Name: lifestyle, it will need about 1.7 planets
Name: Richmore Matereke
Student Number: 60657502
Sustainability: My Ecological Footprint Essay
When I took ecological footprint, the lifestyle I am living occupies 3.1 hectares of the Earth’s productive land and should be improved by a capacity of 1.7 planets per year. If everyone lived the same lifestyle, it will need about 1.7 planets yearly to provide for the human population. I contribute towards the environment up keep by purchasing organic food, I take less red meats and by means eat seasonal foods. I drive a carpool to work every weekly to save on fuel, regularly serviced, and the tyres properly inflated driving within the speed limit. Low energy saving appliances at my home and minimum use of power equipment, and yet my footprint results say I need 1.7 earths at least to sustain the human population. I wanted the results to be much lower and in deed results were a wakeup call on environmental protection.
This does not change immediately, it can also be of help creating awareness that could make people more aware and being considerate in use of the environmental resources at their disposal. The quiz challenged the way I think and what it means to be more environmental friendly. Considering our ecological footprint can change the world. Therefore, I see it necessary to create awareness to the crisis we find ourselves in. It is a responsibility of every citizen to collectively act all over the world. This assessment opened my eyes of the things we did not pay attention to and I believe we should create awareness.
“It’s all in the outcome – Consequentialism”
Humans needs already is over the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. The glob is in an ecological overshoot, we turn resources into waste quicker than waste can be reversed back into resources. To have an ecological sustainable community need a virtual transformation in the values and beliefs, that govern our relationships with natural resources and nature. The world should admit to the human behavioral and stresses those attributes to appropriate a mutual understanding. As stated in the learning unit that one possible solution is a wipe out to bring the available footprint up to the current consumption, reducing the number of people on planet Earth, to sustain various consumption levels. By killing, or as mentioned in assignment 3, “by the act of letting 20 000 children die every day is justified on the basis of the good of the whole species” would be wrong from my angle. A utilitarian view, there is no moral between killing and letting die, and not when death can be easily avoided by our actions. Utilitarianism is described as a tradition in which actions are judged as good or bad based on the aggregate good or bad which that act would lead to. We should try to reach for a zero-population growth and this can only be achieved by having several different approaches, e.g. avoiding early parenting, this will slow down the population growth. Marriage age could be raised to drop the percentage fertility required to achieve zero population growth etc.
“Fair’s Fair – Distributive Justice”
Increase Production technology to increase yield of food, thus not increase total land used or finding another planet.
We would think it to be wrong or unfair delaying childbirth, as mentioned, what will be wrong with nature? To delay conception might bear a better world or a world with higher levels of overall well-being. By producing a small number of children which could have a higher quality of life rather than having a large number of children whose lives are barely worth living. It might be utilitarian to think that morality requires acting for the impersonal aggregate good, the world can be a better place where people decide to delay conception, rather to have a world where people reproduce a large number of children.
What would be fair, is for the current generation to preserve the opportunity to develop and sustain social institutions. What we owe to future generations is a level of each of the primary goods on a person’s list, sufficient to sustain the most basic of human needs and to secure enough beyond that minimum. We need to save a sufficient amount of our precious resources to guarantee enough economic and other resources for future generations. If I were to pull on the veil of ignorance, not knowing whether my children would have a high-quality life, or a life that is barely worth living, would I accept the fact that we must preserve our resources and the economic value they have, to reap the benefits for my children? My personal answer is yes. If not, then there will be no resources left for future generations to live a high-quality life.
“Greenies – Environmental Ethics”
” Granting a tree, a mountain and a bird intrinsic value is the first step towards an ecocentric world and a better planet.” Humans are the carriers of intrinsic value and, therefore, all other living things are there to sustain humanity’s existence. The ecological footprint resulted from human’s greediness and has led to massive alterations in nature’s balance. We as humans have a responsibility to all biological life on Earth, because we are capable of thinking and perceiving Earth as a whole. We have a responsibility to the innate worth to all living things, regardless of their usefulness to humans. Our anthropocentric perception of the world is the reason for the environmental crisis we find ourselves in, ranging from global warming, water scarcity and the loss of biological diversity.
For example, people cut down trees to build houses or for making furniture – trees inborn value in this situation is ignored, therefore, devastating overall outcomes emerge. Deforestation contributes to global warming, less trees means less absorption of carbon dioxide, leading to more greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere. To make environmental decisions to satisfy both anthropocentrism and ecocentrism is difficult. Humans can still make decisions that would benefit themselves, but they must weigh up the consequences of their decisions and give first priority to nature. For example, choosing oil as an energy resource is not environmental friendly – recycling oil, on the other hand, can produce biodiesel to power automobiles. We can have the best of both, but we need to apply the recycling process to reduce our natural resource consumption.