Essay Sample on Analysis of the Threats Defense Argument

Threats to the global environment are several. In the previous discussion, the four most critical threats to the global environment were discussed. These included climate change, energy sources, globalization, and civil war. These four threats have the greatest impact on the global environment since they occur anywhere. This report aims to analyze two other threats that are deemed less critical than the ones presented earlier. The two threats that will be discussed in this report include the inappropriate use of technology and cultural taboos. The reasons why these two threats are considered less threatening to the global environment are presented below.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Section I: Inappropriate Use of Technology

There are multiple impacts of inappropriate use of technology on the environment, but they are less critical. One of the harmful impacts relates to the manufacture of technological devices such as computers, mobile phones, satellites, and other peripheral devices that lead to pollution of the environment. During the manufacturing process, the components used produce harmful substances such as acid fumes to the environment. However, this impact is less critical because pollution can be reduced through intelligent design and production processes (Veeramani & Chowdhury, 2015). For example, the use of extensive sensors and automated control will ensure that products or services are delivered efficiently without polluting the environment. The other impact is associated with the distribution of technological components and products. Veeramani and Chowdhury (2015) argued that “the transportation of IT products leaves a significant carbon footprint that harms the environment.” This problem can be easily addressed through e-commerce, which leads to efficient inventory and supply chain management (Veeramani & Chowdhury, 2015). The other negative impact relates to the direct consumption of energy by IT products and the increasing amount of technological wastes. Technological wastes release harmful pollutants, such as lead, mercury, and heavy metals (Veeramani & Chowdhury, 2015). These impacts are less threatening because they can be reduced through sustainable development and proper waste disposal.

Although the threat of inappropriate use of technology has significant negative impacts on the environment, as shown above, this threat is less critical than the four threats discussed in the previous discussion. One of the reasons why inappropriate use of technology is less critical is that its impacts can be easily mitigated, unlike the ones discussed. For instance, instead of dumping electronic waste, manufacturers can recycle them, reducing pollution. The other reason is that the impacts of technology on the environment mainly occur due to bad decisions (Veeramani & Chowdhury, 2015). Most people are excited to use technology, but they overlook the negative impacts on the environment. This issue can be resolved by making the smartest decisions that encourage people to act responsibly and solve environmental problems. For example, manufacturers can change this by deciding to use greener and renewable energy sources to power their equipment (Marres, 2016). In other words, manufacturers can produce sustainable products that do not harm the environment.

The other reason that makes the threat of technology less critical is that technology can be used to improve the environment. Technology can be used to identify the impacts of our actions on the environment because it allows us to monitor and study the environment (Kelling, 2018). For instance, AI and deep learning technologies can capture real-time information, thus allowing us to respond immediately to harmful effects (Kelling, 2018). Besides, technology fosters environmental research by allowing experts from worldwide to share their views and experiences. For instance, experts from different parts of the world can use the internet to communicate with each other instead of traveling from one place to another.

Section II: Cultural Taboos

Although some cultural practices can damage the environment, the threat of cultural taboos to the global environment is perceived as less critical. This is because cultural taboos have a little environmental impact. In most cases, cultural taboos encourage environmental protection instead of destruction. For instance, Angsongna et al. (2016) argued that social taboos need to act as a framework for governing natural resources. Cultural taboos that threaten the environment mainly relate to foods and the practice of agriculture. Some global communities, such as the indigenous communities in the Amazon basin, retained their hunting and gathering taboos. Although these activities affect animals and plants, their environmental impact is minimal because their population is small. According to Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina (2015), most ecosystems support a small number of hunters and gatherers. The small population reduces the effects on the environment. Cultural practices that promote the practice of agriculture harm the environment by removing habitat and soil erosion. For example, cultures that support keeping a large number of livestock pollute the environment. Livestock also releases methane, which increases global warming. However, agricultural practices are less harmful to the environment because they do not produce extensive pollution.

There are several reasons why cultural taboos' threat is less critical than the four threats discussed earlier. One of the reasons is that the impacts of the cultural taboos on the environment are less extensive compared to the others (Kasimba, 2016). Only a small portion of the population practices cultural taboos. This makes the threat of cultural taboos a regional threat, unlike the four widely distributed threats across the globe. The threat of cultural taboos is also less critical because it can be easily controlled at the local or regional level. Since this threat affects small areas, the local or regional governments can introduce laws that govern cultural taboos that adversely affect the environment. For example, cultural taboos that encourage consumption of certain endangered species can be controlled by the government or encouraged to conserve such species.

The other reason that makes the threat of cultural taboos less critical is that the taboos can be easily converted into a tool for conserving the environment. In other words, cultural taboos can be changed to practices that solve environmental problems (Kasimba, 2016). Some cultural taboos are relevant to resource conservation and management. For example, some taboos regulate access to resources and protect vulnerable species (Shoreman-Ouimet & Kopnina, 2015). Additionally, some taboos prohibit the consumption of certain animals and foods. These cultural taboos should be used as frameworks for regulating resources' consumption (Angsongna et al., 2016).

Conclusion

There are several threats to the global environment. The four most critical threats to the global environment include climate change, energy sources, globalization, and civil war. This report discussed why the threats of inappropriate use of technology and cultural taboos to the global environment are less critical. Unlike the four threats discussed in the previous presentation, inappropriate use of technology can be managed through sustainable practices. For example, technological waste can be recycled. Threats of cultural taboos affect only local or regional environments, and they can be controlled easily.

References

Angsongna, A., Ato Armah, F., Boamah, S., Hambati, H., Luginaah, I., Chuenpagdee, R., & Campbell, G. (2016). A systematic review of resource habitat taboos and human health outcomes in the context of global environmental change. Global Bioethics, 27(2-4), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2016.1212608

Kasimba, R. (2016). Cultural Belief Systems and Environmental Management: A Human Factor Approach. Review of Human Factor Studies, 22(1).

Kelling, S. (2018). Technology developments for biodiversity monitoring and conservation. Biodiversity Information Science and Standards, 2, e25833. https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.2.25833

Marres, N. (2016). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Springer.

Shoreman-Ouimet, E., & Kopnina, H. (2015). Culture and conservation: Beyond anthropocentrism. Routledge.

Veeramani, S., & Chowdhury, A. (2015). Information technology: Impacts on environment and sustainable development. Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 23(1), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351045230-3