Environmental science assignment - Essay Example

(MacFarlan & Sgherri, 2001) Research has also demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between the extent of HIV prevalence and the severity of reduction in growth of gross domestic product in a country. (Piot et al, 2001) Many children in Botswana are growing up with one parent, and a growing percentage are growing up having lost both parents to AIDS or to concomitant infections. It has been suggested that the increased population of orphans could have a negative effect on biodiversity caused by excessive reliance on hunting and food gathering of children orphaned by AIDS.

It also seems extremely likely that the dispensation of human bodies could prove problematic, as any mechanism for caring for the dead could involve contamination of air or groundwater. Further studies must be undertaken to fully understand the ramifications of AIDS infections and deaths on the environmental status of Botswana and other South African countries. 1d) The US and Canada could take many steps to reduce the prevalence of AIDS in Botswana and in sub-Saharan Africa in general. For one, working to equalize treatment of women would go a long way toward preventing new infections.

Supporting programs to educate girls and women would reduce infection, and providing safe spaces for girls and women would prevent infection through rape and other nonconsensual sexual acts. The Stephen Lewis Foundation funds educational programs for young women and girls in an effort to empower them to protect and support themselves. 2) Precautionary Principle “The precautionary principle sets forth no positive obligation; it simply reminds legislators that they cannot wait for proof of a cause-effect linkage between a given substance, process, or activity and environmental harm before acting to reduce or eliminate the risk of this harm.

” (Ellis, 2006) As a justification for public health policy in particular, the precautionary principle has serious drawbacks. Likewise, a company seeking to introduce a novel substance or process into the environment ought to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of that novelty before being permitted to act. Critics have stacked precautionary practices because they have "produced and promoted ineffectual environmental policies." (Gardiner, 2006). This practice presupposes that human beings fully understand their environment, and that they fully comprehend the ramifications of that.

Suppose a process designed to remove chemical pollution from the air was introduced, and that this process involves the use of heavy metals to bind the aforementioned chemical pollution. How would the resultant toxic slurry be disposed of? What about potential harm to individuals working to implement the law? These questions and more would have to be addressed in a satisfactory manner before the process should be legalized, and companies permitted to go forward with implementation plans. Anyone wishing to introduce a new chemical, industrial process, land use change or any other significant and novel development into any society should absolutely be required to demonstrate not only the safety but the efficacy of that development and transparency of intent before they are permitted to introduce it, even if they are ostensibly acting in the interests of public health.

All too often, the needs of large corporations are valued over those of individual human beings. Anyone who stands to make a profit from the introduction or implementation of a novel venture ought to be prohibited from sponsoring