The Ecological Footprint definition is simply a way to measure how much we use and consume

The Ecological Footprint definition is simply a way to measure how much we use and consume, in relation to our environment’s capacity to provide and support our needs. It calculates our impact to our environment. From the data gathered by several agencies, it seems that we are now over using our finite resources. We are consuming them faster than our planet can regenerate.
Part A
We’ve been using resources from the earth to live, grow, and expand our civilizations. Every individual and community on earth, from the beginning of time, have been consuming resources from the earth to grow. The resources may be environmental, economical, or social. To achieve sustainability, we need both sustainable Technology, and need to make sustainable choices. After taking my Ecological Footprint test, it seems that to support the lifestyle I’m living, it takes 3.7 hectares of the Earth’s productive area and it requires the regenerative capacity of 1.6 planets each year and if everyone lived like me they will need 1.78 to sustain the human population. Most of the time I eat veggies and only eat the meat twice a month but especially the red meat or red meat product I sometimes finish the month without eating it and I know that eating the season food will help to reduce or sustain human population, I don’t own a car I everyday walk to work and only carpool when I go shopping or visiting meaning that I save fuel consumption and I also use energy saving appliances at my home and make minimal use of power equipment so I don’t know how much do I need to sustain the human population when I re- calculate my footprint it shows different hectares. This test changed my view on environmental protection.
Part B
I do not think that this test may be e effective for immediate widespread change, but it can contribute to creating awareness that could lead to people being more considerate of their use of the available environmental resources and we should be acting responsibly in our daily lives to progress towards a sustainable future. The test challenged my mode of thinking and what it means to be more environmentally friendly and it has opened my mind, and I therefore believe it is possible to open everyone else’s minds by raising awareness. Soon, we will have water shortage, energy shortage and food shortage. Our planet can’t sustain us for long. We only have 1 and yet, our current demand will need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain our way of living. So my views on the virtues ethics as submitted on assignment 06 really supporting this because we need to help save our planet and one person with an initiative can influence another person soon, we will have a planet that’s concerned about its ecological footprint. We can make a difference.
Part C
“It’s all in the outcome – Consequentialism”
The world is in a global ecological, because we turn resources into waste faster than waste can be turned back into resources to achieve an ecologically sustainable. What I wrote or discussed 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 perspective on my assignment 03 but utilitarian’s believe or perspective that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things and Utilitarian’s think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to humanity. Human demand already exceeds the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. It was discussed in the learning unit that one possible solution is that a wipe out is needed 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 from a utilitarian perspective, there is no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die, at least not when that death could be easily prevented by our actions. Utilitarianism is after all 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. Rather we can try to achieve zero population growth and condition in which the human population, on average, neither increases nor decreases. We can try to achieve this zero-population growth by taking several possible approaches
“Fair’s Fair – Distributive Justice” –
Many of us would think it will be wrong or unfair to delay the age of first childbearing, as mentioned above. But what exactly will the nature of the wrong be? It might be utilitarian to think that morality requires acting for the impersonal aggregate good, but the world could be better where people decide to delay conception, rather to have a world where people reproduce many children. 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” –
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 need 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 t themselves, but they must weigh up the consequences of their decisions and give priority to nature. For example, choosing oil as an energy resource is not environmentally 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.

x

Hi!
I'm Heidi!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out