Soft Ecologist Response to Cornucopian Week 4

Maasai tribe in Africa (SOFT ECOLOGIST)

        We have read what Cornucopias have to say about the Aldo Leupold point of view. Mainly they defend the idea that there are resources provided to us to use and in many places of the world, resources such as fossil fuels and oil production sustain more than their daily survival, they provide economic inputs in order for them to develop and move forward. We as soft ecologist see that what Cornucopian defend is same statement all along, they jut sustain the fact that economy could not go on without the use of resource that the world provide us. On the other hand we do agree that nature should be preserve but not thanks to its biodiversity, instead it needs to be preserve but emphasize on human actions in order to avoid damages. We don´t sustain the point of view that the economic system and the sustainability as a whole is base on human resources, because human are not the essential of life, instead nature provides what we need to survive.

 

   

Amish is a soft ecologist group that survives in the planet without forcing the environment to give them more. They put the environment as a priority over all. By looking at the graph above we can tell that the Amish population in Canada and in the US has doubled in the past 20 years therefore, by looking at the statistics we can conclude that the Amish population will continue to increase creating a future that will be sustained by the natural environment. The cornucopias are expecting the future to develop technology and that way sustain the human beings, however if the soft ecologist communities increase technology will not be able to adapt to their way of living. That is why we as soft ecologist believe that we should use sustainable resources  today if we want to exist in the future. In the second graph above it is shown that the Amish population will continue to grow as seen in the graph in the year 2050 we will have 939 settlements, once again we need to live sustaining our environment if we want to live as a community with the rest of the world.

The image above is a representation of how we are destroying our planet. If we do not live as soft ecologist we wouldn't have a sustainable future. If we do not take care of our environment today we will not have a future because we wouldn't be able to survive. The cornicopians think that technology will be able to keep as a live but not in planet earth. We have to be conscious that we are destroying it today!  

The graph above shows how the population will continue to increase. As we said in our first response as population increases so does the environmental demands. As both of this factors increase the carrying capacity of the the world decreases and we wouldn't be able to survive in the planet. The graph above predicts that in the year 2040 the worlds population will reach the 9 billions. As soft ecologist we believe that if the population will increase so drastically we need to safe resources and use them consciously in order to have resources for our future. If we save our planet today we will have resources to survive in the future. If we don't have a place to live on no technology will be able to save us.
   In fact, cornucopian response to week four includes a graph about crude oil prices since 1861, were they mention about the price increase. This fact, from our point of view does not sustain any reliability about the use of technology in our environment, since extracting crude oil from the ground to later use for certain manufactrue process is going againts out philosophical views. Reading Cornuopians response, we can found several contradictions towards Aldo Leopold´s points of view. Howver their data used to support basically relies on graohs abour resources, demand and supply in terms of economcis; which totally contradicts our thoughts since this economic systems are not neeed for our daily lifes. Inhat dividuals need to change their minds and understand that in order for humans to live a pleasant life they only need from basic needs, there´s not the need of manufactures product, neither process ones.

Cornucopian response to deep ecologist week 4

Cornucopian response to deep ecologist

Maria Emilia response:

We do not agree with deep ecologists point of view for several reasons. Regarding the Gaia theory, we understand in a way how one disruption of “the system” could affect the whole world in itself. We know that if one process in our world is damaged, there will be consequences. That is why we are telling you that we will not let that happen. As humans we are perfectly capable of solving anything that presents to us. We will solve any problem that could potentially damage the ecosystem before it causes any impact.

For instance, if we start exploiting our energy resources to the maximum (which will help our world’s economy increase in a great percentage), there could possibly be concerns about an increase in global warming. However, we can solve that because we have the technology to fix it, and if we don’t we’ll find the technology to fix it. We could fix climate changes through geoengineering. Geoengineering aims in reducing global warming by carbon dioxide removal and by solar radiation management. Geoengineering is a complex topic, but we know that we will be able to reverse global warming by putting “mirrors” in space to intercept sunlight.

Moreover, there may be concerns about acidifications of the oceans, which will disrupt natural processes of the earth as well as killing many animals that will affect food chains. Indeed there could be a disruption of the food chain if certain animals are killed; this is why we will use technology to fix this. We could put quicklime in the oceans to reduce acidification.

With these two examples, we can see that yes we understand there may be concerns about environmental disruptions. However, it is evident that we are in a time where we can fix our problems. We have the technology necessary to make sure our world remains a suitable place for us to live.

Andrea's response:

Although the deep ecologists have a correct view of not wasting, the reasons why they want to conserve are all wrong. There will definitely be a solution if we use up all the natural resources found in technology. It doesn’t matter if the food chain is broken, because we can replace part of a system with technology.  What we take from the systems is what we can have back with technology and that is the only important thing. If we conserve the planet for a few more decades then we will have enough technology to replace the resources that we get from it. Deep ecologists have a correct view of waste, if there is no need to waste then it is better to prevent it because if we allocate resources efficiently we can maximize production and therefore maximize profit. In an economy costs are permanently applied and paid and if we don’t use them correctly, the resources will be wasted and part of those costs will have to be paid without having used them. Although they are right saying that we are part of the food chain, they are not considering that we are able to come out of it through agriculture and farming. If we raise herds and create crops then there is no need to have systems in which we depend on. According to the same graph that they present, humans are not even included. Those animals are important indeed for plagues for example, but at the same time we can eliminate those as well with chemicals. We don’t even need those as food resources.

martin's response

I don't agree with the deep ecologists point of view that states that nature should be protected because every part of the planet is interconnected. Every ecosystems independent containing different biodiversity and natural resources for humans to use. If natural resources are preserved without using then no one is going to be benefitted, while if those natural resources are preserved in nature, economy systems will start failing therefore humanity all over the world are going to be in a severe crisis. For example the oil and the fertile land rainforests have for our use, if we don't use them many  benefit many societies are going to suffer because that fertile soil that rainforests provide us are used for growing crops, settling cattle and for the wood trees provide for us to build homes. Those are basic needs humans and society's need for living. The oil also has an important role in social terms and economical terms. Thanks to the oil the worlds economy had increased a lot the reason why countries had been developing and progressing in the benefit of all. There is no sense on keeping resources preserved and save, in other words its a waste because people are not tacking advantage of them and no one benefits from those resources. Nature was created for providing us the resources and for mantaining stable the economy. Even thought some resources are coming to an end, people and the advance technology are capable of replacing those resources with other alternatives.

Juanes response:
Human being have use natural resources for millions of years and this is factor is not going to change even when there is going to be a point when nature is going to be really affected but thanks to the development of technology we can say that human are going to be able to replace of find new ways to restructure or re implement nature by using developed technology. Humans have the capacity to adjust and re store what we destroy thanks that we the increase of population the demand of resources each time is bigger but each time we find new way to get resources. The problems we face are the some of these resources are a crucial part of the economic system so form this point of view we should preserve coal, corn, cotton and other resources that come from nature but we have the necessity to still use them. Is important to start realizing the soon this resources are going to be replaced with new ones and with other types taking. Some else that is going to have a big impact and will have a change is the economic system and is important that humans start to developed another economic system basing in other resources that will bring money so countries do not fall down and economy doesn’t seem in trouble. Nature is a crucial factor in the daily life of humans, a factor that makes economy sustainable and mostly for human needs so is important to use is appropriately and take  the best advantages of what offers.

Works cited

"Geoengineering." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Apr. 2013.