Some people believe that we currently live in a human dominated time period, as many of our surroundings exist with mankind’s contribution. Since the beginning of technology, dating back to the Industrial Revolution, humans have begun to impact the environment. Human affect on the environment indicates their control over nature’s course in the future. For example, the creation of automobiles led to the use of fossil fuels, which contributes to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. According to Vitousek, there is “nearly a 30% change relative to the pre-industrial era…and will drive substantial climate change in the next century.” Currently rising CO2 levels are causing climate changes that are melting the polar ice caps and affecting other parts of the biosphere as well. Unless humans work to decrease their impact on the environment, such as decreasing CO2 levels by using more automobiles that do not run on fossil fuels, the rapid changes occurring in the environment will catch up to us just as fast. Vitousek believes that slowing the changing pace will allow the environment to accommodate to the changes with enough resources to uphold change. Although Vitousek is correct that human’s should slow down, it is not possible. People around the world are competing with each other, which forces people to quicken their lifestyle and compete not only with others, but also with time. Companies are always working to create a better innovative product than their rivals and to put them on the market first to meet consumers’ demands. The quick lifestyle is hard to change, but I agree with Vitousek that spreading information about how our lifestyle affects the biosphere will help encourage people to work towards decreasing their impact on the environment.
Similar to Vitousek, Karieva also believes that human impact on the environment should be changed. Karieva does not agree with conservationists that the way to save the Earth is to preserve it. She believes that working together with the environment is a better method as the environment has shown to adapt well from human domination and destruction. For example, she mentions how despite the Chernobyl nuclear facility meltdown spreading radiation in the environment, “wildlife is [still] thriving.” So, to keep the environment from depleting all its’ resources, humans need to work together with it instead of letting the environment work by itself through preservation. I agree with Karieva’s perspective. No matter how securely an area is conserved, it will still be affected by humans and will not be the same as it was before human impact. Even with attempts to maintain as much of its originality as possible, the world will keep moving and continue to affect it. For example, air pollution creates acid rain, which would reach the pristine area. Thus, I agree that the best way to save the environment is to work with it, not treat it like a museum artifact.
