technology owes ecology an apology?
107521
My toaster just said it was sorry to my cactus..Now if the TV would only apologise to my goldfish...
906697
Humans have made huge impacts on the physical environment by logging, farming, building, and really just existing. The problem is the rate of change is accelerating as the population grows exponentially and people become industrialised and require more and more. The earth really cannot sustain this growth in all aspects of people greed and need. There is no easy way to slow it let alone stop it.\n\nAs a planet we are doomed! not tomorrow but before this century is out.
290159
The answer to studing ecology was worded the simplest by Kofi Annan. "There is little chance of protecting the environment without a greater sense of mutual responsibility." \nThe world in which is made up ofdelicate and complicated systems, which need to be understood by everyone on one level or another. While it would seem some of it to be trivial, an informed public insures a healthier planet.
316116
I think it is nature's way.\nWhen things in nature get too out of balance, at some point it turns around and evens out. I would like to see the earth's envionment restored at any cost. We are not as important as we would like to believe.
480393
Well you can start by adjusting your lifestyle and joining an advocacy group in your area that promotes cleaner living. Everything we do causes pollution but there are newer consumer technologies now that will help you reduce your ecological footprint.
385125
yes it has. we are like hamsters in a cage. and technology is destroying the outside, also.
912001
Technology usually changes everything despite its adherents or critics.  You can bring up the technology of agriculture.  Its really hard, back-breaking work enabled the advent of the city-state.  Hunter-gatherer societies couldn't compete with the more hegemonistic power of a society with agriculture.  Despite its disadvantage for the individual (arduous work) it profited the cultures that used it and is now the only game in town.
888046
I guess I am not allowed to answer since I am concerned about global warming.  I am also concerned about the massive population explosion of dim wits.  Both are great causes of concern.  But since you did not ask for solutions I will not give you what you did not ask for.  You seek to get blabble babble static and drivle...
702459
Modern technology in some instances would be used to speed training and provide better results. \n\nFor example, I can get on my computer and literally find an answer to any question or information on any topic I choose, whereas in a non technological environment, it may prove to be difficult or near impossible to quickly learn some things, as in (The hard way). \n\nIn summation, your statement refers to dull witted and unhealthy beings, I hardly find technology to be at fault here, more like pour upbringing and substandard  public school results . . . . . . . .wouldn't you agree?\n\nDarryl S.
560710
There have been a number of ecological problems cause when existing species are moved out of their natural habitat. The jackrabbits in Australia is one example.\n\nGenetically engineered species could have the same effect. If you accidentally introduce what is essentially a new species into an ecosystem, the results could be disastrous.\n\nNote: Genetic engineering efforts tend to be concentrated on domestic animals and plants.  You are unlikely to have to worry about dairy cattle escaping into the wilds.\n\nAnother problem is that bioengineered food may pose a problem for people with food allergies.  If, for example, peanut genes are spliced into some other food plant in an attempt to make it better, eating it could possibly affect people who are allergic to peanuts.  It could become hard to tell what foods would be safe for them to eat.
578885
Danielcra, the right winger, is a prime example of that stunted thinking.  \n\nHe wrote that we care more about trees and birds than humans, as if trees and birds are not as important as human life.  \n\nHe and the other idiots do not realize that without birds and more importantly trees - humans will be extinct too.  \n\nIt is this narrow imbecilian thinking that is destroying the environment and may even encourage new or more virulent diseases as natural controllers/predators die off.
382629
There is definately a correlation between the increase in the population of the world and the destruction of the environment.  But remember that correlation is not causation.  Just because two things increase at a similiar rate, does not mean that one causes the other.  The causes of the destruction of the environment, stems from our inability to responsibly advance our society.  It comes from our poor practices as a global society and as local communities.  It comes from our inability to think about how to do things efficiently and effectively while taking into account the environment and our long term comfort and survival.  It also comes from our rapidly increasing technology, combined with our not so rapidly ability to deal with the waste and biproducts that come along with technology.  Simple example: car and smog.  I hope this can start your thought process in the right direction.
782745
"Are we destroying the earth with technology or is the earth doing business as usual"\nI suggest you track the changes scientists have found in the entire history of the earth, warming, freezing, wet and even effects of smoke from Krakatoa. Then compare what is happening now with pollution and the depletion of the ozone layer and ask the readers to make their own conclusion.
1089027
yes.In the past three decades there has been a global awakening regarding environmental issues. Considerable progress is being made in addressing a variety of complex and technical problems associated with a historical disregard of these issues. But environmental issues continue to be some of the most important and perplexing problems facing all governments today.\n\nPart of the difficulty facing politicians and the public is the technical complexity of the subject. A full understanding of the risks that we face is often limited to scientists who specialize in a particular field of knowledge. On some issues there is serious disagreement among scientists which puts lay policy makers in a very difficult dilemma. 2\n\nThe resolution of environmental problems also involves a careful balancing of competing interests and values. Although business interests frequently resist attempts at environmental regulation, this resistance usually reflects a public demand for products and development. Some environmental activists oppose many aspects of further human economic development because of threats to the remainder of the ecosystem. Others are chiefly concerned about current and future threats to the health of the human population. 3\n\nEnvironmental issues present special difficulties for developing countries. These countries pose a big potential threat of exacerbating threats to the environment. But absent massive infusions of assistance from richer countries, they cannot afford to match environmental controls being adopted by developed countries.\n\nIn August 2002, a global environmental summit sponsored by the United Nations convened in Johannesburg, South Africa. Despite some agreements, the meeting is an overall disappointment for many environmental activists. The positive spirit which had been generated from a similar meeting in Rio de Janiero ten years earlier was absent. Much of the criticism was directed at the United States. President Bush was one of the few major heads of state who chose not to attend
917112
Have you ever wondered whether the advances in science and technology would provoke nature’s need for revenge? Have you ever thought of what might happen if we keep on the exploit what we have, our lands and our bodies? Because I have. I feel that what nature is preparing for us will come out of the blue, exactly when we least expect it. And the cause for this would lie in our actions. And why? Simply because we have no idea what we’re doing while polluting our planet, using chemicals in everything and we are even thinking about modifying our children’s looks and brains. We are pushing our luck with the advances in agriculture, genetics and medicine. \n\nFor a start, all humans are so used to using technology and taking antibiotics that I’m not even sure that we could survive without them. For example, children weren’t used to such strong pills ten years ago as they are now, since a very young age. The research that I’ve made into the media shows that genetically improved corn makes the danger of famine in many parts of the world a thing of the past, but do these people realize that such meals don’t provide enough vitamins and thus puts their health at risk? And do they know how a specific body would react to such things? My opinion is that people should consider their interference in agriculture if they don’t want to provoke nature to strike back. \n\nModifying plants is not the only business of nature with which people mess up. Knowing the way your child will look like when it grows up is to be no longer something extraordinary. But if it becomes a normal thing to take a picture of a star and say that your heir looks like him or her, imagine how simple the child’s life would be, there would be nothing interesting or surprising to happen to its looks. Not only that, imagine what life would be if we all looked like dolls in the Disney shop :). In addition, the smallest and simplest mistake could cause mutations or provoke long-lost inherited diseases in the family tree. It is the same thing with the organs that will be created in laboratories soon- the risk of health ‘problems’ is too high. My research shows that the average lifespan would soon be over eighty years of age. And what will happen if everyone lived up to a thousand years old? The world would be overpopulated and the people who would work wouldn’t be enough to feed those who wouldn’t. And that would be a disaster. \n\nHowever, medicine is well developed nowadays. A patient who had an organ transplanted is celebrating the tissue’s tenth year of normal function in his body, according to the media. Transplantations make people with an infected organ live normally, but that has its price. First of all, it is very risky to undertake such an operation, but the results might be tremendous. The second threat comes right after the end of the surgeon’s ‘masterpiece’- the danger of inheriting diseases from the owner of the organ. In addition, I don’t think it is ethically correct to allow people to literally sell parts of their bodies. At least not for such prices like $2000, which is how much a kidney costs in Turkey. What’s more, we all know what kinds of risks cosmetic surgery involves- for example, if you make your lips bigger, the substance might decide to change its position in a year and move to your cheek. \n\nTo sum up, scientists’ ability to make nature work for them has had clear benefits. Of course some people do question the ethics of certain experiments, and others demand to know just how far we are prepared to go with scientific changes. Nevertheless, the benefits to both individuals and the whole of society outweight these concerns, but can’t outweight what the future could bring to us as a revenge for playing with nature.
230535
Of course. If you look back in history, there have been environmental and spiritual crises all the time. I think we look at our situation today and think it's the worst it's ever been. During the Reformation, the Inquisition, the birth of Christianity, etc., there were all kinds of spiritual crises for Europeans. We've also had huge environmental crises, too... such as when big volcanoes erupted and sent so much ash into the air that the sun barely got through. About 200 years ago, there was a time called "The Year without a Summer" because the volcanic ash blocked out the sun. However, I do believe that with nuclear bombs, we have the capability to do more harm to the earth than at any other point in history. But even at that, meteors have struck the earth and done incredible harm to the environment. Scientists think a meteor hit the earth and killed off all the dinosaurs.
919768
Community and/or Ecosystem