Nicholas WongMr. KaczorowskiMs. JeongRST 2424/10/22Week 5 Packback DiscussionI agree with this statement that humans have - and will continue to have - negativeimpacts on the natural environment if society continues to progress in the fashion it has over thepast two centuries. I support my position more after reading this week’s learning materials andwatching the videos. A big difference in the environment could even be made by just one personmaking a difference on something as small as recycling or carefully preserving water. Humandevelopment is another reason I believe that the environment has not improved over the past twocenturies. Human development changed a lot over the past two centuries. Several buildings arebeing made, factories are being built, and natural habitats are being torn down now. Over the pasttwo centuries, these actions have caused some harmful changes to the environment. "TheAmerican landscape was not as beautiful as Americans perceived it had once been. Its shoreswere covered with broken glass, its highways littered with food wrappers and bottles."(Rothman, 2000, Page 129). After reflecting on lessons from previous weeks, I realize thesettlers might have thought the landscapes meant a lot to them, which surprised me from thequote above. When choosing to settle, it was not what the settlers thought would happen and isdisappointing to see that it came to this point. "Air and water pollution was everywhere in thelate sixties. Leaded fuels, chemicals, wastes, and other sources seemed to threaten everyone'squality of life. " (Rothman, 2000, Page 126). Comparing the past two centuries to now, not muchhas changed, which is why the above quote also shocked me. Hopefully, people figure out amethod to protect instead of harm the environment within the next two centuries.Response Post To Alyssa Obrien:Hi Alyssa,You made a very interesting and intriguing Discussion Post. Regarding the environmentcontinuing to be harmed by people, I agree. What strongly supports your argument was theRothman quote you mentioned. The quote by Rothman was very strong to support yourargument. The cost of producing toxins in the air and water is a side effect / result of howtechnologies improve people’s lives. This showed the selfishness of people at times. Peoplealways like and prefer things to be convenient, easy, and fast. The Earth cannot recover quicklysince people quickly take too much due to those reasons mentioned above. To help society,people utilize natural resources. However, this also gradually harms people due to the pollution.Even though you have made a very strong argument, I felt some of your points were a bitweak. I thought you were a bit vague regarding the harmful effects on the environment forstarters. The Cuyahoga River Fire, Love Canal, and the toxicity of the chemical DDT were alltopics taught in this week’s learning materials. You would have been able to prove how harmfulpeople have been and how severe the damage caused was by being more specific.Modern technology might be argued by some people to decrease people’s negativeimpacts on nature. What can affect the environment positively are the invention of accessiblesolar power, electric cars, LED lights, and plastic recycling. All the harm already done does notcancel out unfortunately. People do not necessarily use eco-friendly technologies since some arecostly and not easily accessible. Overall, your post does a pretty good job of addressing thequestion you came up with.Nicholas
View Full Document
Unlocking...