Author Archives: aashumi

Posts by aashumi

A New Approach

Posted on December 2, 2012 by aashumi

Safe water is undoubtedly the greatest necessity to humans, yet 1.1 billion out of the 7 billion in the world don’t have that. There are approximately 2.2 million deaths due to water borne diseases and hazardous sanitation issues. There is indeed a problem, but rather then continuing on there are multiple ways to treat contaminated water from the past, resulting in enhanced health of people along with an increase in development and productivity.

Water Supply and Sanitation has cost the U.S upwards of a $100 billion dollars, in the past but has often left us with disappointing results. In this commentary, Not Just a Drop in the Bucket, the authors identify two different low cost decentralized methods to clean up our water supply: Point of use chemical disinfection, point of use solar disinfection.

In areas where the water sources are already polluted and there is no function water treatment system, ultimately the responsibility goes to the people living around there because they are most at risk. The most obvious and practical way people think to decontaminate water is by boiling however there is “no residual protection” and rather impractical in terms of, one can’t exactly boil an entire river. However, the other method is to use “safe and inexpensive chemical disinfectants.” For instance, sodium hypocholorite has shown to be the most effective of all chemicals, and it is a simple agent found in most commercial laundry bleach solutions. Using a dilute version of this chemical has been used in the based and has “reduced diarrheal illness by up to 85%, from contaminated water,” and most importantly has helped those to quickly get safe drinking water who have been displaced by a natural disaster. The con is that the water is left tasting a bit bitter, especially water that has major sewage contamination, but this method does protect the water from the residual effect and is also cheap in cost.

Solar radiation is already harnessed for many other circumstances, and the authors of this commentary say it can also be used for water disinfection. This method is achieved by the use of “clear plastic soda bottles or bags,” whose ends are painted black, and are used because they contain a substance that automatically allows them to harness and transfer Ultraviolet light as well as their low cost. This method is most effective with turbidity greater than 30, and water temperature greater than 45 degrees Celsius. Solar radiation has proved to inactivate the pathogens of the water and is already used in many developing countries. Originally initiated and researched by called SODIS, a solar water disinfection project initiated by the Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries (SANDEC), this has been heavily implemented in Kenya with results being positive. This method is cost-effective, safe and it leaves the taste of the water unchanged.

In general these are two different methods to consider when thinking about cleaning up water. Rather than spending billions of dollars on projects that may or may not work, to immeaditely fix the problem there are many options and should be implemented in the extremely contaminated water ways.

Eric Mintz, Jamie Bartram, Peter Lochery, and Martin Wegelin.  Not Just a Drop in the Bucket: Expanding Access to Point-of-Use Water Treatment Systems. American Journal of Public Health: October 2001, Vol. 91, No. 10, pp. 1565-1570.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on November 7, 2012 by aashumi

1. How will you further market and implement your concept of Rambunctious Gardens? Are there other advocates of this idea that work with you?

2. Of all of the innovative conservation techniques you mentioned in the book such as assisted migration and designer ecosystems which one do you think is the most feasible?

3. How did you get into conservation and the science behind it? What originally sparked your interest?

4.  What are the main arguments of your critics, and how do you deal with the criticism you receive?

5. After reading your book, it seems clear that you are against baseline conservation techniques. How do you try to change the minds of those conservationists? Do they understand and embrace your point of view?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 9, 2012 by aashumi

1. How has air pollution in NYC affected the health of its residents?

2. How/has NYC drinking water affected its residents? What health issues have resulted from this?

3. How has the NYC rodent population affected the biodiversity of this city?

Rambunctious Gardens Chapter 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by aashumi

In this last and final chapter of Rambunctious Gardens, Emma Marris ties together all of the ecological goals that conservationists share and points out both the flaws and benefits of each. She believes that the ultimate solution to tying together all of these goals is to “manage nature for different ends” for “different places, different chunks” that way every location can be preserved to maintain open land and biodiversity. Marris ultimately believes that because humans affect all parts of nature “it is our duty to manage it,” and as she points out there are 7 different ideologies to accomplish that (171.) The goals can be split up into protecting individual species or protecting ecosystems. They both go hand in hand because understandably without the right ecosystem animals and plants can’t exist.

The four goals that are focused on protecting species are to protect the rights of other species, protect charismatic megafauna, slow the rate of extinctions and to protect genetic diversity. While these are all great goals the issue is that they all conflict with each other. For instance to protect charismatic megafauna and then to protect the right of other species will inevitability contradict one another due to their conflicting goals. Charismatic megafauna are basically animals that humans love and don’t want to go extinct such as whales, dolphins or any “big mammal with big eyes” (156.) However under the goal to protect the rights of other species it says “humans are not specially privileged species but mere nodes in the grand web of life” (154.) This directly contradicts with this idea of protecting the charismatic megafauna because they are not “specially privileged species” either, and protecting them doesn’t necessarily prove beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole. If one were to do a cost benefit analysis under the goal of slowing the rate of extinctions, the outcome isn’t always that charismatic megafauna are the most cost efficient organisms to save. However sometimes these charismatic megafauna are keystone species that have essential umbrella species that are necessary to protect. Essentially protecting species through whichever goal, even if it is conflicting, is better than complete ignorance.

Marris focuses the rest of her three goals on the ecosystem as a whole. The goals are to define and defend biodiversity, maximize ecosystem services and to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. These all seem very different but these goals essentially tie back to the first goal of defining and defending biodiversity. For instance, ecosystem services are the “what have you done for me lately school of ecology”(163.) While this seems like a very selfish way to conserve, it does pay out because essentially it is the way to get financing. The ideology is successful in finding the “common interests shared by nature lovers and business people” (167.) The 3rd goal of protecting the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature is what began the conservation movement in America, and using that excuse does help preserve biodiversity as well. The only issue that we find nature to only be beautiful if it’s pristine, and as this book Rambunctious Gardens points out, maintaining the pristine wilderness is often more damaging then beneficial to the environment. However Marris ties this back to increasing biodiversity by saying that these lands can be preserved through rambunctious gardens or “the conscious and responsible, and joyful cohabitation” of humans and animals. Essentially Marris’ point is that it is our responsibility to get involved and to do so would be creating more and more rambunctious gardens.

Chapter 8-9, Rambunctious Gardens

Posted on October 2, 2012 by aashumi

The combination of chapters 8 and 9 consist of one approving and one opposing viewpoint that Marris shares on ecological conservation. In Chapter 8 Marris introduces this new more aesthetically based conservation technique called designer ecosystems, while in chapter 9 she goes back to her original concept of creating rambunctious gardens. Using concepts already described in her book such as assisted migration, the Yellowstone Model, exotic species and radical rewilding Marris introduces these two contrasting ideas of what the future of conservation should look like.

Designer Ecosystems sounds exactly like what its supposed to mean. Designer Ecosystems, a term coined by Marris, is a conservation technique which is simply based on the idea of “whatever works” (127.) Rather than focusing on maintaining a historical baseline, ecologists have shifted their view to restoring for a “small measurable goal” such as “nitrogen reduction [or] sediment capture” (125.) For example with the endangered Galapagos Penguin, rather than ridding the environment of the invasive rats introduced, conservations have drilled more holes in the surrounding rocks to increase the nesting sites for birds. By human manipulation of an ecosystem, there is no need to eradicate all organisms after a particular baseline, but rather its about bettering the habitat. Famous Designer Ecologist Richard Hobbs agrees with this point by stating, “ecological history renders ecological restoration ‘quaint’” due to the ever-changing ecosystems around us (128.) However while this may sound as a better alternative to baseline restoration, Marris rightfully believes that it is not fair for us to manipulate nature by using our own “cobbled together” predictions of what organisms and the relationships between them should look like (130). She essentially believes that this concept of designer ecosystems is one where history becomes a “guide instead of a straitjacket” resulting in ecosystems that are primarily focused on being aesthetically pleasing (131.)

Marris continues on by eluding her entire theme of a Rambunctious Gardens in chapter 10. Her main theme of Conservation Everywhere is to use land everywhere including privately owned ranches, and bustling cities to create gardens and areas that add to the ecological movement by creating a sustainable use. This is based on the central idea of connectivity, which can be achieved through corridors. Marris simply lays out the term corridors as patches of areas that bring together the broken fragments in ecosystems. To get that scientists will have to patch together areas such as “parks, public lands of other types, private lands, state lands, tribal and so on and so forth” (138.) She uses the great example of the gigantic private ranches in taxes, whose owners are offered a juicy tax break if they keep land aside for so conservationists. In contrast, this is also useful in cities by the gardening of native species on ones terrace, or in the Duwamish River where the industry polluted river is now being cleaned with an “eco-industrial vision” in mind. Marris believes that “every owner and renter can make any space work for nearly any conservation goal’ (145.) The contrasting idea to designer ecosystems, is that instead of preserving and creating aesthetically pleasing environments it is more constructive to “fight to preserve and enhance nature as we have newly defined is, as the living background to human lives.” In accordance with Marris’ beliefs this seems to be the best way to win this desperate battle to conserve nature for me.

 

Chapter 6-7, Rambunctious Gardens

Posted on October 2, 2012 by aashumi

Marris has repeatedly brought up this concept of invasive species in her past chapters as an issue for the ecological models she presents. For instance in assisted migration a major issue was whether or not the species migrated would transform into an invasive species, and baseline conservation techniques involved the eradication of all non-native species including invasive species. In these two chapters Marris takes a different approach by showing how invasive species can be assets rather than liabilities. She also continues by explaining in chapter 7 the concept of Novel Ecosystems, which are mainly comprised of invasive species. Her new positive outlook is something that is both of interest and surprise to me, however my main concern is she underestimates the threat of invasive species to our ecosystems.

Marris starts off by challenging this assumption that any introduced species that begins to take over the present organisms in that environment is a negative thing. She makes the point that many invasive species aren’t invasive at all but rather in the long run they serve their purpose and help the environment. For instance Easter Island which once had 50 native species with 7 extinctions now has 111 species after many invaded species came onto its shores. This directly proves the point that “invasions greatly outnumber extinctions [with] the overall diversity of oceanic islands increasing” (103.) The biggest issue is that over the past few hundred years invasive species has been engrained into our heads as a negative features. In Charles Elton The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants, he describes invasive species as “bomb like” and “ecological explosions” (102,) and that goes along with the innate feeling we get when we can “identify opportunities for socially sanctioned destruction” by eradicating invasive species (103.) We have spent an estimated $1.4 trillion, or 5% of the global economy on invasive species. This brings up the next topic of novel ecosystems, which are the “emerging, exotic dominated ecosystems”, that only a few brave scientists “have embraced and given them a more positive name” (109.)

Whether the viewpoint is invasive species are beneficial or harmful, invasive species are still present and are affecting our current ecosystems. These new ecosystems formed through anthropogenic change that are not under active human management are termed novel ecosystems. They are actually “more common than intact ecosystems” (114.) Ecologists believe that these novel ecosystems are equivalent to the previous ecosystem present in that location in terms of ecosystem services and biodiversity. For instance in Puerto Rico, the nonnative trees such as the “flame tree, the African Tulip Tree, and the Mango Tree” are trees that native people have taken into their everyday landscape (113.) The issue with novel ecosystems is that very few ecologists have taken up researching these novel ecosystems because of the idea that all invasive species locations that are like that due to anthropogenic influences aren’t worth researching or saving. Ecologists Erle Ellis estimated a “35 percent of the world’s ice free land is covered with novel ecosystems” (119.) Mascaro worded it well by saying that the preservation and research of novel ecosystems isn’t about “conceding defeat; it is about a new approach” (122.)

I am in complete consensus with this idea of novel ecosystems and the study and research of it because at the end of the day essentially all of earth’s ecosystems are affected by human activities. Instead of using baseline conservation, it seems better to look at what is already present and how we can further enhance that. However I do feel that Marris took this issue of invasive species as a whole too lightly. She did focus on how certain invasive species were helpful, but in general they are a larger problem than she lead them on to be.

The High Line

Posted on September 27, 2012 by aashumi

As I walked up the stairs on 23rd street between tenth and eleventh avenue, all I could think of was this trip that I had for so long delayed due to a belief that the High Line was simply this mundane green space somewhere out on the west side. However, 25 little steps later my predictions were proven wrong. Instead I walked in to this surprising, refreshing and beautiful garden that I knew would be a spot I would come back to on my own in the future. I would assume that most New Yorkers similar to me think of the big parks like Central Park, Madison Square Park or Bryant Part when they seek solace and peace from the busy streets of New York City. Who would have known a ten-minute bus ride from my college was another vast rambunctious garden waiting to be discovered.

The High Line resembles a “commercial railroad paralleling 10th and 11th avenue” because simply it was exactly that during 1934-1980. The original High Line, which opened up in 1934, was designed as a solution to “Death Avenue” by allowing freight trains to travel at an elevated level rather than side by side with pedestrians and automobiles. Its purpose was filled as the “West Side Improvement Project,” but post 1950’s its purpose was no longer needed, due to the introduction of the Interstate Highway System.  Slowly by slowly the highline was starting to be broken down in the 1960’s, nonetheless the Friends of the High Line organization stepped in alongside the Rail Banking program to preserve what was left of the High Line through 13th-34th street. Eventually this abandoned area became an ecologic phenomenon as it served as an ideal location for primary succession. The “abandoned lichens, bryophytes, forbs, grasses and woody vegetation grew unmolested by human and train traffic,” and transformed the High Line into another serene place tired New Yorkers could go for comfort (Slater.)

I believe that the High Line serves as a perfect example of a Rambunctious Gardens as author Emma Marris describes. She defines the term as nature that is “tended by us,” and it can be any of strip of land that contains any sort of greenery (Marris, 2.) The High Line is exactly that considering its origin is an abandoned railroad track, and even more so considering that human disturbance has further evolved this area as a vascular plant site. When walking through it the natural pollinators are present suchas the various dandelions and bees, however this place truly proves itself as a rambunctious garden because of its location. It is elevated through Manhattan and many of the building surrounding it have created their own little terrace Rambunctious Gardens to further increase the greenery of the location. All in all the High Line is another example of how humans are bring nature in their cities in any free space possible. Just like Marris I believe that this is the correct conservation method to incorporate in cites.  

 

 

  

Rambunctious Gardens-Chapter 5

Posted on September 13, 2012 by aashumi

Alternative solutions to maintaining the pristine wilderness have been proposed by Marris such as rewilding and the expansion of rambunctious gardens, and in this chapter she introduces this concept of assisted migration. This concept is ultimately the human movement of species to locations that are more suitable for their growth than their current location because of the increase in climate change. Many conservationists are taking this radical approach to save these organisms because otherwise these species would go extinct. However while this approach is meant to be proactive, it is far too radical, expensive, risky that may cause more harm than benefit.

It is safe to say that the global temperature is increasing, and Marris accounts that as Anthropogenic climate change. She believes that climate change is the “biggest single thumbprint humans have put on this planet,” because of the “anthropogenic emissions of gasses including carbon dioxide… hydrofluorocarbons” (74.) This change in temperature has resulted in the movement of species further north, and potentially this could resulting in entire ecosystems shifting upward to sustain themselves, however the issue is that many of these species won’t be able to make it upward in time and in the process will go extinct. Ecologists feel that we need to take proactive action and help move these species move to more suitable locations so they can continue to exist.

In chapter 5, Marris brings up this interesting paradox of “the pristine myth and the myth of a correct baseline for each area” (77.) This brings up the point that if we want to maintain a pristine wilderness than with this climate change, species must be shifted, however if we are using baseline conservation then no species can be moved. Going a long with this paradox, even though assisted migration might be an alternative to the two theories mentioned above it doesn’t makes sense to “intervene on [natures] behalf,” (81) simply because “the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs” (82.) When Marris explains how ecologist Hellmann would go about to preserve the Gary Oaks Ecosystem in California the process itself shows both how much work, time, money is put into it without much certainty if the project will be a success. In order for this process to follow through it would take “years of logical management,” Hellmann has to get “grant money” if she has the persuasion ability to “beat out her rivals, ” after which “she has to set up a local headquarters, “recruit a team” and then after that do all this research through “satellite photos and a tour of the island” (86.) After she collects and analyzes her data, then she may receive fruits for her labor upon moving the trees, or it may swing in another direction and be a complete failure. On top of that there is also a likelihood the Gary Oaks Ecosystem may transform in an invasive species and cause more harm when moved.

Ultimately this concept of assisted migration doesn’t seem feasible for every species, but perhaps is a likely solution to trees that are in danger and are of socioeconomic advantage such as timber. This conservation technique may also be used in the Urban Forest, by migrating some species to urban areas where the ecological conditions are suitable. However it is wrong for humans to intervene in saving ecosystems by completely shifting them based on predictions and forecasts, just so that aesthetically speaking our nature remains the same.

 

Rambunctious Gardens- Chapters 3,4

Posted on September 11, 2012 by aashumi

Marris introduces this new and foreign topic to the common individual termed radical rewilding. In contrast to the previous chapters, which focus primarily on maintaining the pristine wilderness, rewilding is all about complete human manipulation to an ecosystem. This approach seems refreshing at first because of the success stories Marris lays out in Chapter 4, however there are also negative impacts of it that Marris indicates in her writing. I believe that rewilding is an fascinating concept, but too much of it requires sheer guessing, and the risk of that is simply too high.

The two ecologists Marris introduces are Frans Vera and Josh Dolan. They both utilize this concept of Pleistocene rewilding, where the baseline is set to “13,000 or more years ago, before humans drove any species extinct” (57.) Unlike baselines of pre-colonization, a Pleistocene baseline contains animals that are extinct, so ecologists use “proxies for those lost species” (58.) For instance in the reserve of Oostavaardersplassen, Netherlands managed by Vera, there are Polish Konik horses grazing the field, and genetically engineered Heck Cattle mimicking the extinct Auroch.  The second step to this type of rewilding is that their must be a “diverse, top of the food chain predators,” because through the competition of these predators there will eventually be a smaller more diverse group of predators, who allow for medium size predators, who then in turn create a smaller more diverse group of smaller predators and herbivores (60.) Through this process, even though there is direct human manipulation and control, the diversification of the species is naturally occurring and in essence is creating a true wilderness.

This may sound marvelous in concept, however so does the concept of flying sheep. Just because the theory exists, doesn’t mean it’s feasible. Even though Marris subtly says that perhaps this is an alternative to the relentless maintenance of the “pristine wilderness,” this does no better. For one this entire concept is based on the concept of assumptions and opinions versus fact and figures. Marris herself says that overtime the earth has changed regardless of human intervention and going back to an older baseline is both impractical and useless, and rewilding uses the baseline of 13,000 years ago. There is obviously no certain documentation of what the ecosystem was like then, and many ecologists such as Dustin Rubenstein believe that  “proxy animals could generate unpredictable results,” because simply put the outcome is unknown (65.) These introduced proxy animals could become invasive species in reserves and neighborhoods surrounding the reserve. Dolans solution of “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again,” sounds both unreasonable and morbid (65.)  Even though Vera’s Oostavaardersplassen has worked, who’s to say that there won’t be issues with that reserve in the future? Rather than moving backward to 13,000 years ago perhaps it’s more practical to sustain what we have now.

The second criticism is put perfectly by Dolans critics who say, “you are playing G-d” (64.) Ethically speaking the ecologists who control these projects are playing with the lives of many species, many of which are already endangered. The third part of this theory requires death, so that there are smaller subsets of diverse species, however if that goes wrong than many of these endangered animals that are introduced and attracted to these reserves may become extinct. Marris touches upon this morbid idea that animals are required to be killed, by giving the overly descriptive image of the red deer, whose “anus had been gnawed into a large hole by foxes ” (59.) Although this is the natural cycle of life, humans shouldn’t be the ones deciding an entire food chain based upon predictions and assumptions of how things used to be. On top of that, the animals introduced are proxies or genetically engineered. This concept is most definitely interesting, however this is an “egregious case of human intervention in wild landscapes” (64.) Dolan and Vera’s scientific theories should be just theories. It is wrong to play with the lives of thousands of animals, waste millions of dollars, cause potential harm to humans living in these areas to simply test out a theory. The result is not “ a garden about wilderness,” but a childish science experiment.

Rambunctious Gardens-Chapter 1, 2

Posted on September 4, 2012 by aashumi

Compared to many other ecological readings, such as the previous Vitousek and Kareiva articles, Rambunctious Gardens is a more reader friendly version. Within the first two pages, Emma Maris clearly states her thesis of the book by saying “this book is about a new way of seeing nature” (Marris, 2.) She combines the theme of the articles by Vitousek and Kareiva in the first two chapters, by arguing that “we are already running the whole earth,” (2) and that baseline conservation techniques are harmful because regardless of human influence the earth is forever changing.

 The first chapter, Weeding the Jungle, focuses on the concept of how modern nature should be defined. Marris does this through the term Rambunctious Gardens, which she defines as nature that is “tended by us”, and describes that as any strip of land surrounding us that contains greenery, even “in your backyard [and] on your roof” (2.) She then gives a description of the modern conservation techniques of maintaining a pristine wilderness, which contrast her idea of a Rambunctious Garden. One thing that Marris does, which makes her book more approachable to the non-informed reader, is give a brief background history of the ecological terms she uses. For instance, the term baseline is clearly defined, given examples of, and her opinion of it is plainly stated. The two points that Marris makes about baseline conservation techniques is that there is no such thing as “pristine wilderness” anymore because humans have touched all parts of the earth, and that baseline conservation techniques are damaging to the present ecosystem because “conservationists must shoot, poison, trap, fence, and watch, forever watch” the “invasive species” that enter these ecosystems. Marris backs up this argument by giving several examples of areas that she visited, including the Scotia Sanctuary in Australia. She indirectly conveys this message by giving examples of how maintaining a baseline defies the idea that the pristine wild is “unmanaged” (12.) Marris offers a new outlook on conservation by saying we should be “layering goals and managing landscapes with an eye to the future “ (15.)

 Marris continues on in the second chapter, The Yellowstone Model, with ideas from the first chapter. In the first chapter she argues against the assumption that a baseline is “good” and extends this argument by challenging the assumptions that there is a “balance of nature” and that areas devoid of humans is necessary for pristine wilderness. This chapter in general contains more history because she explains the “Yellowstone Model,” and how conservationists over the years have come up with concept of “setting aside pristine wilderness areas and banning all human use therein” (18.) She accounts this model to the famous park advocate, John Muir who was a forefather in the idea of “pristine wilderness.” The consequence of having a human free park, was the displacement of the native tribes that lived on the land, and according to Marris these were the people doing the “least harm” (26.) Furthermore, Marris discusses this concept of having a “static or stable nature” (27.) She goes back and gives a brief history of the concept of the balance of nature derived by Clement, for those of us part of the less informed scientific community. She disproves his point by the experiments of Scientist Botkin, who proves that the “balance of nature,” which Clements believed to be true, was false because through his studies he found that “chaos, rather than equilibrium, is more common” (30.) Marris continues on by going against this concept of global warming, and says that regardless of human intervention climate will increase because “we’re in an interglacial now,” meaning that the earth is getting out of the ice age (32.) Essentially her point for the second half of he chapter is that there is no correct baseline to look back to because the earth is constantly changing, and these conservation efforts that look at the baseline are all going to waste. Overall, Marris summed up her thoughts and ideas cohesively for the common individual to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropocene

Posted on August 30, 2012 by aashumi

The “Anthropocene” as defined in the article written in the Breakthrough Journal is a new era where humans have affected all parts of nature. Essentially every “flux and cycle” in the environment is disturbed by human involvement, and according to the article in the Breakthrough Journal the concept of preserving natural environments has to change because simply there are no more “natural environments” left in this world. Both of the articles from the Breakthrough Journal and Science Magazine argue that the concept behind the Anthropocene is true; nevertheless both articles have a different viewpoint on the consequences behind that truth.

The key difference between both articles is that the one views earth as “fragile” and the other as “resilient.” The article from the Science Magazine presents the more universally known theory that humans “loom as a presence on the globe,” because we are creating an “irreversible loss of biological diversity” that we must stop by lowering “human enterprise.” In another words this the common doomsday theory, that if we don’t change our actions then this fragile world will come to an end. This article gives scientific statistics and analysis to prove the point that humans are affecting the environment. For example 39-50% of the land was transformed and degraded by humans, and then the author goes on to say that because of this, there is “loss of biological diversity” in the world. The main issue is the “growing scale of the human economy,” which the author feels is the biggest hindrance to the present conservation movement.

The article from the Breakthrough Journal, perceives the earth as very “resilient” and constantly evolving. It agrees with the argument stated in the Science Magazine that humans have changed the worlds ecosystems “flux and cycle,” however rather than looking at that negatively, the author takes a more positive viewpoint. He gives examples of how we have indeed changed the biodiversity and ecosystems, but in his argument the consequences aren’t always negative. For example Indonesian Orangutans, which were said to only be able to survive in “pristine forests,” actually live in “oil palm plantations and degraded lands.” The author doesn’t dismiss the fact that we need to sustain our resources, however his solution is to go along with “human enterprise,” because ultimately human enterprise is necessary for the development of the billions of people in the world.

In my opinion the concept of the “Anthropocene” is highly appropriate, and the viewpoints listed in the Breakthrough Journal highly coincide with mine. Both articles factually prove that all of earth is under human influence, however the article in the Science Magazine offers facts, but doesn’t show how that negatively impacts us. For instance, the consequence of humans transforming 39-50% of land is loss in biological diversity in the world. The author doesn’t continue to explain how that could harm us as a society, however the author of the article from the Breakthrough Journal gives solid examples of how we have continued to survive without this biological diversity. Furthermore the solution offered by the Science Magazine is neither practice nor viable, due to the point that we live in a time where there are billions of people in this world, and no matter what we do as a society “human enterprise” will never cease growing, and if it did it would only harm the people. The Breakthrough Journal words it well with the statement of  “as we destroy habitats, we create new ones.” Humans have been present on earth for millenniums, and in that time period the earth has drastically changed without regard to human intervention. It is no doubt important to sustain resources, however there is no point in viewing the conservation problem as a doomsday theory as presented in the Science Magazine.  It is pertinent to keep in mind the concept of the Anthropocene and the growing population when establishing conservation tactics. 

Comments by aashumi