One of the largest arguments of today’s society sparks from the rapid increase in the world’s population. Many viewpoints on this debate exist, and two views in particular contradict each other. These viewpoints include those of Garret Hardin and Julian L. Simon. Hardin’s view is expressed in “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and Simon’s in “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment.” Each debates problems and solutions of the growing population, including the use of natural resources in order to supply the world’s growing population. Hardin perceives that the earth has a finite amount of resources. At some point in the near future, there will not be enough food to suffice for the rest of the world. He provides evidence
…show more content…
The “solution” to this issue is headed by the use of genetic engineering of crops. Crops can be altered by creating them impervious to weeds and insects without application of pesticides or herbicides. Ultimately, will this be a benefit to the environment, or will these changes inversely affect it? From personal experience, these solutions are not beneficial. For instance, my family owns and operates a beekeeping business. Bees are extremely important to pollination of plants, but recently, bee populations have been decreasing. From our family’s analysis, it is concluded that new corn insecticides and herbicides have caused a major drop in our bee population. This outcome was obviously not intended by the engineers of the new corn products; nonetheless, it has still caused major problems with the environment. If something as simple as insecticide caused a large problem, what may be the implications of genetically-altered crops? They may seem safe at first, but it is inevitable that they will cause even bigger issues in the future. The main goal of agricultural engineering is simply to make the most food with the amount of land available, but what if the available land was growing …show more content…
Land suitable for agriculture is diminishing faster than most people realize, and it’s diminishing in the places of the world that need it most. As seen in appendix B, there are many areas that have soil that is becoming unusable. This depletion happens from many different causes. According to the University of Michigan, “On the global basis, the soil degradation is caused primarily by overgrazing, agricultural activities, deforestation, overexplotation of land to produce fuelwood, and industrialization” (1). The areas most impacted by this are India and China, who have the highest population densities in the world. This will cause land to become de-fertilized, making it harder to cultivate and almost impossible to provide food for the people who need it. This problem is coupled with the growing area needed to house the increasing populations of each nation. For engineers, this is just another issue that needs to be solved. However, is it really feasible to think all of these problems have a rational solution? The backbone of civilization is based on the ability to feed it. This food is provided by agriculture, and engineering tries to make it easier to feed the population. But in a world where the population is increasing exponentially and farmland depleting, feeding the people becomes an impossible task. These situations cause agricultural engineering to act erratically, and ultimately
The “solution” to this issue is headed by the use of genetic engineering of crops. Crops can be altered by creating them impervious to weeds and insects without application of pesticides or herbicides. Ultimately, will this be a benefit to the environment, or will these changes inversely affect it? From personal experience, these solutions are not beneficial. For instance, my family owns and operates a beekeeping business. Bees are extremely important to pollination of plants, but recently, bee populations have been decreasing. From our family’s analysis, it is concluded that new corn insecticides and herbicides have caused a major drop in our bee population. This outcome was obviously not intended by the engineers of the new corn products; nonetheless, it has still caused major problems with the environment. If something as simple as insecticide caused a large problem, what may be the implications of genetically-altered crops? They may seem safe at first, but it is inevitable that they will cause even bigger issues in the future. The main goal of agricultural engineering is simply to make the most food with the amount of land available, but what if the available land was growing …show more content…
Land suitable for agriculture is diminishing faster than most people realize, and it’s diminishing in the places of the world that need it most. As seen in appendix B, there are many areas that have soil that is becoming unusable. This depletion happens from many different causes. According to the University of Michigan, “On the global basis, the soil degradation is caused primarily by overgrazing, agricultural activities, deforestation, overexplotation of land to produce fuelwood, and industrialization” (1). The areas most impacted by this are India and China, who have the highest population densities in the world. This will cause land to become de-fertilized, making it harder to cultivate and almost impossible to provide food for the people who need it. This problem is coupled with the growing area needed to house the increasing populations of each nation. For engineers, this is just another issue that needs to be solved. However, is it really feasible to think all of these problems have a rational solution? The backbone of civilization is based on the ability to feed it. This food is provided by agriculture, and engineering tries to make it easier to feed the population. But in a world where the population is increasing exponentially and farmland depleting, feeding the people becomes an impossible task. These situations cause agricultural engineering to act erratically, and ultimately