1. Do you believe, as McKibben suggests, that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare? Why or why not?
2. What does the end of nature entail? Is mastering nature to benefit our own needs immoral? Why or why not?
3. Do you believe that the planet is significantly different than it used to be? Why or why not?
4. What is McKibben's underlying message about life, religion, and nature, and what literary and/or rhetorical devices does he use to convey this with? Support your answer with the text.
5. Do you feel that the structure of nature is caused more by natural disasters or by natural progression? And which one do you think could eventually have a major impact on the world first?
I believe that global warming can potentially be more dangerous than nuclear war since there is some protection against nuclear warfare and that it can not possibly affect every person while global warming affects everyone no matter where you are. Mastering nature is not the same thing as abusing the nature. I feel the it is not immoral to use resources from the nature productively to benefit our community as a whole. On the other hand, if we are carelessly cutting down trees without a purpose or cutting down at a far faster pace than we can regrow then we have abused the purpose of nature. The planet is far different than it used to be from any gap of years. There used to be a time when we didn't even have toxic gas producing factories. Now we are at a point where there is still these factories but they are regulated just as for examples our cars are (emission tests).
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that the planet is significantly different than what it used to be because the earth is always changing. Just as the year goes through cycles of growth and death, so too does the earth follow a similar policy. A very long time ago, the earth fell into an ice age. Now it is on the upswing getting really hot. Although I believe in Global Warming, I believe that it is not something to fear because it is just a natural part of the cycle. After the earth has warmed up a few degrees, then it will start on its journey toward another ice age. In addition to all this, the world has also changed due to human interaction with it. Sometimes humans make mistakes which are at the cost of the natural environment. Environments change, animals disappear and go extinct. All of these are consequences of humanities strive toward self-reliance and a better life. As the author of “The End of Nature” points out, the nature that our ancestors saw and valued no longer will exist as it did for them, but it will exist in a new form for us.
ReplyDeleteI believe that McKibben suggests that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare. McKibben says, “the nuclear dilemma is at least open to human reason – we can decide not to drop the weapons, and indeed to reduce and perhaps eliminate them.” While we have control over the use of nuclear weapons, we do not have control over the end of nature. Scientists say that we have already put too much carbon dioxide and other gases into the air and therefore, the warning that these gases were harmful to the environment came too late. Thus, global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare because we do not have control of it.
ReplyDeleteThe end of nature entails rises in temperatures, changes in the atmosphere, changes in the weather, changes in the seasons, and changes in the climate. Mastering nature to benefit our needs is not immoral, but it should be done in moderation. In the Bible, God gives humans the right to “rule over the earth” and the animals in it. Therefore, it is not immoral to use nature. However, we are still expected to respect the environment.
I believe that the planet is significantly different than it used to be. Everything that is man-made shows the differences in how the planet used to be. The buildings, roads, cities, and towns all are changes in the earth. We humans have left a big impact on the planet and have changed it forever.
I do not believe that Global warming is potentially more dangerous than nuclear warfare because of the totally destructive nature of nuclear warfare. I am not denying that global warming is an issue, I’m simply saying that the complete destruction of a nuclear attack is more severe than the slow process of global warming. I also agree with TJohnson in the reply above mine that global warming is a natural process and while humans are slightly altering this process, should not be feared. If there is the threat of a nuclear attack, that is something that should be feared.
ReplyDeleteI believe the planet is significantly different than it used to be because of all the unnatural human additions such as factories, and cars that both emit harmful chemicals into the air that enhance global warming. However, as I stated in the previous paragraph, I believe that it is not as large of a threat as it is being made out to be and is rather simply speeding up the natural process of global warming or making the changes slightly larger.
Global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare in that we are not doing much for global warming, while nuclear warfare probably will not happen. If the world were to actually start setting off nukes everywhere that would obviously be more dangerous. The slow creep of global warming makes it dangerous though as it lulls the public into inaction.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the end of nature is coming anytime soon. There are plenty of places that will not be tamed for the foreseeable future. The idea that we should not use the resources in ANWR or somewhere similar just so people can know that there is somewhere without people is ridiculous. For one, there are plenty of places like that. Two, it doesn't actually have any effect on anyone whether there is or not. As long as people are just entirely destroying the environment there really is no reason to not "master nature."
1. I don’t really believe that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare. Although, nuclear warfare only affects a certain area and global warming affects the whole world, I still believe nuclear warfare is more dangerous. First off, nuclear warfare can be avoided and global warming cannot. People can choose an alternative to using nuclear warfare while the world or at least some countries will always continue to be more industrialized. As a result, global warming is inevitable and even if some people do their part, it won’t come close to being enough. Also, I think the effects of nuclear warfare are much more severe. There are birth defects and mutations caused by the harsh chemicals. The births that result from the nuclear radiation portray alteration in human genetics. I think it is unnatural and doesn’t compare to the climate change resulting over centuries, which won’t even apply to this generation so I don’t think it’s very relevant. Overall, the affects of nuclear warfare outweigh those of global warming.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the end of nature entails a more advanced and technological community. Think about it, humans are always trying to solve problems and be innovative. Although, their actions might be harmful to nature, research leads to a better, faster lifestyle. It makes life more efficient and therefore easier. I do not think using nature for our own benefit is immoral. Humans will always give back by planting trees. There is even an earth day every year to raise awareness towards the planet. Humans are simply doing what they do and that is adapting and utilizing their resources to maintain sustainability. Therefore, the end of nature will result in an advanced society and using nature for ones benefit is merely a righteous act of survival.
3. I believe that the planet isn’t necessarily that different than what it used to be. Sure there are roads, gigantic buildings and factories but the weather and how the earth moves isn’t that different. There have always been natural disasters and that will never change. The earth’s plates are forever shifting which will result in earthquakes regardless. Also, there are slight temperature rises but it merely follows the average. For example, one may think that Arizona’s summer was way too hot this year but 20 years ago it was 120 degrees one day and the next four days after that it was 115. Therefore, every year there will be a slight change in temperature but it will always follow the median. In conclusion, I do not think the planet is significantly different than what it used to be because the Earth is resilient and will always do what it needs to regardless of Man’s actions on it.
Stewart, Brandon
ReplyDelete1. As it relates to humans, nuclear warfare is more dangerous. Global warming will drastically alter our way of life, and already is, but it just won't cause the damage and deformities as Uyenlan said nuclear can. But again danger is objective. To Earth's ecosystems, habitats, organisms, etc., global warming is dangerous.
2. I think humans will take it upon themselves to prevent the end of nature. We're the only things capable of doing away with it, and already there are efforts to bring nature back. Biophilia is the theory that humans have a intimate bond with nature, as shown in this reading. A concept of sustainability is making cities and neighborhoods more biophilic, with improved accessibility to nature, and also interweaving nature into our unnatural world. The fact that humans are aware of both the decreasing nature and the need for nature can lead us to predict we won't let nature end.
I think "mastering" is the wrong word, because if humans have learned to master nature, we wouldn't have this environmental crisis, but we are still novices in our handling of nature.
3. Yes, the planet it different. Our population is constantly increasing, nature is constantly being destroyed, new structures are constantly being built, so it is safe to say that regardless how far in the past you are referring, the earth is in constant change, so the answer would have to be yes.
As far as significance goes, to answer this question one would have to have a point of reference in time. I would say yes to pretty much any length of time, considering the United States ALONE increases its population about 5 people every minute, and emits 1000 tons of CO2 every 5.3 seconds (http://www.breathingearth.net/). Check out this website, it is really mind-blowing to see the earth changing in real time.
"'Outside--dust, noise, heat, storm, fumes. Inside-- all is quiet, comfortable, safe... Driver dials 'inside weather' to his liking...He pushbuttons radio or stereo-type entertainment" (p. 150). This quote from the reading clearly demonstrates how the planet has changed significantly throughout time. Even in this advertisement for farming tractors, the appeal is comfort. It is something people have become accustomed to, even when they are hard at work.
ReplyDeleteA comparison between this tractor's advertisement and another advertisement from fifty years ago would confirm this disparity. When technology was still evolving from the original steam engine, people were happy to have a product that would simply work safely and effectively. Now, people expect their machines to do all of their work AND to keep them comfortable while doing so.
In reality, I guess my claim is that people have dramatically changed; thus, the planet has changed because of people's decisions. I am not trying to say that the planet has simply become something different with time; I mean that human psychology and beliefs have manipulated the planet to match their lifestyles.
1. I understand where McKibben’s comes to that conclusion but I do not believe that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare. The similarities that nuclear warfare has with global warming are both serious and dangerous that can put lives at risk. They are both something that does not happened all of a sudden but takes time to build up. The only difference is that global warming is something that can be adapted by humans, plants and animals. Global warming does not have a solution rather than we just need to work around it. As for nuclear warfare that is something that only causes death you can’t adapt to that. Nuclear warfare can be avoided and there can be a solution.
ReplyDelete2. It is not immoral as humans, we have the mechanism to survive and that is what we will do. Yes we look out for ourselves and not nature but we do give back we help out by planting plants, trees and recycling we are adapting to the way earth is changing. Now as for the end of nature it something that will happen sooner or later technology is taking over. It is something serious but there is nothing much to do now but start to stabilize the damage we have caused.
3. Absolutely, earth was different it is constantly changing as new generations evolve. At a certain point there were a lot of green plants and trees. The air was clean the water was fresh. Now we are filled of pollution and factories that are constantly destroying nature. We have roads, houses, cars etc. back then there was nothing related to that.
1.Global Warming is probably more dangerous than nuclear warfare, because nuclear war is probably never going to happen. And if it does, it will probably not be on such a scale as to completely destroy/damage the entire biosphere of the Earth. Global Warming, however, is already here. There is definitely a large portion of global warming that is caused directly by humans, so it can't be easily ignored or brushed to the side as an issue. And by modifying the average temperature of the planet we do great damage to the biosphere and create much more violent weather patterns around the globe.
ReplyDelete2. The end of nature would mean the end of unmanaged wilderness areas. This will require an incredible amount of time to achieve, as well as as a ridiculous increase in population. The sheer amount of resources necessary for humanity to expand to the point that all of nature is being administered is unthinkable. So the "End of Nature", by this definition, anyway, will not occur. Harnessing the resources of the planet is not immoral, it is what we and every other species on the planet has done since life began. There are ethical quandaries that arise from the improper extraction of these resources, as well as the treatment of the former residents, human and non-human, of the areas of extraction. But the notion of exploiting the planet itself isn't unethical.
3. The planet is always significantly different from what it used to be. In the beginning it was a great ball of molten rock, and at other times it was dominated by one large continent. For most of the Earth's existence, life did not exist. All that changes is the processes that occur on the planet. Humanity is just another process, shaping the planet and its history. And yes, we have changed it more in our span than it has at any other time. But this is not cause for alarm. That being said, pains should be taken to maintain the integrity and purity of as much of the planet as possible, simply because things work smoother that way.
I believe that our planet is significantly different than it used to be in an assortment of ways. The earth falls into a diverse set of cycles in regards to weather and we experience extreme temperatures of both hot and cold. It is common knowledge that these cycles are patterns we have experienced before and will continue to experience throughout the duration of time. However I do believe that our planet is significantly different due to the fact that we have used up such a vast amount of our resources. Our mentality to take from nature and not give back has resulted in the scarcity of available resources. Our rainforests have been reduced in size, our car emissions have damaged the ozone layer, and our pollution in our oceans has limited our water quality and prevalence. Although we may view these resources as necessities, it is irresponsible to not formulate a plan to replenish these depleting resources. The planets alterations throughout time are inevitable but as individuals and a collective society we should be initiating change. Reducing our carbon footprint and implementing ways to reduce our affect on the environment is a necessary step.
ReplyDeleteThere is no argument that the planet is significantly different then how it used to be. The planet is always changing and it is natural for it to. Our tectonic plates are always moving shaping our planet. Humans have defiantly negatively affected the planet as a whole. We now use explosives to mine. We have chemical by products that have negative effects on the planet. But the largest part of our changing climate is our carbon emissions. We have have so many vehicles on the planet emitting carbon dioxide. On top of that we are cutting down the forests reducing the amount of carbon being turned in to oxygen. We are also polluting our oceans. So the world is always changing.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare. I do not think that we contribute to global warming. Global warming is a natural process that takes and gives life. Unlike nuclear warfare, it only takes life. I believe that we should be able to control nature but we should do it responsibly and take the needs of other species into consideration. I think the planet was different than it use to be, but that is not necessary a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the planet is significantly different than it used to be. There was a time that buildings, roads, structures, and a variety of other things did not exist. The planet was strictly nature and man. I believe that the planet was less harmed back then because now we have things like factories that pollute the environment and men who chop down trees for paper and whatnot. In the beginning of this passage, McKibben describes his hikes and how the woods "swallow" him up and there is nothing to remind him of human society. That environment that he was in is what the planet used to be like, strictly nature. (Not to get deep into religion or anything, but there was also a time that humans did not roam the planet and the earth is all there was) The author is showing how much the planet has changed that he has to go on a hike into the middle of the woods to basically experience nature because human society has destroyed the natural earth. The way we live our daily lives affects the planet drastically and I believe that at the rate we are going, it is going to get worse and worse.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the structure of nature is caused by natural disasters. Without these natural disasters there wouldn't be progression in the world. The world is filled with many mysteries, but one thing foreshore is that the world has transformed to a world we wouldn't have seen million of years ago. A natural disaster like earthquakes, it has killed many living things and destroyed many sceneries, but it has created our mountains, oceans, and the placement of our continents. We wouldn't of have lakes with out storms. Hurricanes are filled with chaos, but it fills our soil with water to live. To us human we see natural disasters as a set back, but to the world disasters is progress. Remember we didn't make the world, we were put in it and we can easily be replaced. A natural disaster one day can make humans extinct, in the worlds benefit it saves itself from human ignorance and abuse. To us it will suck
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the dangers of nuclear warfare and global warming, I disagree with McKibben. I believe that nuclear weapons are much more dangerous than the effects of global warming and are more likely to ruin the planet. I understand that global warming is a negative force on this planet partly, perhaps even largely, caused by humans but it is a natural process and the earth has always gone through large cycles of cooling and warming. The earth will adapt to this new trend of warming and though we should try to control global warming to a certain extent we must simply let it run its course. I find the idea that petty human beings are in charge of nuclear weapons much more frightening because humans are power hungry and willing to set off a nuclear weapon to get power. We may currently be trying to back away from the possibility of nuclear warfare but that doesn't mean that it will always be that way. In the end I find the natural and adapting forces of the Earth like global warming much less dangerous than the powerful people in control of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteAs for the differences in Earth over time, I do believe that are planet has been significantly changed over time. Like I said in response to the first question, the Earth adapts to changes and we see the evidence of this change through different plants, animals, and climate among other things. Humans are one of the reasons for the changes to our planet, we have tried to control nature and through this control we have inevitably changed nature but this is not necessarily a bad thing. There have been species before us that have changed the planet and yet Earth has survived, and though we are changing the planet now I believe that the Earth will still survive and adapt.
In response to the third question, I do believe the planet is different from its original form. The earth shows significant change in its atmosphere, its climate, and its plant/ animal life. Prior to the first civilization on earth, i.e. Mesopotamians, the earth was a self sustaining entity. The vegetation and animal life had its own selective order. That order kept the earth at a livable standard for future species and generations for centuries to come. Biomes flourished in the natural order of the world and were able to maintained the life forms living in it. The earth had a system of which was meant to last for all time. With the introduction of man's need over that of the earth's that order was disrupted. the existence of man did not disrupt the natural order of the world, the wants of human life brought unnecessary change to the environment. Inovations to ease human life have depleted the atmosphere allowing the sun's rays to penetrate the earth more directly. Because of this increase in direct sunlight to the earth's surface, the core of this planet has increased also. The increase to the center of the planet has lead to the depletion of icecaps, the raising of ocean levels, and the decrease in land mass due to submersion from the ocean. This is not the manner in which the earth originally operated, therefore the earth is in fact different than it used to be.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the planet is significantly different than it used to be? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, nature is largely a byproduct of our society, due to the countless amounts of substances being emitted as our technological reliance and utilization increases globally. Although Mother Nature is a great force of which we have no control, it can and is being influenced by our “foot print” so to speak. Rising pollution levels, receding bodies of water and fluctuating temperatures are just a few consequences of our presence that will inevitably have a long term impact.
I believe that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare simply because it has been clearly manifested in recent history while the chances of a nuclear warfare/World War III are close to none. Global warming has already affected many ecosystems and living things on this planet. Besides its implications for the future it is even more dangerous numerous people still choose to not acknowledge any signs of climate change and refuse to accept the fact that humans have had a role in causing this phenomenon. This perception of global warming that is held by many people could prove to be extremely dangerous.
ReplyDelete. I disagree with McKibben, I believe that nuclear warfare is more dangerous than global warming. I still believe that global warming is a pressing issue in society and is very dangerous but the aftermath of nuclear warfare has endless possibilities. McKibben believes that since the people can control nuclear weapons it makes global warming more dangerous however this fact is my reason nuclear warfare is more dangerous. The sky is the limit to retaliation if any country were to drop any nuclear bombs. Cities would be destroyed, thousands killed due to the blast. The exposure to chemicals will cause mutations and even birth defects in children. A nuclear war would destroy the world as we know it. Also, I strongly believe there's a greater risk for a nuclear war to happen in my lifetime than global warming having drastic effects on me
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the planet is significantly different than it used to be because it has been affected by many different things such as natural disasters, global warming, human devolopment and natural progression. Another big reason for the change is human waste and pollution. Everyday the planet is getting dirtier and dirtier. We constantly destroy our natural wildlife for resources. Oceans are are getting waste dumped into them daily and nobody seems to care about any of this. Natural disasters have the potential to drastically change the planet in a blink of an eye. Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, hurricanes and tornados are all examples of very dangerous natural disasters that could occure at any moment
In response to the first question, I do not believe that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear warfare. Although global warming is effecting our environment daily, it is a slow and gradual process. If a nuclear bomb was to go off, especially with the technology in the world today, the destruction could be endless. I without a doubt believe that humans have an impact on global warming, but I also think it is the cycle of nature for animals to go extinct and ice caps to melt, etc. I am not saying that precautions shouldn't be taken to slow down this process or that I am fine with this happening, but I think nature will take its course no matter what. As the student before me stated, WillowLewis, people have control of nuclear weapons. This thought is so terrifying because one of the most destructive things in the world is in the hands of a human. That is mind boggling. These are a few reasons why I believe global warming is not even close to being as dangerous as nuclear warfare.
ReplyDeleteAs years go on, the planet is becoming more and more urbanized, with humans taking over all different terrains, whether they be the freezing tundra of Alaska, or the dry reset of Arizona. Due to this modernization, nature has suffered severely. Countless species of animals have become endangered, and many have gone extinct. I feel that with this increased modernization, the human race is also beginning to lose value for the world. When the Native Americans of centuries before hunted buffalo as their source of food, they used all parts of the buffalo, eating the meat, but using the bones and fur for to make beads and blankets, wasting as little as possible. They valued nature. However, today many people are incredibly wasteful and lazy.
ReplyDeleteIt is almost as if nature is fighting back, through natural storms and global warming. Civilizations is by no means a bad thing, but losing sight of the importance of nature is completely unacceptable.
I believe that the planet is significantly different because there are pictures that show a difference out there. I remember seeing the documentary in final warning and there were rivers drying out, glaicers melting and icebergs disappearing. All of these things ,are resulting from the earth getting warmer. Not only that but the air is getting polluted more than before. This is apparent when you go to the mountains and see how nasty the horizon. I don't ever remember it being that bad when I was little. So slowly but surely, the planet its changing greatly. Whether this change will kill our planet? Scientist can say they know, but nobody really knows.
ReplyDeleteI would like to disagree with McKibben and say that nature hasn't ended--though it is somewhat hard to do so because what he says makes sense. We do settle for "spots where no man is at the moment" (746) instead of cutting back so places remain that no man will ever reach. And yet, I still feel very strongly that nature still exists. It is still relatively cold in the places that have always been cold, and vice versa for warm climates. I do not think nature will truly end until we make every tree into a parking lot. If every human died right now, nature would take back over, and eventually old patterns would return. Yes, it would take a long time, but nature naturally takes a long time, and therefore it has not ended.
ReplyDeleteMcKibben mentions God and how we cannot hope to feel His presence if we destroy nature, but in the Bible, God gives humans control over the plants and animals. Yes, we must respect nature's power to destroy us and treat it with respect, but we are allowed to shape some parts of nature to our will. I am not saying that we should continue to chop down the rain forests or pollute the oceans with garbage or continue the horrible actions that kill our planet--but we should have a certain degree of control over our environment. It is too easy to say that humans are wrong and nature is right, or nature is wrong and humans are right. We must strike a compromise in order to ensure our own survival.
Global Warming is an extremely frightening possibility--generally, I believe that the climates of different places around the world were made the way they are for a reason and should not change. We have seen the effects of messing with nature--more-powerful-than-normal storms that devastate civilization. There must be a limit to what we do to our earth for our own sake. And we should continue to preserve lands where there are few traces of humanity. But I do not think that putting up a traffic light is indicative of the end of nature. And I don't think that being born in 1993 means that I haven't experienced nature. Like the last article we read, this author goes a bit too far in his claims. While I respect his message, I disagree in part. Humanity has a right to control some aspects of nature.
In a way, nuclear warfare is more dangerous or more threatening than global warming because it can be out of our control. At any moment, some country with nuclear weapons could drop a bomb on a U.S. city, and it could be over for millions of people. Whereas global warming, for the most part, is in our control. We can slow it down, if not stop it completely. Both are obviously extremely dangerous, but nuclear warfare can happen any moment by surprise, and global warming cannot.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, global warming can be considered more dangerous than nuclear warfare because a nuclear bomb will not destroy the entire world, whereas global warming can and will affect the entire world, slowly but surely. However both have the potential to destroy the entire world.
I feel that in the right perspective you can feel that natural disasters and natural progression has equal might. Disasters obviously have the most raw power. the sheer intensity of such things such as volcanoes, earthquakes and hurricanes as well as the awesome destruction they create can not be matched by anything over a short period of time. The greates example is asteroids impacting the planet. Regardles of the location of their impact it will affect the whole plaet by throwing up debris in to the atmosphere and changing globa climate. It can even alter Earth's rotation and orbit, if only by the most miniscule amount. However nature's natural progression shows that it is just as powerful; a sort of turtle racing the hare. It may take thousands or millions of years but it can change everything on earth completely. Seas can dry up, mountains grow, continents move or deserts bloom. The most impressive is its ability to rectify what the natural disasters bring about. It can bring life back to the scorched earth on a volcano or flooded land from a tsunami. In tandem the two forces can reshape the entire planet. An asteroid once wiped out the dinosaurs and natural progression helped fill the gaps left behind with things like us, creating an entirely different world.
ReplyDeleteI believe that global warming is dangerous, but it's not nearly as disastrous as nuclear warfare. Nuclear warfare would most likely bring an end to all life on earth (with the exception of roaches) and leave the planet with the inability to sustain life. It's sudden and more devastating to nature than global warming. However, the threat behind global warming can be more dangerous than nuclear warfare because unlike nuclear warfare which may never occur, global warming is actually happening right now. The difference between the two is that once nuclear warfare happens, you cannot simply stop it or have a chance of reversing it's effects. We do have that option with global warming.
ReplyDeleteThe end of nature entails the destruction of habitats, wildlife, and ecosystems to the point where there is almost no chance of them returning to homeostasis. Mastering nature is not immoral when it is in our best interest to do so. It is in our nature. It becomes immoral when we exploit it and cause destruction based on our unnecessary wants and needs. We still cause just as much damage to the planet as we did in the old days. The only difference is that now we are conscious of the damage which, in my opinion, makes our actions immoral.
Although it may be a very bold and drastic statement, I think I can recognize the validity of the first statement regarding the decline of nature and the rise of nuclear arms. While everyone knows that nuclear weapons are dangerous, people do not recognize this fact about global warming. This is the real danger. Even though the impact of a nuclear bomb may be devastating, people will at least do something about it. I still know some people who fail to acknowledge global warming as a fact. Whether or not you agree that it is caused by contributions by carbon emissions or not, you cannot refute the fact that the danger in fact exists. On the other hand, people are always doing something to reduce the risk of nuclear warfare. Such contributions include SALT I and Salt II, and there have been recent talks about further reducing nuclear arms world wide. What is being done to prevent global warming? Not much it seems. Since Al Gore's movie on the subject, global warming has long been ignored. In order for the threat to be calmed, global warming needs immediate attention by the public, politicians, and the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe world is significantly different than it used to be because of the progression of the people and our use of technology. It is a different place because of our consumption and population growth, but the human condition is still and ever will be eternal. We have a more global awareness of our effect on the earth as humans that was not even considered or thought about many years in the past. As the human race evolves so does the earth. The earth is connected to its inhabitants. McKibben states in the reading that “nothing happens quickly. Change takes unimaginable—‘geologic’—time.” So the change that is happening is slow yet undeniably constant. And so with these changes the structure of nature is constantly being morphed and changed into its current state. As I mentioned earlier, the earth is connected to its inhabitants so essentially humans are the cause of our own problems. The change in our common knowledge, the advancements of technology, and the growth in population have all resulted in making our current society. We are connected to an increase of natural disasters because of our consumption rate. Natural progression structures nature, and natural disasters are an outcome of that. Who’s to say HOW the world will finally cease to exist? All we know is that we’re inevitably on our way there.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the planet is significantly different than it used to be. Humans have had a drastic impact on both the landscape of the planet and its atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels in our atmosphere have increased exponentially due to the burning of fossil fuels. The CO2 becomes trapped in our atmosphere creating a greenhouse gas effect. Much of the suns energy is reflected back into space. With increased levels of CO2, more heat becomes contained within Earth’s atmosphere rather than being reflected back out. This raises the average temperature of the Earth which can have major effects on global weather. Moreover, industrial human pollution is leading to the reduction of the ozone layer of our planet. CFCs are largely responsible for this phenomenon. CFCs react with one or more of the oxygen species in the stratosphere and reduce the total concentration of free ozone. This has devastating impacts on our planet since the Earth’s ozone layer offers protection from harmful UV C rays.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that humans have drastically altered the planet. Luckily for us, the negative effects of global warming and climate change will not be seen by our generation. In this sense, global warming is not more dangerous than nuclear warfare since nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy the world in a much shorter time-frame.
The difference for me between global warming and nuclear warfare, is the fact that over seven billion people contribute to global warfare in one way or another, and even then the effects are not immediate and dangerous. Meanwhile, nuclear warfare could be made possible by a rather small amount of people and the results would most certainly be immediate and dangerous. Global warming is something that earth will most definitely survive and life will survive it as well. I think Nuclear Warfare though has much greater potential to harm life here on earth and it is something in this day and time that would be much more likely to have greater effects on earth. Luckily we haven't had to deal with that though, and the only thing we have to worry about is the growing problem of global warming. On the third question im not sure how far we're talking about. I guess you could probably mark the industrial revolution as to when we started having a say in global warming and started adding to the problem. Im sure life was always better on earth for every other species before 7 billion people showed up and dominated the planet.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear the phrase nuclear warfare I automatically assume doomsday and the end of our world. When comparing nuclear warfare to global warming it is almost hard to agree that global warming is more dangerous. In a nuclear warfare our world can be devoured in a matter of days. The author suggests that global warming is more dangerous but why? I believe global warming is in my opinion is more dangerous only for the reason that as we live our lives day by day we do not take notice in what harm we are causing to our environment. The more we expand and the more our wants increase the bigger the impact on our environment. The more we want the more of our earth’s resources we take up leaving a huge footprint. Most people do not care or believe in global warming which is why it is more dangerous. It will take more time but slowly in its own sneaky way it will attack us. If nuclear warfare was happening then of course it would be way more dangerous seeing how most of us would be severely hurt.
ReplyDeleteThe planet is different than how it used to be all because of the human footprint. The world is always changing and most of it is simply just nature. Of course I do believe humans are a huge part in altering the world’s environment. The pollution we produce is destroying the ozone layer therefore melting our glaciers. We can see the changes through the earth’s climate, animals, and plant life. The world has always been changing but through the conditions it finds a way to adapt.
I think that nuclear war is much more dangerous than global warming at this time. Global warming has the ability down the road to destroy the world yes, but in the present I think if there was a nuclear war that it would destroy more of this world than global warming ever could. The after effects of war would also scar the planet and leave a lasting impression on the world. Look at Japan, they are still feeling affects from the A-bombs dropped in WWII.
ReplyDelete