Sustainable_Development

Sustainable Development SCI 207 Instructor: September 13, 2010 Imagine a world that is rich in natural resources, no one goes hungry due to the abundant availability of food; a world full of pristine oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, and seas brimming with fish and plant life. A world full of beautiful landscapes that go unmolested, reaching as far as the eyes can see. A world in which everyone has economic stability, have families full of love, and never having to worry where their next meal is coming from. Some people say this utopia is not obtainable, while others say we can come very close to this, but at what cost' Will governments force sterilization upon its citizens in order to meet food availability' Will we lose our freedoms that we have grown to love, all in the name of sustainable development' Sustainable development is, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Easton, 2008) In order for a country to be sustainable it must meet the environmental, economic, and social needs of its citizens. How can a country meet these needs and make sure it does not negatively affect future generations' Some say that population control is the answer. Most American families consist of two adults and 2.5 kids while other countries sometimes have as many as seven children on average. Obviously the family with seven kids is going to consume more resources than the family with 2.5 kids. Should those families that choose to have more children than can be sustained be forced to be sterilized' That is what some areas of India have been doing. “The poor are encouraged-some would say coerced- to be sterilized after having two children.” (Cunningham, 2010 p.88) There are incentives for the sterilization, some receive a months’ pay, while others may receive better housing, land, and wells. This program has been very effective at lowering the birth rate, and reducing the population. If a program like that were to be forced upon the citizens of America, or other countries that give its citizens the right to have as many children as they want, there would be a large uproar over the government trying to control our bodies, and what we do with them. Besides who is to say what the appropriate number of children is' Where would we stop after a forced sterilization or forced birth control' Would we then eliminate the number of elderly by means of euthanasia due to the fact that they are no longer of use for the workforce' In order to meet our needs for food, and not hinder future generations’ needs as well, we need to find new ways to grow foods in places that they have not grown before. There are certain criteria’s that need to be met in order to grow crops; they are usually fertile soil, plenty of water and plenty of sunshine. What if we could grow crops in the hot arid deserts where hardly anything eatable grows' Imagine fresh juicy tomatoes, or crisp lettuce that came from Death Valley where the only other plant life are cacti. While accomplishing this daunting task may not be feasible anytime soon, it would surely be a great step to help those that live in the similar climates of Africa. One of the main problems of manipulating the genes of our food is that we do not fully know what harm, if any, it might bring. The new “super crops” could very easily use all the nutrients in the soil, making the once fertile land barren. There could be health repercussions, such as illness, that we may not know of. Genetically engineered foods can also cost more than regular seeds, thus eliminating the benefits of them to the poorer countries that would benefit the most from them. Another problem with genetically engineered foods is that corporations would likely be the ones that hold the patents on these new seeds. By corporations holding patents on the seeds individual farmers are at a disadvantage because they are not allowed to be saved for future usage. More likely than not, these corporations are not in the mindset of helping their fellow mankind out, but instead making as much money as possible, thus eliminating any and all donations to the poorest countries that desperately need them. Genetically engineered foods do have advantages to them that may outweigh the negative aspects of them. Since the genetically engineered foods may be able to grow in conditions that are not optimal, they can cost less in the long run. If we are able to grow these seeds in a dryer climate, then less water is required to help them grow. If these seeds were given to poorer countries instead of sold to them, they could not only feed themselves, but also gain financially from selling the excess crops to other places resulting in an economic boom that could help them to improve their living conditions. These new crops could also be more resistant to pests that might otherwise render these crops useless. Crops are not the only foods that are genetically engineered, livestock is as well. Farmers are giving growth hormones to cattle in order to increase their size, make them breed at a younger age, and produce milk faster. This sounds like a great plan, we get more meat to feed our families at a cheaper cost because the livestock matures faster, higher output means that there is more food to go around for everyone. Farmers can take the best traits of their livestock and mix them with other livestock to produce cattle that can become as big as possible. However there are some very large concerning problems that have come into light recently. Doing this to animals can be very stressful to the animal because they are growing faster than their frames can support them, leading to more deaths. Recently in China female infants have started to grow breasts from drinking formula. The formula that contains cow’s milk may have been from cows that were treated with growth hormones. (Katz, 2010) These animals can also lead people to become allergic to the milk, and meats that are produced from them. This could be detrimental because if people become allergic to their foods, than there is no point in modifying them due to the fact that only a limited number of people could eat them. We have become accustomed to certain level of living; when we turn on a light switch we expect a light in the room to come on. If we were to overuse our natural resources, a day might come when we turn on the light switch and nothing happens. Most of us try to conserve electricity as much as possible, we buy fluorescent lights to save energy, we insulate our homes for better heat retention in the winter and cooling in the summer, we may even buy cars that are hybrids that run off gasoline and electricity. What if in order to become more sustainable in our natural resources, the governments the world over implemented a law stating how much of our natural resources could be used by each person. I know for a fact this would not go over well in my household. While we try to conserve as much electricity as possible, with kids this is not an easy task. I constantly find empty rooms with computers, televisions, gaming systems, and lights on, only to have to remind my children that they are wasting power. If I were to install some type of monitor that would shut the power off once a certain amount has been used, I would never hear the end of it. If governments would do the same to its citizens, they could probably expect the same results. While implementing a program such as this would help with global warming and the consumption of natural resources tremendously, it may also hinder us as well. Doing something like this could cause businesses to lose money because they are no longer able to produce the goods and services at the rate that they once did. However this could be a blessing in disguise because it could force some companies and people to look for alternative sources of energy such as wind power and solar power. I highly doubt that our government will do anything remotely close to this in our lifetime, but if we continue to use the majority of the world’s resources like we do now, then this could be entirely feasible for our children or grandchildren. Gasoline shortages were a common occurrence in the 1970’s; prices hit all time highs while supplies hit dangerous lows. The United States uses more gasoline than the top twenty countries combined per day. (Blanco, 2010) We try to utilize our gasoline consumption as best we can; we do not make any unnecessary trips to the store, when we shop we buy as much as possible, thus limiting the number of times we need to go to the grocery store. When the kids have extra-curricular activities we wait for it to finish instead of just dropping them off and going home for a few hours then returning when practice is over, and we take other kids in the neighborhood to practice as well. Clean, fresh water is something we all take for granted. We turn the tap on and water comes out, we really do not think about it until there is a problem. Occasionally we hear a boil advisory on the news telling us that our water is not safe to drink until it has been boiled; this is usually from fire departments flushing fire hydrants, causing our water to turn a rusty brown color. Imagine if every time we wanted to get a drink of water we had to boil it first, not only is it inconvenient, it can also add to more pollution from either the extra electricity, or the fire that we have to use in order to boil the water. There are millions of families that have little to no access to fresh water every day. Everything from chemicals, to human waste pollutes what would be their fresh water drinking source. Countries like this need to have better education in order for its citizens to thrive, and have fresh water available to them to use on a daily basis, instead of relying on bottled water trucked in from elsewhere. However, it is not just third world countries that need educating on water pollution, we do as well. Each day Americans pollute our own water supply, many simply do not know that they are doing it, or they do not care that they are doing it. We do it by not properly maintaining our cars, excessively fertilizing our cars, and by many other means. If our cars develop an oil leak, that oil leak can seep into our ground water contaminating the very water we drink. It can also gather in parking lots of stores, then when rain comes along it will wash it down the storm drains and further pollute of water supply. The same thing happens when we fertilize our yards; some of the fertilizer can seep into underground water supplies, or it can be washed into storm drains. According to Mark Hertsggaard, “Americans lead the world in greenhouse-gas production, mainly because of their ever tightening addiction to the car, the source of almost 40% of U.S. emissions.” Since we, as a nation, use so much of the fossil fuels every day, will we run out of them' The answer is yes we will eventually run out, but it is not likely to run out in our life time. Still, we need to look to other viable alternatives to fuel our automobiles and homes, and solar and wind energy may just be those viable resources we need. The sun is not going away any time soon, so it seems only logical to harvest its energy as a replacement to coal fires power plants. Many electric companies will give people a credit on their bill if they send their excess power that is produced from solar panels back into the electric grid. So, if a home uses seventy-five dollars worth of electricity a month, but thanks to their solar panels they produce one hundred and fifty dollars worth of power each month, the power company would actually be paying them seventy-five dollars a month. Over the course of their lifetime, the solar panels would pay for their selves. The only downsides to solar energy are the large panels needed to gather the energy, and the batteries that are needed to store the energy produced. Wind power is becoming more popular, and it appears to be a very sustainable commodity towards energy production. It is clean, efficient power; however it too has some downsides to it. There needs to be plenty of constant wind where the windmills are located, and there needs to be plenty of space for the windmills. We know where the most constant wind is right now thanks to meteorologist, but what if the wind patterns changes and the wind is now twenty miles away from where the wind farms are' There would be a lot of useless windmills taking up valuable space. Also if there are not clear areas for wind farms, then we must create them; which means plowing the land to make as much room as possible. When we strip the land of all vegetation we might be doing more harm than good for future generations. There is an old saying that applies whenever we go camping or hiking, “Leave the area in as good, or better, condition than it was when you leave.” The same mantra should be applied for our natural resources as well, “leave as much natural resources, or more, for the next generation.” If we apply that kind of thinking every time we go for a drive, run the faucet, or turn on a light switch we may be able to make the resources that we have now last for many generations to come. References: Blanco, S. (2007, July 12). Yipes - a graphical representation of gasoline use around the world (it ain't pretty). Retrieved from http://green.autoblog.com/2007/07/12/yipes-a-graphical-representation-of-gasoline-use-around-the-wo/ Cunningham, W.P. & Cunningham, M.A. (2009) Principles of environmental science: inquiry And applications New York: McGraw-Hill. Easton, T. (2009). Taking sides: clashing views on environmental issues . New York: McGraw- Hill. Hertsgaard, M. (1999, November 8). Will we run out of gas'. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992526,00.html Katz, N. (2010, August 11). Female infants growing breasts in china' formula scare outrages parents. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20013311-10391704.html