Saturday, December 10, 2011

Population Vs. Environment

The following is what I submitted for my final writing assignment for my Sociology 1000 class. We were challenged to write a 1 page, double spaced paper on our thoughts regarding How population effects the environment in both wealthy and poor areas. We were also to provide our thoughts on how to best protect the environment.

Enjoy!

In the battle of humanity versus the environment, one thing is clear: the World will win. That being said, we seem to be doing our best to cause as much damage as possible. We can clearly see this when we look at environmental issues in wealthy countries such as the U.S. and other developed nations. A prime example is our inability to eat most of the fish that we can catch in the wilds of our fair country. Every state has at least some limitations to the amount of wild fish that can be safely consumed due to mercury contamination. In the poorer, less developed countries of the world this is less prevalent as industry and population centers have not caused as much environmental contamination.
I believe the best thing we, as a society, can do to limit the degradation of our environmental quality is to be more conscious of the effect we are having on our environment. We need to closely monitor both the rate at which we are consuming fossil fuels as well as better understanding and managing the effect the processing and use of these fuels have on our environment. The search for better alternatives to these energy sources is also a vital endeavor. This is true for two reasons. We can not ignore the ramifications of the use of current fossil fuels. We must also be prepared that these natural resources will not last forever. In the end however, I do believe that the final score will be World 1, Humanity 0.

4 comments:

  1. Your Bible would care to differ with your conculsion. And since when is 'sociology' environmentalism? Well written paper from a grammatical standpoint, but sorry to see you post this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You misunderstand my conclusion. It is in no way referencing anything related to the Biblical references to either the "World" or "Humanity". I was merely stating that from an environmental standpoint, we pose little real threat to our environment. One or two natural disasters could easily destroy the human race, or at least thwump us back into the stone ages. As to how this qualifies as sociology, I have no idea really, you would have to ask my professor. ;) I didn't personally or spiritually care for the topic, so I thought I'd be as snarky as I thought I could get away with. ;) Make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, that makes a lot more sense (and I agree, it's foolishness to think 'the planet' cares about little old us when one good volcano releases more pollutants than all the cars in North America do in a year) and goes better with the Rick I know. I think I would have used some different word choices, but if you were trying to slip it snark-wise under your teacher's radar then it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, I like to see what I can get away with when I don't like the topic. That and I just generally enjoy being snarky. And while I have no fear of letting my faith show in my writings, I have to be careful in my snarkiness. Especially while pursuing a degree in social work. LOL! ;) :D

    ReplyDelete