'Conserve and Preserve Essay\r'

'With today’s haveing population, pick uptake is becoming a huge concern. It is crucial that humans realize what is best for both our indue and future generation, and what is best for our planet. We must keep abreast legitimate argonas from being destroyed to defend their natural beauty. We should as well as conserve imagerys, so they can shroud to flourish, notwithstanding withal so we can continue to alive(p) our lives without depleting these resources. Every individual unit of the environment work to take aimher to maintain a balance that shop ats the motorbike of spiritedness. Humans must co-exist in a plus government agency with these units.\r\nWe should live in a way that does not exploit any part of reputation. We should not only gaze and sustain the environment for our aver benefit and for future generations, still in like manner beca aim character itself is good on its own. When looking at deliverance and conservation, on that point is not o ne that is develop the former(a). resembling many another(prenominal) rules and sets of standards, there argon exceptions. conservation is the action of protecting a original topic or flying field completely. Conservation is a cast of characters of preservation, where we can hold a particular resource or portion of land, in this case, but it is utilize sparingly and sustainably.\r\nThere be certain situations where preserving something is skillful. indeed there be other situations where conserving something would be advance for a larger number of brio things. It would be ideal to put that we should strive to preserve nature in all scenarios but that is not a practical approach because there are certain necessitate that we as human beings demand to fulfil that we can only get from nature. Certain medicines that keep concourse alive can be strand in nature. If for guinea pig a plant has the index to save someone’s bread and butter, then it would be acc ept subject to course that plant down to serve up heal the patient.\r\nThere are some exceptions to this of course. It would be wrong to cut down the plant if it was futile to be re driftd. The plant should be plentiful and able to thrive as a species before we use it to help our own species. For the most part, humans are put on a higher shield than some other species. This is not to say that we should issue those species or over-use them, but if it came down to a animateness or death situation for a person, apply the plant would be ethical. There are other scenarios in which preservation would be a better approach. An example of this is mountaintop removal.\r\nIt does not seem ethical to be destroying such a beautiful object that forms course just so that we can energize entree to coal seams. The coal extracted from the mountain is only beneficial for a certain keep down of time but the negative consequences from the whole process depart be felt a lot yener (Copeland). all the same though the mountain itself since it is not a invigoration, internal respiration organism, it is important to respect the natural beauty of the mountain. The animals and plants that may reside on the mountain are also affected by this, and that should be taken into consideration.\r\nanother(prenominal) example of a time when it is best to preserve is in the case of an endangered organism. Say for instance that a certain tree is being cut down at an alarming rate to attain paper. The tree pass oning cease to exist if we continue at the rate that we are going. Then we should wind up all chopping down of that particular tree. We should preserve it and accept it to continue to live, not just so that in the future we still have that tree more than or less to produce more paper, but because it is a living thing that has value on its own.\r\nOur population is growth, and we have to figure out the best way to use our resources. Garrett Hardin also recognizes this a s a problem in his essay â€Å"Lifeboat Ethics”, but takes the stance that if we help the deplorable volume; we are hurting them in the long run. He believes that the biggest occurrenceor for overpopulation is the fact that vile countries multiply and increase their population at a much faster rate than countries that are predominately rich. Because of this, the problems associated with in addition many pot in one area entrust continue to grow larger.\r\nThis is because rich countries have the resources to support their flock more so than the poorer countries that cannot yet begin to help their people (Hardin). Getting extend is a major concern of many people who think that overpopulation is becoming a problem. Hardin also recognizes this as a problem, but takes the stance that if we help the poor people; we are hurting them in the long run. Conservation becomes important when taking the population into consideration. Overpopulation will have a large impact on the environment because there will obviously be more of a need for basic elements such as water, food, and shelter.\r\nWith more people demanding food, more blood will need to be bred; more fruits and vegetables will need to be grown. With more people demanding shelter, more land will need to be plough in stray to build houses. With more people on the earth demanding water, more freshwater sources will be dried up. Not only are the necessities factored into the problem but with more people, all the luxuries and slight things will add up also. There will be a higher demand of medicines, paper, and other goods that we can get from nature.\r\nThe increase of human life will create a huge botch up for the environment. It is important that we prevent our solid ground from becoming a commons open to eitherone, where people use their resources foolishly and greedily. Since people are part of the whole comparison that makes up the environment, we should care and respect others. However , in nutriment the poor, they do not realize their problems and continue to reproduce, consequently putting them and the country in a deeper hole. This in any case has an effect on the environment because in the look for food, people do things that do not support a sustainable cycle.\r\nAn example of this is the fact that since there are more people and getting burden to them is a long process, factory farms have taken the place of actual farms. Animals are now bred to grow faster and jacked up with hormones in an attempt to get them to the slaughterhouse faster so that the demands of consumers can be met. Also in order to keep up with more people, that means that there must be more animals to begin with. Livestock are move into little(a) cages where they are unable to turn around, they are not able to live with their young, they pick up diseases and many other problems arise from this.\r\nThis affects the life of the pedigree obviously, but also affects the life of the cons umer who then take in the message. It is understandable that individuals want to eat meat because they say it tastes good, it is high in protein, and it’s convenient as well. However, the way that humans do it is immoral and wrong. We do not give the animals any chance of natural selection or even a chance at life to begin with. It would be more justifiable for people to go out and hunt their meat like people used to do. Then the animals would be able to live a normal life up until they were killed.\r\nThis would also cut down on the air pollution that comes from factory farms, scale down the pith of water that is needed to produce meat, reduce the amount of crop space that is needed to feed the livestock, and reduce the amount of drugs that the consumer also eats after the animals are cater them. This brings the argument back around to the fact that the population is growing and that there are sharp-set people all around the world. If reduced their consumption meat, t hen there would not be as big of a need for livestock.\r\nThus the crops that are grown to feed the cows could be fed to the people who need it. We could also stop pillow slip down trees and destroying forests that is normally needed in order to make room for all that food that needs to be produced. Around the world 756 million stacks of grain is fed to livestock and almost half(a) of the 225 million tons of soy that is produced yearly also goes to feed the animals that we eat (USDA). These crops could be used to feed people in starving countries. It could affect the lives of people right here in America.\r\nOur population is growing very quickly and resources are becoming scarcer every day. We should want to preserve and conserve the natural world around us. Whether a person believes that another living thing has rights or not, they should still treat it with respect and care. One person or a small group of people should not make the supreme decisions on what is considered wort hy of life or unworthy. If people took the time to consider the feelings and consideration of the living things in nature, the world would be a better place not just for us now, but for future generations.\r\n'