Inherent Human Nature and Its Impact on The Natural World - Research Paper Example

 Inherent Human Nature and Its Impact on the Natural World: Individual and Societal Factors It can be quite unique to consider how, within daily routines, humans engage with the world that exists around them. Each individual, whether he or she is an 'average' American citizen, or a citizen of another country, like China, each person can approach the outside work based on their own inner perspective. Cultural influences can have a considerable impact on the ways in which humans interact with the world. The influences that impact the footprints which humans leave on the world during the course of their respective lives can forever change the nature in which those same humans think, believe and act. As it stands: Lubchenco maintains: “....during the last few decades, humans have emerged as a new force of nature. We are modifying physical, chemical, and biological systems in new ways, at faster rates, and over larger spatial scales than ever recorded on Earth. Human have unwittingly embarked upon a grand experiment with our planet. The outcome of this experiment is unknown, but has profound implications for all life on Earth. An assessment from the Ecological Society of America entitled the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative states that environmental problems resulting from human activities have begun to threaten the sustainability of Earth's life support systems. Among the most critical challenges facing humanity are the conservation, restoration and wise management of the Earth's resources. (254) From their perspective, humans consider themselves to active members of the greater world population. By making decisions to participate in recycling, use all natural building materials and the like, such choices impact the level of the footprint humans leave on the world. Table 1 LAS 200, Quantitative Preparation Exercise   Global Acres Change (O) Change (R) % Change (O) % Change (R) My original footprint {O} 29.9         My altered footprint {R} 21.2   -8.7   29.10% Average US footprint 23.7 6.2 -2.5 20.74% -11.79% Average Chinese footprint 4.1 25.8 17.1 86.29% 80.66% Source: The Global Footprint Network Table 1 shows the level of footprints left by the average U. S. citizen, the average Chinese citizen, and my individual calculated footprints, both initial and altered. The table shows that my original score of 29.9 global acres was 20.74% above the U. S. average, and 86.29% above the Chinese average. When I lowered my global acres to 21.2, it was 11.79% lower than the U. S average but still 80.66% above the Chinese average. Although the numbers between the U. S and China are large, there is a function of global acres relative to the density of the population. By using Table 1, it is shown that the average American citizen leaves a greater presence upon the world than the average Chinese person. The average U.S. citizen’s footprint is 23.7. The average Chinese citizen’s footprint is 4.1. Considering myself to be a conscientious individual, the size of my footprint was quite perplexing. Using various means of behavior modification in my daily life, I was able to revise and reduce my individual footprint score to 21.2. It is also essential to consider that the scores of individuals can have a direct correlation to the number of people living the area being counted and the number of acres that exist to sustain the population. Lubchenco posits: How is our world changing? One major way is that we now live on a human-dominated planet. The growth of the human population and the growth in amount of resources used are altering Earth in unprecedented ways. Through the activities of agriculture, fisheries, industry, recreation, and international commerce, humans cause three general classes of change. Human enterprises (i) transform the land and sea-through land clearing, forestry, grazing, urbanization, mining, trawling, dredging, and so on; (ii) alter the major biogeochemical cycles-of carbon, nitrogen, water, synthetic chemicals, and so on; (iii) add or remove species and genetically distinct populations-via habitat alteration or loss, hunting, fishing, and instructions and invasions of species,” (253-254). Culturally speaking, the percentage difference of my individual footprints, the differing figures between my numbers and the numbers of the average U.S. footprint, illustrate the degree in which outlying cultural influences are a factor despite living in same nation. Influences occur in varying degrees based on an individualistic thought pattern system. Such a system, while unique to the individual, leads to vastly different approaches relative to thought construction. Thought construction formulates how individuals think, final beliefs from original thoughts and options to act on formulated decisions. In the U. S., there is a well documented “me first” mentality present. With the increased level of individual consumption occurring with such a mentality, it can be difficult to alter selfish behaviors when the level of outside influence is so intense. Currently, the U. S. society has become dependent on the very things that leave the strongest footprints on the world. Just as those that live around me, I myself have been prone to tendencies which would be described within the realm of a “me first” mentality to a certain degree. By putting environmentally-based products in my home, I sought to make a contribution to the greater benefit of the rest of the world. While culture is an influence, gender is another influence that impacts the footprint of a society. Relative to gender, women are considered more apt to make the necessary changes to preserve the environment than are men. Product vendors tend to rely heavily on the gender and emotional state of the consumer. In this case, the desire by women to be nurturing far outweighs the rational level of thinking of men. As a result, the influence of the vendor is more exemplified than it may have been beforehand to have an impact on the environment. Ultimately, the question of outside influences involves the inclusion of the differences between individual rights and individual duties, while balancing a personal duty or ethics to preserve the environment. Aside from business culture that seeks to influence the environmental decisions, it becomes the right of the individual to make the individual changes necessary for conservation, but to do so within individualized parameters. For example, my willingness to change my footprint is the continuum of rights and duties. I do believe that it is my duty to ensure that the next generations will have a healthier environment. However it is my right to do it in the way I see fit. This leads to the discussion of rights versus ethics. For humans, the issue of rights versus ethics and duty becomes a greater one to consider. Those things that are considered to be rights and the resulting ethical issues, if any, that come from such choices. The inherent nature of humans to interact with the outside world can be in direct correlation to the understanding of rights while maintaining a sense of the ethical implications and duty to society as a whole. From an ethical standpoint, humans tend to feel that by maintaining a level of ethical practice they are limiting the level of detrimental impact that they are having on the environment and its ability to be sustained. Evolutionarily speaking, the ethical approach has progressed to a level which correlates to the degree of change in humans over time. “Thus we return once again to the question of humanity's specialness, our supposed capacity to escape the biological “leash,” in Wilson's term that constrains all other species. This issue is intimately tied to the ethical implications of evolutionary theory and especially of human evolution. How is the “is” of human life, as evolution explains it, related to the “ought” of ethics? One possible answer comes from Social Darwinism and eugenics, which see evolution's message for human morality and society as, in essence, might makes right, with the mightier being those deemed fitter by natural selection A subset of Social Darwinism contends that humans as a whole, rather than a particular group of humans, represent the pinnacle of natural selection (“the top of the food chain”) and thus can justify any treatment of those below” (279) With respect to human nature, what does ecology show about human nature or self? First, ecology shows that humans depend on animal species, plant species and the physical environment and its processes for survival. This interdependence shows that humans are affected by changes in climate, or loss of species diversity but that human actions affect other species and the environment as a whole. The laws of ecology indicate that in nature everything goes somewhere, but also “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” The actions of any organism, including humans, have impacts and costs.” (Peterson.284) Peterson explains because humans as a species take a great deal from the world, this holds great implications for the natural world. What humans feel and how they are affected by the natural world also affects the natural world based on the choices made by humans. Humans need to be cognitive of the impact of selfish decisions on the world overall. Humans have become accustomed to relying upon the outside world for survival. The natural world is utilized by humans to provide food, or shelter. The nature of humans, regardless of the culture, is to take what they need from the closest possible sources at their disposal. Such individual and societal factors have lasting consequences on the bigger world status. This further illustrates the often selfish nature of humans and the disregard for consequences to the world. Throughout the course of life, the desire by humans to fulfill wants or needs, often overrides the negative impact of the decision over time. The fulfillment of wants and needs is considered the way in which individuals or groups thrive and prosper. Being able to thrive and prosper enables humans to increase longevity. This is the primary way in which humans relate to the natural world. Humans use the influences surrounding them to develop how they think about the natural world, what they believe about the natural world and ultimately how they choose to facilitate changes to ensure the health of the natural world, and if they choose to act to make changes. Actions taken by humans create footprints on the world. Footprints are a means of leaving an impression of the person’s thoughts, actions and beliefs on the world. Those footprints can be shaped by the choices, decisions and ethics of the individual and of a culture. A variation of the appearance of the footprint can be present when comparing people within a collective society, such as individuals within the United States or when comparing people across societies such as the Chinese. Although population and cultures have, the unifying theme is the fact that human actions, decisions and ethics whether selfish or selfless, create footprints that have implications on the current and future existence of the environment and the world. Works Cited Koester Lubchenco, Jane. “Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science.” Science 279.5350 (1998): 253-54. Peterson, Anna L. “Evolution, Ecology and Ethics.” Being Human: Ethics, Environment, and Our Place in the World. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001. 279, 284. Read More