With so many newborns on their way every single minute of the hour on this world, almost everybody has dwelled on the concept that at some point humans might overpopulate the world. Too many newborns and infants and not enough resources would cause a major problem and competition would increase. The thought of a major surplus of human lives that eventually leading to decreasing the significance of every single person and reduce the value of uniqueness, vital aspects of human life. How would life be then? How will these events play out and will the problem be solved? Well, author David E. Nye had a say in this topic and defended his idea in his essay “Sustainable Abundance, or Ecological Crisis?” I personally stand by Nye’s thesis of the world’s carrying capacity not being a scientific fact but rather a social construction.
Nye spends a good majority of his essay talking about the advancements of exploiting technologies that produce a surplus of foods, goods, and services. He uses several effective examples to show of this advancement. These include coal mining, irrigation, car production and several more economic processes that consume a great deal of natural resources. Nye gives examples to how these processes deplete the natural resources that this planet runs on. Another concept he throws in together along with these economic processes is the idea of simplicity. Simplicity is the concept that one can live an enjoyable and efficient life without many unnecessary goods and the ability to almost live solely on simple material needs. Nye mentions Henry David Thoreau’s book Walden. The book being about an experiment Thoreau conducted based on the idea of simplicity. He built a one room house in the woods of Massachusetts. He lives simply on basic necessities and enjoys hobbies such as reading, reflecting and close studies on nature. Thoreau came to the conclusion that people can easily become slaves to what they own. Nye uses this to wrap up his idea of simplicity. These two topics of exploiting technologies and simplicity lead Nye to proving his point of sustainability and the world’s carrying capacity.
Nye’s thesis is a clear one in that the world’s carrying capacity is something that is adjusted to socially and is not calculated scientifically. He defends his position with an example of the hedgerows. He tells of how some Europeans nations have reversed a policy of destroying hedgerows to create large fields for the “rationalization” of farming. However, many of the bird species lived and prospered in these hedgerows which lead to the diminishing local ecologies being upset. Realizing this, by the end of the twentieth century hedgerows were being re-established to readjust the balance between wild nature and agriculture. This example allows Nye to express how that decision was consciously made by society for the better of the environment. Another example Nye uses is that of the Zuider Zee dam. He mentions how the Dutch cut off the Zuider Zee dam from the North Sea and how that interrupted many ecological circles. Realizing this, they decided not to drain all the water away and recovered some land for settlement and agriculture while allowing much of the area to remain underwater. He goes on to explain that humans’ decisions dictate how much resources are being used up. The way humans socially interact affects nature changes things environmentally. He mentions how if people in dry areas want green lawns and chlorinated swimming pools, there will be less irrigation. He says not only will farmers produce less food but chlorinated water will be unavailable to other species. He also mentions that if people want to eat meat everyday and wear natural fibers, the world can support fewer people. In the end Nye writes that “Ultimately, the world’s carrying capacity is not a scientific fact but a social construction. Nature is not outside us, and it does not have a fixed limits. Rather, its limits are our own.”
I agree with Nye’s statement completely in the fact that there is no scientific fact that tells of the world’s capacity. I believe that cultural decisions of humans affect how natural resources are used. As Nye showed, if humans are willing to balance environment and production, fundamentally disaster can be averted. The world’s carrying capacity is something that can be changed when humans change how things are socially constructed. I see a direct correlation between the way humans use resources and the seeming carrying capacity. The more humans ask for, the more natural resources are exploited. But on the other hand, the more humans irrigate and cultivate, the more humans can preserve natural resources and keep the carrying capacity at a stable state. So in general I back Nye’s statement and think it is absurd to say that the world’s carrying capacity is a scientific fact.
Work Cited:
Nye, David E. Technology Matters Questions to Live With. New York: The MIT, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment