To control global warming and to achieve global environmental, economic and social sustainability the world is planning and executing many activities. Are all these in the right direction?
The world soil still conserve more Carbon in it than the Carbon in the atmosphere as CO2?. Similar is the stock of Carbon as carbonate in the oceans. We can, not only prevent the oxidation of these carbon into atmosphere as CO2, but also can conserve the the atmospheric CO2 to the same solid forms in the soil and marine corals if proper ecological measures are taken.
Therefore, any conservation and restoration activity that reduces degradation of forest, soil, sea and reduction in fossil fuel burning can arrest the rate of increased CO2 emission into the atmospheric; along with arresting of release, the same activity can fix more carbon on to the earth surface as solid carbon and thus can reduce atmospheric CO2 and there the same activities can control global warming. Is it not true? Do the world has sufficient programmes to address these issues?
In the current scenario of global environment and health crisis, don't humans need to emphasize the environment and health value of vegetarian food habit?
The vegetarian food habit can lead to less intensive use of soils; less intensive agriculture activity can lead to less use of fossil fuels. Moreover, less use of fertilizers and less intensive cultivation can lead to more conservation of carbon into soil as solid carbon. isn't it true?
Less intensive agriculture enable humans to more afforestation activities and thereby convert more atmospheric carbon to solid biomass and fix the same more into wood and soil ... if true, why not global focus is on the path?
Of course the food habit should not be forced. But humans as intelligent social species need to give emphasis on nutritional, health and environmental priorities in deciding the food habit from a wider social perspective. In fact, cultural, emotional and traditional priorities rule the food habit of people ...should it be like that for the sustainable future of the world?
It is not important that one should become a vegan, but one can start avoiding meat for the sake of the rest of the world and the future generations, if possible by own decision.- can it be possible?
Avoiding meat alone may enable humans to save huge amount of grains for the people who have deficiencies, due to the inherent climate or land fertility or political problems of the places where they are forced to live. Moreover, the same can help countries to conserve their soil and water resources much better for future generations.What do you think?
Humans are currently over consuming our natural resources - soil, biodiversity, freshwater resources, oceans and the like ignoring the right of future generations to have all such resources for their existence. We should not 'pick-pocket' or 'cannibalistic' on our future generations ... are we pick-pocketing our future generations?
It is not number of people, but their life-style that destroys sustainability. Of course, a family should have a control on the number of children they can grow up as self-confident humans. But we should remember that the world need a lot of ecologically erudite people to manage it sustainable than few machines ... is this argument sound and good for future of humanity?
Should, every nation, if possible the UN has to emphasize adding the significance of vegetarianism in the environment educational content of young children throughout the world as an important measure towards global economic, environmental and social sustainability?
What else humans need to plan ahead along with the current global planning under the aegis of the UN and other international agencies?
An exciting and important question. Nevertheless, frankly, I often find it difficult to deal with opinions that are full of normative axioms and on this basis postulate far-reaching (global) solutions. As part of our current project, we are dealing with questions of voluntary sustainability in the context of computerization, globalization and business model transformation at business management level: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Herausforderungen-fuer-das-Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement-Globalisierung-Digitalisierung-Geschaeftsmodelltransformation
This may only be a small building block, but we consider it relevant.
Your ideas (maybe I misunderstand them) sound strongly like regulation through de facto coercion or persuasion through pretended moral superiority. The meat idea may sound good at first glance, but the question of promoting this idea without coercion or persuasion by means of Moral superiority remains.
No, the world is not moving in the right direction
Even all the capital invested and eco-friendly industries and apparently with economic sustainability, in the long term continue to pollute the environment, destroying ecological niches, altering the trophic chains; and already begin to notice the effects on the health of humans.
We have discussed this situation in two discussion networks, anthropocene and environmental pollution, which I put to the consideration of researchers interested in these issues
regards Jose Luis
https://www.researchgate.net/post/It_is_and_when_you_start_the_Anthropocene
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_is_it_possible_that_ozone_O3_can_protect_us_from_ultraviolet_radiation_and_at_the_same_time_affect_the_health_of_humans
No, the world is not moving in the right direction towards global sustainability - environmental, economic and social perspectives.
Many of the original aims of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro had already been lost in disagreements between the rich industrialised countries and the developing nations.
In my opinion, the world moving is not moving in a right direction towards global sustainability - environmental, economic and social perspectives. The most complicated problem is the mobility of people and goods which defiantly interfere with the Socioeconomic scenario of the world, Globalisation, industrialization, a revolution in information technology all they contribute in their own way. For more information follow the links.
http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/07/10/sustainable-mobility-for-the-21st-century
www.oecd.org/greengrowth/16826944.pdf
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
I think No, the world is moving in the opposite direction and these violations against the environment is still altering it.
Perhaps NO!
It's a matter of great concern for every human being.
With best regards
One might view the 'technosphere' - the total of all the anthropogenic devices we use today - as competing with the biosphere over available resources; in which case the size of our conventionally measured economy is actually a measure of the stress that the biosphere is under. So the larger the economy ("Grow the economy! Grow the economy!"), then the more stress the entire planet is under. So under this paradigm, we are certainly NOT moving in the right direction!
No, world is not moving in the right direction in connection with above said topic.
Sustainability is the issue that we all have to deal with now and in future. It is the deliberate constant endeavour to utilize human and other resources, and natural environment to meet needs of current stakeholders of the organization while maintaining and if possible enhancing human and other resources, and natural environment to meet needs of future stakeholders.
Some organizations seriously attempt, and engage in activities which contribute to environmental performance excellence, societal performance excellence and economic performance excellence.
But most of the organizations and perhaps many people don't care sustainability and they care only their existence and profit & wealth maximization.
The world moving in the right direction towards global sustainability socioeconomically but not in case of environmental perspectives.
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry, Organic
- Organic