Fluent Essays

RequirementsWrite a summary for each reading. A summary highlights (emphasizes) the main points of a text.Structure your summary as follows:Name the author (or authors) and title of the text.Identify 2-3 of the major points or ideas of the reading. Be concise. Accurately represent the author’s writings. Use direct quotations from the text.Conclusion: What findings (evidence, conclusions) does the author give?Example of opening sentence:In “__________” (title of article) by __________ (author’s first and last name), the author documents…• Don’t copy sentences verbatim from the text. Summarize the reading in your own words.• Use present tense, for example:The article documents, describes, examines, etc.The author observes, writes, concludes by saying, etc.• Type the following at the top left or right corner of the front-page:Your first & last nameEnvironmental Problems & SolutionsWinter 2020Reading title & author(s)Getting startedGrab the reader’s attention by:Citing an interesting fact or statistic from the reading.Opening with a quote from the reading.Posing a question your summary will answer.Using examples from the reading.Word length• 2.5 pages typed.• 12-sized font (any style).• Double-spaced.• Print single-sided. eileen_crist_welcoming_limitations..pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview t::: 7 lie tJiiti’et,sit’ -- ot Chicago EI LEEN CR ci? Ot Press Chicaço and London Tovvard an Ecological Cn’tl,zat,on Abundant Earth . - 185 human potential: an aura of regression and constriction of often charged are calls to end humanity’s expansionism ning humanity “to with harboring the motive of retur rhetorical deceits the caves.” Human supremacy anti its ot humanity, and must be unmasked for a good portion re continued cx pan for many in leadership positions, beto way train that is runa a is: it what siomsm can be seen for . privileges condones guished and Utie special 1)Iafletary woridview iznbues this n, toke expansionism. By the same enterprise wit)] an hum any proposal for contracting the the wide trophically dimin Given that human eXpansionisni is catas expansionism not ishing Earth’s biologicat wealth, why is abo)lishing? Why e aton let ng, on the table for questioni an population, hum ing are the trends of more—a grow s, ad in Iraomie econ burgeoning global trade, expanding rtiheit,” “sma or structural sprawl—to be accommodated edges? the nd arou and their adverse effects just managed y, or emac an supr I have argued that the woridview ot hum ans are ttistiti ly shared l)ehef system that huni many mote scientists and policy If foresight intelligence became established, the demographic contributions to planners (and society) might understand tion growth as a “given” and consider the predicament, stop tteating popula of humanely ending growth well the nutritional, health and social benefits . This would be a monumental decline slow a below nine billion and starting growth. Monumental, but tion popula of tum task, considering the momen be generated globally to give full not impossible if the political will could , and provide all sexually ac tights, education and opportunities to women eption. PAUL AND ANNE EHRLIcH tive human beings with modern contrac Welcoming Limitations EIGHT 186 base and into a human-user resource transmogrifying the living Earth danger. placing all complex life in mortal e an the trends of more and embrac ge To become willing to challen will e becom life on Earth, we must also other possibility of human our te extrica and environmental arena) to ing (in the broader culture read widesp knots discussed earlier: the reasoning from the discursive the notion causing the ecological crisis; belief that “human nature” is fabricated idea; a passé and/or culturally that wilderness (free nature) is ionism with that conflates ongoing expans and the circulating ideology new imagi A . people for more and more increasing degrees of freedom We need e. becom we are and who we can nation is needed about who es produc that gy of Earth as a planet also to recall the original ontolo bio , beings ms, populations of living stupendous abundance of life-for of conscious ena, and diverse forms logical processes, living phenom , and experience of well-being, beauty ness, all scaling up to a shared transcendence. the reversing, not accommodating, Halting expansionism entails population, stabilize and reduce the global trends of more: working to trade, global over regional economies prioritizing robust local and undo and g limitin and substantially downsizing the global economy, these ructure. The vision inspiring infrast ing the sprawl of industrial rem which should not be the sea within proposals is that humanity : around way are as islands, but the other nant patches of wild nature es societi human vast terrain within which wild nature can become the nce. nature’s abunda are nestled in reciprocity with challenging to ical civilization will be ecolog an The pathway toward down human scaling to envision. It entails forge, but it is not difficult ive presence excess time pulling back our ity’s impact while at the same calls for down the natural world. Scaling from, and interference with, along s, consumption, which require drastically reducing excessive de tion, popula res, lowering the global with other actions and measu ng lesseni relocalizing economies, and industrializing food production, re of restoring, the life-affirming project global trade. Pulling back is ocean, so as to and land large expanses of connecting, and rewilding and renew its with its millions of life-forms share the planet generously and pulling down all earthlings. Scaling life-nourishing vibrancy for ical civili ecolog strategies for creating an back comprise the conjoined explored is ies Earth. Pursuing these strateg zation within a biodiverse that follows. in this chapter and the one CHAPTER EIGHT 167 onic way of life: Mass consumption is humanity’s present-day hegem and appear slated, are life of way people or nations not part of this a point fine too put to Not fold. mostly willing, to be brought into its living of ts amoun vast ing on it, mass consumption involves devour Mass waste. of ts amoun and nonhiving matter while spewing out vast ex in als materi consumption includes the societal use of energy and and ture ial agricul traction and production processes, such as industr g; the societal acturin manuf and , mining y, forestr fishing, industrial as electrification, use of energy and materials for public works such development; and construction, transportation, and infrastructure icks and clothing chopst from dities people’s consumption of commo of foods and bev ption consum to electronics and cars, as well as the assumes the au it e becaus life, erages. Mass consumption is a way of materials and raw of ts thority and prerogative to source colossal amoun er they wherev from manufactured goods (for societies or individuals) can be sourced and by any means necessary. as globally This way of life proliferates never-ending services (such h which mass burgeoning fast-food outlets and big-box stores) throug nation of combi The fied. magni and ed consumption can be perform class middle global rising the with d growing numbers of people, couple is ption consum mass that participating in the global economy, means im severe p, lockste In not growing in linear fashion but accelerating.1 hstanding some effi pact on the biosphere is also accelerating, notwit systems (such as ciency gains in production, transportation, and other ncy gains tend savings in material throughput and energy use). Efficie and growing size to be overwhelmed by increased use of commodities Such gains can thus of commodities (like bigger cars and refrigerators).2 foot, while leav one with brake the be compared to stepping softly on ator. acceler ing the other slamming down on the of global Reducing the huge demands and resulting waste output and actions of array mass consumption will require stepping up an and gains ncy policies already pursued to one degree or another: efficie fossil fuels to a conservation in energy consumption; shifting from and other renew new energy system utilizing distributed solar, wind, ing recycling in ables; phasing out extractive industries while advanc transform waste; ating elimin le, possib dustries; reducing and, where economy; dle) -to-cra (cradle r circula a ing a throwaway economy to ture, agricul ial industr to those as abolishing destructive subsidies such Facing Mass Consumption WELCOMING LIMITATIONS 768 governmental policies. approach to lower Along with these approaches, the indispensable and gradually reducing ing consumption on all fronts is stabilizing Martha Campbell writes, the global population. As population expert do and everything we “population is the multiplier of everything we Patrick Curry, “has the pe consume.”3 “Overpopulation,” states author numbers, the most natu of force culiarly vicious result that simply by and the continu survival to ral human activities relating most directly procreation, food, growing ation of the species—finding fuel, shelter, threats direct pathological; excretion and so on—themselves become to personal survival and to that of the species.”4 toward its substan Stabilizing the human population and embarking richness of the biosphere, tial reduction are necessary for preserving the gains in consumption reduc for at least three reasons. First, whatever operations, demate recycling tion are achieved by efficiency measures, or energy con activities), rialization (i.e., less throughput in production changes) behavioral via or servation (in vehicles, construction design, (for ex numbers. human tend to be undermined by sheer growth in 2050 in meat less percent ample, if the average American consumes 20 con meat total American than at the turn of the twenty-first century, because in 2050 simply sumption will stilt be five million tons greater to counteract over policies and actions of population growth.5) Diverse since the global pursued, be to consumption should of course continue positive effects the Yet them. situation would be all the worse without population the once palpable of the above listed measures will become diminished. and then factor underlying consumption is stabilized globe, both in the devel the across people of numbers Second, huge the natural world with their oping and developed world, overwhelm density and rapid popula demands. In poor nations, high population wetland destruction, often for tion growth drive forest, grassland, and for large-scale, exportstibsistence food production and increasingly and Erica Chambers McKee Jeffrey oriented agriculture. As researchers cause of biodiver primary a is have found, “human population density use, and is thus land agricultural sity losses, in a large part mediated by to Earth’s threats future reduce a key factor that must be addressed to biodiversity.”6 and drastically shrink industrial fishing, and the fossil-fuel industry; ecologically destructive foods, ing the production and consumption of Work in all these areas is especially animal products (including fish). it can be sped up via way, under important, and while some is already initiatives, and business grassroots campaigns, institutional reforms, CHAPTER EIGHT 189 on Earth.’1 In brief, the second reason that numbers of people in developing and developed nations need to be reduced is that they collude, in dif ferent as well as interacting ways, to diminish biodiversity and fttel the extinction crisis: the poor via high densities and rapidly growing num bers in the vicinity of wild places and consumers by the energy, food, mineral, and other demands at home and abroad of their ranks swell ing into billions. The third reason that a far lower global population is called for is connected (as earlier argued) with the imperative to move in the direc tion of abolishing industrial food production. The organic, local, fair, Examples of destructive impact due to high density and rapid growth in the developing world include Haiti, Ethiopia, Niger, Ghana, Madagascar, Pakistan, and the Philippines—all nations that have de stroyed vast portions of their forests in recent times. For instance, even until the middle of the twentieth century, Pakistan was more than 30 percent forested, but its forests have dwindled to 4 percent of its territory in our time.7 (Pakistan has about two hundred million in habitants, and, despite a looming water crisis, is projected to grow to 395 million by 2050.8) On a similar note, the profiles of rapidly grow ing African nations, as summarized in the open-access World Fact Book, reveal a near identical litany of environmental disasters, most especially in countries with soaring fertility rates: deforestation, de sertification (from overgrazing), poaching, soil erosion, and pollution. Pressures of high population density on biodiversity are not foreign to the developed world, as the eastern coastline of the United States and the state of Florida, among other places around the world, attest.9 Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of consumers in the developed (and increasingly urban developing) world also destroy (and have de stroyed) much of the biodiversity of their land and sea territories. Add ing insult to injury, they have the power to sponsor more destruction remotely. For example, deforestation of Brazil’s Amazonia, Indonesian forests, and the Congo basin is beholden to pressures from rich nations, via a global trade regime that those nations have favored and estab I ished. Economic factors associated with mass-consumption markets in countries with which developing nations do business (such as the United States, China, Japan, and European countries) drive habitat de struction and species extinctions.’0 Importantly, the developed world is also historically most responsible for greenhouse gas pollution, thereby instigating a climate-change episode that if allowed to continue un abated has the potential to bring about a holocaust for all complex life WELCOMING LIMITATIONS 190 significant strides toward revamp and slow food movement has made dly, as well as animal, farmer, and ing the food system to be Earth frien high-quality nurturing diet that community friendly, and to offer a and not just the privilege of the should become universally available nic food production could be wealthy. The question of whether orga ing population has often been scaled up to feed the present and com offer an interesting agronomi posed in recent years.’2 While it may anity inhabiting a biodiverse cat inquiry, from the perspective of hum pertinent question is: What must planet it is the wrong question. The for all people to be well fed on or the global population size be in order and regionally grown food, while ganic, diversified, and mostly locally space to be freed and rewilded? also allowing terrestrial and marine tures with organic production sys Simply replacing industrial monocul and healthier options, would not tems, while promoting less polluting r cultivation. enable the reduction of land-use unde goal of gradually lowering the the uing purs The solution lies in be sustained by an agro-ecological global population to a level that can huge demands on land and seas. food system that would also not place on human carrying capacity away This calls for shifting perspectives maximum number of people the from the standard definition of the shelter, toward formulating a planet can adequately feed, clothe, and people that an ecologically sound robust touchstone: the number of ltaneously allowing for the flour food system can support while simu inant food system—founded on in ishing of wild nature. Since the dom ture production, primarily designed dustrial animal and crop monocul it t catastrophic force on the planet, to serve global markets—is the mos m. requires revamping the food syste follows that addressing life’s crisis has implications for global pop Revamping the food system, in turn, growing numbers are beholden ulation size. Humanity’s current and estimated that roughly 40 percent to industrial food production. It is ined without synthetic fertilizers; of our population could not be susta y have nearly doubled human carr otherwise put, synthetic fertilizers per 700 , fertilizer use increased ing capacity.’3 Between 1961 and 2000 n people and growing primarily billio 7.5 cent.’4 The global population is e this possible. Industrial food pro because industrial food has mad underwritten exponential growth, duction on land and seas has thus , all at once, than would otherwise enabling more people to be alive be possible. organic, diversified, and locally Moving toward a food model that is synthetic fertilizers and chemicals, and regionally oriented, using no CHAPTER EIGHT j 191 people and freedom for all earthlings. This argument collides head-on with the specter haunting the pop ulation question: for many, even mention of the word “overpopula tion” is taken to imply blaming the global South (where population growth is largely occurring) for the world’s ecological woes. Indeed, the population issue has been so bogged down by political controversy, ac rimonious debates, and knee-jerk attributions of the shady motive of “population control” that it has become, as Julia Whitty puts it, “the last taboo.” We can move beyond the historical baggage and mistrust goal as I argue below. The argument in a nutshell is this: If we choose to change how we eat—so that food production ceases impoverishing the biosphere, while displacing, killing, and mistreating myriad beings—then we must lower our population. The proposal that the human population should not exceed the support capacity of an organic agriculture was also made by ecological economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. To my knowledge, he did not develop this proposal into a full-blown argu ment, but in 1975 he wrote: “Mankind should gradually lower its popu lation to a level that could be adequately fed only by organic agricul ture. Naturally, the nations now experiencing a very high demographic growth will have to strive hard for the most rapid possible results in that direction.”5 The rationale underlying this proposal encapsulates an ecological bottom line for the population question, because the cre ation of a food system in friendship with the natural world sets rela tively robust parameters for population size. Honoring such limits to population size is not a constriction of human possibility and freedom, but a necessary dimension for achieving a higher quality of life for all among other changes, means that human numbers must be gradually lowered to at least half present levels. Considerations of land and sea protection push the number even lower than half its current size, for in order to restore a life-thriving planet large areas of habitat must be returned to wild beings and ecologies. In addition to the mandates of an organic polycultural food model and large-scale protection and res toration of wild nature, it is also imperative that people inhabit places nearby where food can grow for both food security and ecological rea sons. All considerations in hand, a global population closer to two bil lion people is an initial ecologically sound and rational goal, enabling the conservation of a biodiverse planet, a connected global civilization, a high-quality and equitable standard of living for all people, and the co-flourishing of humanity and the living world. It is also a feasible WELCOMING LIMITATIONS 192 ndary ving beyond the prevailing qua The first reframing involves mo popula sumption or an unsustainable of whether it is excessive con ercon “ov that zing gni impact, and reco tion that underlies humanity’s the ile Wh es. iabl var on” are not distinct sumption” and “overpopulati ce, uen affl , ion ulat act as a factor of pop celebrated IPAT formula—of imp ing idat eluc for ful analytic shorthand and technology—has been use aged ical damage, it has also encour log the big factors underlying eco lev n ptio luence” (i.e., high consum relegating “population” and “aff renatu n of silos. from this balkanizatio els) into separate explanatory th Nor move to regard the global impacting variables, it was an easy the and a “consumption problem” (the developed world) as having blem.” pro n atio pul “po a d) as having global South (the developing worl some extent remains, a truism. This assessment became, and to , there ed and inaccurate. for starters The truism, however, is muddl amely, —n one but nature’s destruction are not two big factors driving as a h bot uses the world excessively overconsulnption. Humanity sink a as living and inorganic world and source of materials from the con s, gase ogen, herbicides, greenhouse for wastes, such as garbage, nitr natural the that h fort so and , sewage, fined livestock manure, plastics of impinge nsumption refers to a scale world cannot absorb. Overco g it exces usin by , ably ere, often irrepar ment that damages the biosph variable ked rloo ove enormous yet oddly sively as source and sink. An popu en Wh ple. pt ... Purchase answer to see full attachment