“Going, Going, Gone.” How far should we be concerned about the loss of biodiversity? (VJC JCT 2007)

Stand: We should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity

Points:

We should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity. This is because human beings today are living in a fragile web of life, where all organisms are closely related and interdependent on one another. Within the biosphere, which is the only life zone of mere 14 kilometers thick, all ecosystems, communities and human beings co-exist together. Therefore, if any of the members in the web of life is to be disrupted, it could bring detrimental repercussions to Man too, since it is these organisms on which the human existence depends upon. In 2007, experts portends that the rapid deforestation has left the United States with only 40% of it original forest. This as a result has caused a chain effect on the pollinators, where about 50 species of bees had gone extinct. It eventually led to deleterious impacts on Man, where the US Department of Agriculture estimated that a loss of US$200 million was incurred on the US farmers last year due to decreased crop yields. Thus, it is no doubt why many claim that we should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity, since destroying any one of the ecosystem can upset the existing balance between Man and nature.

We should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity. This is because of moral and ethical obligations that we have to abide by. It is imperative that we contemplate what our reckless acts of destroying planet earth could cause to our future generations. We do not own the Earth, but instead, some would say that we inherit it from our ancestors and merely borrowed it from our children. Thus, for the sake of future of mankind, it is vital that we would show concern towards the loss of biodiversity and ruminate on how to save Earth, since the threat of deteriorating conditions of the planet for our future generations is real. In year 2000, World Watch Institute issued a report called “State of the World”, where it identified that if the 7 main environmental trends were to be uncorrected, it would be a catalyst to our plan of planet migration. A few trends include shrinking forest, extinction of plants, animal species and collapsing fisheries. Therefore, it is incontrovertible that we should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity, if we want to safeguard the interest of our future generations.

We should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity. This is because they not only provide us with survival needs, but also bring about a plethora of benefits to us, be it medical or economic benefits. Other than oxygen, the biodiversities provide Man with resources like food, water and coal, which are vital for Man’s development. In addition, many of the biodiversities are actually of significant medical value to us, and they can be used as remedies for many top killer diseases. This is why in lieu of the damages that Man in inflicting on the planet, Daniel Janzen, biologist of University of Pennsylvania said,” It is as though the nations of the world decided to burn their libraries without bothering to see what is in them.” For instance, it has been found out that soil microbes can actually be used to make the most potent antibiotics. In addition, more than 25% of the pharmaceutical products in the United States today contain ingredients originally derived from wild plants. The biodiversities can also bring about great economic benefits, since it is many of the eye-attracting sceneries of mountains, forest and waterfalls that attract tourist arrivals in many countries every year. For example, the Rondonia rainforest, or emerald rainforest in Brazil is well-known for its showcase for the diversity and colors of life, attracting millions of tourist every year to have a look of it. Thus, it is no doubt that we should be very concerned about the loss of biodiversity, since it can bring about endless benefits to mankind.

Nevertheless, some might say that we need not be concerned about the loss of biodiversity, since we can rely on the high end technologies to ensure our survival. In the area of hydroponics and aeroponics for instance, it has ensured growth of crops even without soil, replacing the jobs of the bees for pollination. In the area of Genetically-Modified(GM) food, it has even made crops today more resistant to weather conditions, tastier and more nutritious too. Solar power has even been deemed to be able to replace coal usage in the future, with research by Ausra Inc showing that solar energy can meet up to 90% of the Americans’ demand for electricity. Thus, some would say that we need not rely on the biodiversities anymore, since we have the advanced technologies to depend upon. However, this is not totally agreeable, since technologies can sometimes be unreliable. In 1990, a project to modify tastier soya beans actually resulted in contamination, triggering a major allergic attack to the masses. Thus, while technology is beneficial and is able to replace the biodiversities, we should ruminate on whether technology is really 100% safe for our usage.

"Is it true that there is enough on the planet for everyone's need but not everyone's greed?" Discuss.

Stand: True, but not absolute

Points:
There is certainly not enough on the planet to meet the insatiable demands of our material world. Today, Man is assaulted by images and advertisements promoting the acquisition of goods and products more for self gratification and status rather than the real need for it. People are steeped in the spirit of covetousness, always desiring for more material comforts that leads to Man's insatiable demands. In 2006, Fort Motors carried out a survey and found that 28% of the Americans possess more that 2 cars when all they need is only 1. Besides that, about 10% chose greater and bigger cars for status when in fact a smaller and fuel-efficient car is all what they actually need. In 2007, PEW Research Centre found that 80% of the people aged 18-25 in Chicago felt getting rich is their most important goal in life, with the mindset that it can satisfy their material wants, with 64% demanding for an iPod or sneakers when surveyed on what they really need. Thus, this is no doubt why many claim that as the planet has the capacity to meet our needs, it cannot satisfy our insatiable demands and greed.

There is certainly not enough on the planet for everyone's greed, since people are over self centered and no one is willing to sacrifice their interests to help bear the cost of environmental conservation. To people, their profits, convenience and comfort is much more imperative than the issue of environmental degradation, thus they see no incentives to help the planet. In Singapore for example, while the National Congress of Trade Union(NTUC) initiated the plan of "Bring Your Own Plastic Bags" campaign, it did not receive fervent support from the community. People would rather purchase the bags at $0.10 each than to put in the extra efforts to bring their carriers along. It has even been found out that in Hong Kong, 64% of the people switched on their air conditioners to average 24 degrees or lower when they sleep. Even between countries, some felt that they can be exonerated from the responsibility to save the planet. The USA for instance, was reluctant to reduce their greenhouse emissions despite being culpable for a large proportion of the world's greenhouse emissions. Thus, it is no surprise why people claim that while the planet can be sufficient for our needs, it cannot meet our greed.

There is certainly not enough on the planet to meet everyone's greed, since people today are over profit-driven and motivated. They exploit the planet's resources, often overusing it in attempt to maximize their remunerations. It is all these environmentally irresponsible acts that many contemplate if the planet is really sufficient to satisfy our greed. In Africa for example, ranchers over-graze their pastures, causing the lands to be barren and impoverished. In Indonesia, farmers even resort to slash and burn methods in attempt to burn huge hectares of crop waste to provide for fertile soil and higher yields. With individuals overly concerned about profits with the environment at stake, it no doubt why many claim that while the planet is sufficient for our needs, it cannot meet our greed.

Nevertheless, with the advent of high end technologies, it would not be surprising that it is actually possible for the planet to meet our greed and insatiable demands. As long as mankind is willing to invest in technologies to replace the scarce resources tapped, sustainable development can certainly meet our greed and there is no need for concerns about insufficiency. This can be seen in areas like hydroponics and aeroponics, which allows crop growth without the use of soil. Solar power can also resolve our worries about the depletion of natural resources. A research by Ausra Inc reveals that it is possible for the solar energy to provide for about 90% of the US electricity demands. In the area of Genetically Modified(GM) food, crops can even be made more resistant to weather conditions, larger and nutritious for human beings. Therefore, it is possible that the planet can meet our greed with the help of technologies. However, technologies can sometimes be very unreliable and limited in help. Solar power can be beneficial, but it is extremely costly and thus some say that solar energy wins the enthusiasts but not the money. GM food can also be very dangerous, since in many occasions, contamination results in the process to modify genes. In 1990, a project to breed higher quality soya beans triggered a major allergic attack in masses who were allergic to a certain Brazilian nuts. However, in spite the dangers, it is incontrovertible that with the help of technologies, it is definitely possible for the planet to suffice for our insatiable needs and greed.

Benefits of religions

Religion serves as a unifying force. This is because in today’s milieu, everyone is busy with their hectic schedules that it could be indubitable that the gulf between people could widen without religion. It is religion that brings people closer. This can be seen in Japan, where religions like Zen Buddhism and Shintoism takes up about 92% of the population, and it is these religions that unifies the Japanese of different status class together. Religions like Christianity have also proven to bring people closer with the weekly church prayers where followers would be able to interact with one another. This is no doubt why after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Bush in attempt to alleviate the fears and worries of the Americans said, “ In this time of crisis, let’s pray for the courage to overcome terrorism.”


Religion acts as a moral check for people. This is because religion promotes the upright morals of human and teaches us good. In times of dilemma, it is religion that can acts as a guide for us. It condemns the undesirable behaviours of human beings and term them as transgression or sins. Thus, in this world of constant change, it is no doubt why people look upon religion as their moral compass, leading them to the path of goodwill.

Education serves as an essential tool in eradicating racial conflicts. Comment.

Stand: True, but there are other means to eradicate racial conflicts

Points:

Education is sine qua non in eradicating racial conflicts. This is because it is only through education that people can learn to be more understanding and show love to people of different skin color as them. They would also be aware that it is most vital for people of different races to live harmoniously together, given they learn more about histories of racial conflicts. Furthermore, through education, they would know how to appreciate the cultures of other races and thus learn to pardon their behaviors. In Europe, the Conference of European Churches (CEC) worked in hand with churches of 14 other countries to educate the followers the importance of racial harmony, and this includes teaching them that all people are equal, or that anti racist work is a work of love. In Singapore, students are also required to take on compulsory subjects like Social Studies which allow them to see how racial disharmony in the country has stirred up chaos in the past. Thus, it is no doubt why people claim that education serves as an essential tool in eradicating racial conflicts.

Racial conflicts can be obliterated through political means. This is because racial violence often arise because stigma and discriminations of different races are not attended with severity by authorities and being see a trivial issue. As a result, the manifestation of intolerance and hatred leads to the eruption of violence, which turns uncontrollable in many cases. Therefore, the government would have to implement anti-discrimination legal framework and let it made known to the public. The government would also have to increase the policy influence of excluded groups in the country so as to promote social cohesion and solidarity. The European Network Against Racism (ENAR) is one example in Europe which fights against racism and lobbies for anti-discrimination and anti-racism. In UK, the government has also set up the Focus Institute on Rights and Social Transformation (FIRST), which aims to help ensure racial and religious harmony in the society. In addition, in effort to increase policy influence of excluded groups, the Australian government has also came up with the Aboriginal Education Operational Plan, and this seeks to help the poorer and less academically inclined aboriginals of Australia to have equal opportunity in receiving education. Therefore, it is no doubt that the government policies serves as an important tool in eradicating racial conflicts.

Racial conflicts can also be eradicated by economic means. This normally includes disincentives like trade embargoes and sanctions of goods ranging from food and resources to even oil and arms to discourage the country from involving themselves in racial conflicts. Usually, in fear of the detrimental repercussions that the disincentives can bring about to their economy, the authorities would feel coerced to carry out evasive actions to bring to halt the conflicts in the country. One very successful example is the oil and arms embargo of the USA on South Africa, in lieu of South Africa's apartheid system which has led to severe racial segregation. The USA also appealed to the world to stop trading and investing in South Africa as part of its anti-apartheid plans. This had proved that using economic disincentive is in fact effective in eradicating racial conflicts. However, some might claim that the use of economic incentives and disincentives can only be a short run temporary measure. The authorities should instead focus on solving the root causes of racial conflicts, which are inequality, discrimination and hatred among different races. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the fact that the economic means can indeed be an effective way to obliterate racial conflicts.

Language is also an effective mean of eradicating racial conflicts. This is because it is a mean of communication between people. By introducing a universal language, such as English, it can remove the barrier between different races and bring people of different racial groups together. Thus, language is said to provide an opportunity for closer relationships among people. Language can also be a tool for diplomacy. This is because it is through many peace talks and negotiation that at many instances drew the world out of severe racial conflicts and violence which could turned uncontrollable. Nevertheless, some might disapprove of the power of language to obliterate racial conflicts, because they feel that at many occasions, it is the use of language that causes unhappiness between racial groups. The use of derogatory remarks and ethnic slurs is most pervasive in many countries. In the United States, the Afro-Americans are used to be called Niggers, which to many Afro-Americans was a term which is insulting and condescending. In New Zealand, Indians are even called "curry-munchers", and in Australia, aboriginals are termed as "Abbo", which is an offensive term. Nevertheless, in spite of the pervasive use of ethnic slurs, it is incontrovertible that language can be an effective mean to eradicate racial conflicts

i love gp xD lols