Mankind’s effect on the environment has been one of the most controversial social issues in recent years. The environment has constantly been in the forefront in most political debates. There are two sides to every story. Chris Bright says that yes, mankind is dangerously harming the environment. On the other side, Bjorn Lomborg, says the environment is in fact improving, not declining. I’m going to be discussing both sides of this issue and then giving my own opinion.
Much of the information on development in the 1960s was based on the belief that all of mankind would prosper. It really ignored the strong effects of development on the environment and assumed that the readiness of raw materials would not be a factor. The thinking was that all people working together would get richer because they would be investing in new technologies that would bring more wealth to all.
By the end of the 1960s, a marine scientist Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, had an enormous impact on the public. Her book noticed the loss of birds to pesticides. Her book also made all classes of the population to realize that the pollution affects everyone, not just the rich.
Another professor, Paul Ehrlich, was worried about overpopulati
He also thought that humans would disturb the ecological system. Instead, agricultural production in the world has increased by 52 per person since 1961. Energy and other natural resources have become more available, not less since the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth" in 1972. In October of 1998, a hurricane named Mitch landed on the Gulf coast of Central American and it stayed there for four days. The two sides of this debate are both to the extreme. That means at the same time that the population is growing, people are striving to get richer, which in turn means that they would consume more, pollute more and use up all of our resources. Natural resources have to be found, and this is a process that cost money, not the scarcity of it. People naturally seem to be more interested in bad news than good. Even if amount of trash continues and the population grows, all the trash produced through the 21st century will only take up an area of a square, whose side"tms measures 28km (18 miles). The trouble with this theory is the evidence does not back this up. In the case of oil, reserves could be used to keep the world running for about 150 years at the present consumption rate. Another factor is that people worry that the never ending amount of trash will cause the world to run out of landfills and places to dispose of the waste. In the aftermath, tens of thousands of people died of malaria, cholera, and dengue fever. He said in the course of the 1970s hundreds of million of people would starve to death. A movie was recently released, The Day after Tomorrow, which was all about global warming and the destruction it could cause.