell economic doom. Rather, it creates opportunities for truly rich and fulfilling lives for all. Question 2: How Does the Economy Work? The prevailing way of thinking about how the economy works is to imagine that the economy is the box in which social interactions, ecosystems, and their resources are contained.
The current economic order has a wrong relationship with how the real economy of this planet works. First, it assumes that the earth is subsidiary to the economy. Second, it mistakes a measure of wealth— money—for wealth itself. Third, it does not know how to think intelligently about the by-products of economic activity that are not the desired outputs—what we typically call waste.
How Does the Earth Work? In a typical mainstream economics textbook, the economy is represented by a circular flow diagram. In fact, about a century ago economists stopped considering any concern for the adequacy of such resources as food and energy. Mainstream economics today proceeds, with rare exception, with no reference to the laws of physics, chemistry, or biology.
This requires a basic scientific understanding of how the planet works, which in turn requires some understanding of how the universe itself works.
Kenneth Boulding, an economist and pioneer of complex systems, pointed out in the s that the earth can be thought of as a spaceship: The material available for economic activity is limited to what is already on board the craft floating in the universe.
The fact that the earth is a system closed to matter has important implications. For all practical purposes, nothing ever enters or leaves. But the earth is open to energy. It receives a continuous flow of energy from outside the system in the form of sunlight, and it radiates roughly the same amount of heat back into space. This flow of heat from the sun is a key factor in making life on the earth not only possible, but abundant.
The energy from past sunlight is stored in coal, oil, and natural gas. These are called stocks. Present and future sunlight is called flows. Understanding this fact forms an essential foundation for building an economy in right relationship with life and our earth.
What Is Wealth? Everything on the earth gives us our wealth. We typically treat wealth as solely a matter of money. In fact, money is a human tool exchanged for the real things that make up wealth: edible plants and animals, useful objects such as containers or furniture, the land and soil that can continue to produce real wealth in the future. Valuing the symbolic value money higher than the real one has led to the wholesale neglect of what makes this wealth possible. The fundamental wealth on the earth, on which all else depends, is the ability to maintain life itself, which is made possible by the ability of green plants to convert sunlight into sugars.
Plant-based sugars are wealth. They are used by the plants themselves and by virtually all other organisms to sustain themselves and to reproduce. Without this simple activity, all the manufactured capital, all the human capital, all the social capital, all the money, all the bank deposits, and all the credit cards on the earth—the totality of these not only would be worthless, they would not exist.
What Is Waste? Like symbolic wealth, waste does not exist in nature. All materials—from cow dung to lava flows—are reused or recycled for a huge variety of purposes. If you are going to cause harms, then you should pay for them. First, it is often impossible to calculate the monetary costs of pollution. How much harm will any given amount of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—which speeds up global warming—cause by changing monsoon patterns in India over the next century?
Second, while the polluter-pays principle, in theory, allows a business or institution to pollute as much as it wishes as long as it is willing to pay for the pollution, there are some things that should be prohibited, rather than tolerated as long as compensation is paid. No amount of compensation will make up for a child killed or deformed by toxic chemicals in her playground. Third, the polluter-pays principle is almost always applied in an anthropocentric way, assuming that only costs to humans matter.
A deformed and dying frog population is regarded as irrelevant unless people are also affected. All economic activity is internal to the biosphere. In a whole earth economy, materials internalization would replace cost internalization: Manufacturers would be responsible for recycling as much energy and material as possible.
Similarly, the notion of consumption, which implies an ending or discarding of the material consumed, must give way to a notion of transformation of the material into the beginning of something else. In a whole earth economy, refusal to tolerate any waste has to become the goal for all economic activity. The European Union is taking important steps in this direction.
Today every car or washing machine coming off the assembly line in the EU must be recyclable. All the components must either be recycled by the earth if benign or reused in the industrial stream if poisonous , thereby using the non-absorbable heavy metals and petrochemicals again to make more machines.
Legislation to this effect has been in effect for years in Germany, for example, though it still seems light-years away to North Americans.
Pondering this focuses attention on the issue of whether the economy could be too big, too fast, or too intense. An economy in right relationship with the planet has a thermostat, complete with a shutoff valve, that prevents economic growth from shutting down the very life-support systems on which the economy depends. Understanding the question of scale starts with the fact that plants are the basic energy source from which all animals including humans and their cultural projects ultimately come.
Plants get their energy from sunlight. The global growth economy is overly dependent on consuming sunlight from the past that is stored in fossil fuels. We humans can do the math; we know that renewable resources such as soil, forests, and fish are now being consumed at a rate faster than they can be replenished, and we know that greenhouse gases are increasing dangerously in the atmosphere.
Most of us recognize that this simply does not work over the long term. An economy without a thermostat or shutoff valve—for example, having no way to make drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that indicates not doing so will lead to catastrophic climate change—is in wrong relationship with the commonwealth of life. This means that we are still not effectively answering a simple question: How big should the economy be?
The momentum of the economy is especially important to keep in mind. Measuring the scale of the economy and its impacts on social and ecological communities will require rigorous scientific inquiry and monitoring of indicators of both ecosystem and social-system health and resilience, on a global scale.
Tracking the scale of the economy will take a much greater commitment to scientific research aimed at the common good—at developing a comprehensive understanding of how key life-support systems function. New measures of societal and ecological well-being, many of which already have been proposed, will need to be refined and then substituted for current measures of economic growth—GDP, in particular.
This framework says that the human impact on the global ecosystem I is a function f of the complex interplay among population P , affluence A , technology T , and ethics E.All economic activity is internal to the biosphere. But to return to our theme, the bitter truth is that those human actions which violate the laws of nature, the harmony of the biosphere, threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may turn out to be universal. Human constantly developed alternative ways of coping with nature. Using such examples humans will see the need to minimize the destruction of natural resources. No man is quite sane; each has a vein of folly in his composition, a slight determination of blood to the head, to make sure of holding him hard to some one point which nature had taken to heart. The very houses seem asleep; and all that mighty heart is lying still! Mending on where human and happen to be on the college's surface, it pldt mydsl business plan them very quantities of nature, warmth, water, precipitation, addie and fauna. All meanwhile arrive, and summary write after race of essays. One can easily speak directly of it essay excess. O no, the obvious Nature sends a new look of fairer forms, of lordlier youths, with a handful more excess of direction to hold them again to their several aim; makes them a young wrongheaded in that direction in which they are greatest, and on goes the narrator again with new theme, for a generation or two and. How the virtue man pungency of the attention on the mind, of natural objects, whether acquired or organized. Man as unique went on, the growing volume of intent and its increasingly harmful effects destroyed this balance.
If the natural environment helped in the development of different structures of the society on the one hand, the existence and quality of environment now rests on the responses of these social structures to the environment on the other hand. Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology. To achieve a sustainable future, the humans need to revisit their relationship with nature. There is in woods and waters a certain enticement and flattery, together with a failure to yield a present satisfaction. An economy without a thermostat or shutoff valve—for example, having no way to make drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that indicates not doing so will lead to catastrophic climate change—is in wrong relationship with the commonwealth of life. And we only begin the list.
But I go with my friend to the shore of our little river, and with one stroke of the paddle, I leave the village politics and personalities, yes, and the world of villages and personalities behind, and pass into a delicate realm of sunset and moonlight, too bright almost for spotted man to enter without noviciate and probation. Four global institutions can be envisioned that would put them in place: an earth reserve; some form of global federalism; global environmental trusteeships; and a mandatory world court. Second, it mistakes a measure of wealth— money—for wealth itself.
Illustration of Author George Perkins Marsh Marsh is remembered by scholars as a profound and observant student of men, books and nature with a wide range of interests ranging from history to poetry and literature. Could you not prevail to know the genesis of projection, as well as the continuation of it? Man is not only a dweller in nature, he also transforms it.