The articles we read talk about the anthropocene that is occurring in this point in time. Anthropocene is the domination of the ecosystem by humankind. Humankind plays a big role in how the environment can change. The two articles that we read talk about the effects that result from how we interact with nature and the approaches we should take in response.
Kareiva and Vitousek, the authors of the two articles, both agree that humans are playing a big role in the ecosystems of the planet. However, they differ as to what can be done now in relation to our interactions. As Vitousek stated, humans have changed the Earth through its industries. Agriculture has called for deforestation and introduction of new species to the land. The amount of carbon dioxide gas has been rising through fossil fuel combustion of humans. We control how rivers flow for our own use, either by building dams or waterways. Rate of new species in an environment and extinction of species have both increased due to the work of humans.
Vitousek suggests three paths should take knowing how much we impact the Earth: slow the rate of change so ecosystems and species can adapt more effectively, understand the Earth and its ecosystems better and how they interact with us so we can change for the better and accept responsibility for it to help maintain the diversity of species and the functioning of ecosystems.
Kareiva believes that conservation is nearly impossible for practical reasons. Conservation is failing and is losing more it is saving. Examples of conservation would be parks preservations and wilderness areas. They will be protected and sealed off from the touch of the public except for sight seeing. Those sealed off areas will not change but they will not prevent the world from changing. The author states that nature exists amongst the changes in the world and brings up cases to back up his point.
As Kareica points out, is nature really that fragile that one change can change everything? While lost of one species has affected ecosystems, in most cases that doesn’t mean all of the other species in the ecosystem die and ecosystem dissolves. Rather the ecosystem and the species adapt to the change. Nature is resilient that it can recover from major human disturbances. Destroying habitats create new ones.
While I do believe people should make an effort to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, and people should care about the environment, I am sure that not all people will collaborate with Vitousek’s plan because that is how we are. We don’t always listen even if the person makes a good point. Kareiva’s way of thinking will definitely be more appealing to a wider and important audience. Instead of asking, “How can we save nature?” the question that should be asked is, “How can we work with nature?” Although I believe humans should slow down the rate of change to the ecosystems, change is inevitable even if we slow it down, even if it we seal off one place to be untouched. The way we should be thinking is how we can make the change not only to accommodate us, but nature as well.
