“Living in a Rich Country” Doesn’t Automatically Mean You’re “Living Well”

A number of so-called “rich” nations, which most of the world’s population are seemingly attracted, to have been global economic leaders since last century—i.e., the 20th century or 1900s. United States, for instance, is believed to have since been back on the path of increase in standard of living after coming out of the Great Depression and World War 2 which, in a way, had stifled the growth in the country’s wealth that had begun with the Industrial Revolution in the latter half of the 19th century—i.e., the 1800s.

The standard of living (a conventional measure of economic well-being) of many so called rich nations, as evaluated by “the GDP (gross domestic product) per capita” (or the inflation-adjusted GDP per person), has been generally rising at impressive figures for decades, despite the enormous increase in population. But the citizens’ hardships and complaints on news and social media indicate that the distribution of wealth and rewards of so-called rich economies during the last twenty or so years might have become much less, and also much less equal between citizens.

If one compares the economic hardships, difficulties, or adversities that some or many citizens of rich nations go through on a recurring basis, it may be difficult to agree that living in a “rich” country—which is depicted by a special kind of GDP—provides a standard of living that is comfortable for a large part of the population.

Take a look at poverty rates: with poverty rates obstinately high, especially among children, it may be difficult or impossible to agree that if you live in a “rich” country (or a country with an exceptional GDP), then you’re automatically living well. In other words, living in a rich country doesn’t automatically mean you’re living well!

The GDP (gross domestic product) portrayed by rich nations via news outlets and also to the masses should, therefore, not be taken as a convincing sign of how well the citizens—especially the basest of citizens—are living, economically and in some oth3er regards. In other words, the GDP is not always the perfect yardstick for measuring human economic well-being.

There are recognized concerns about using GDP to label some nations as “rich” and generally express human economic well-being of citizens. A quick research in some basic economics textbooks would show that GDP doesn’t take into consideration some very important elements of living that people might value. Two very important—if not the most important—elements of living are (1) the ability to live with or without having to work or earn a living, and (2) the quality of the natural or existing environment in which one lives.

Other concerns about GDP include the difficulty in evaluating economic outputs correctly or systematically; for example, when comparing the value of a rental property to an owner-occupied property, and the value of rising GDP after any occurrence of natural disasters—especially when certain activities have been conducted to rebuild damaged environments. The GDP after destruction is evaluated without always considering the overall level of destruction.

Evaluation of the GDPs being shown to the masses may need to take into account the various shortcomings or issues that have been stated in the previous paragraph, so as to make them (the GDPs) more meaningful to people when governments announce an increase or reduction in their incomes.

Concluding words

One could argue that, when it comes to matters relating to the environment, it may be sometimes difficult to put an economic value on various items included in GDP; however, expressing a value that labels a nation as “rich” does not hide the fact that a good number of people are not living well; also, it doesn’t hide nor change underlying problems such as scare economic goods and subpar or deteriorated environments.

The existing GDP yardstick might be okay for measuring what it currently measures, but it’s definitely not okay when one considers what it does not measure. The gross domestic product (GDP) of any so-called “rich” country should, therefore, not be regarded as a perfect yardstick for depicting that people are living well, when in reality they aren’t.

What Kind of Environment Should We Pass On to Future Generations?

The causes of global warming generally seem to be attributed more—in whole or in significant part—to humans, and debates over global warming generally seem to weigh more on scientific issues; i.e., whether the Earth’s climate is changing and whether any change is being wholly or significantly caused by humans.

Climate change, as well as the impact of any strategy to reduce or halt its deteriorating impact, takes place over many years, decades, or even centuries. Therefore, it is essential to have manmade strategies that can sustain the environment of not only present generations, but also and especially future generations as well.

If present generations believe it is morally right or a duty to give birth to future generations, then present generations should take it upon themselves as a duty to prepare and handover an environment that will enable future generations enjoy their existence or life on Earth.

Even if most of us humans lack any sense of obligation to lay a good foundation for future generations, the leaders and influencers in society should educate the masses about their choices: the many choices we make regarding the environment today can either destroy or benefit not only current generations, but future generations as well.

With the environment continuously sinking while we watch the devastating and long-lasting effects of our actions/decisions take a toll on our planet’s climate, it is important to ask ourselves the following questions:

• what kind of environment should we pass on to future generations?
• what kind of environment do our present generations owe future generations?
• what do we think future generations expect us to be doing now?

Although the expectations of future generations should not stop current generations from fulfilling their own expectations, maybe we should forget about ourselves for a moment and think more about what future generations expect/would expect in terms of protecting the environment: what do future generations want us to be doing now? What policies or choices should we be making to help the environments of both the living and those who are yet to live or be born?

Any actions or decisions that should be taken to improve the environment and lives of future generations may not always be taken, considered, or agreed on by the totality of the current crop of generations. For example, current generations as a whole have not yet severely reduced or halted fossil fuel combustion to completely return to a more natural lifestyle.

If future generations, on the other hand, reflect more about past centuries of intensive fossil fuel combustion and other related actions that have created dirty air, polluted waters, deteriorated many landscapes, and generally wrecked the environment, they—i.e., the future generations—may decide to abandon or severely reduce fossil fuel combustion and return to a more natural, primitive, or early-Earth lifestyle.

It may not be wrong to state that the thought of abandoning fossil fuel and returning to a more natural lifestyle is being considered by only a handful of the current crop of generations—not by everyone.

Although we can’t abandon everything in totality because of how important some things are, we should at least design policies that can give the future environment and generations something useful that has been lost due to the actions of current generations who seemingly believe that human advancement/the ability to rise above the natural environment is more important than the consequences of fighting against Nature by polluting it beyond excessive and questionable limits.

What good are we doing by creating consumer goods that eventually destroy the air and environment and prevent future generations from having a breathable atmosphere which is required to adequately sustain life? So, we really need to strike a balance by making choices that provide goods and at the same time save the environment from artificial or manmade causes of environmental deterioration.

Handing over the present deteriorating state of the environment to future generations would likely leave the planet in an unliveable condition because, as many researchers believe, the climatic conditions of many environments on our planet have already passed a tilting point—a point of no return! Although this is regrettable, we can halt many things to stop and turn the tide, and possibly stop incurring worse effects.

Because reversing the state of the climate and many environments may take many years or decades, any decision(s) that may likely degrade the environment in the future or many years from today should be weighed more seriously than any decision(s) that can degrade the environment only now/at the moment.

Concluding words

Since it’s not possible to ask future generations what they’d like us to do, we—the current generations—have a moral obligation to speak for them. In fact, we need to speak on their behalf because we have the ability to see the future to some extent and dictate it in a number of significant ways.

If we wish to prevent the climate from changing and becoming worse or more unliveable, then must undo some of the damage we’ve been doing for decades or centuries, or can we simply stop doing any further damage: we should be making decisions today that can enhance the environmental inheritance of future generations without lowering their standard of living. There should be policy choices that allow dramatic improvements in future environmental outcomes and at the same time make people’s economic incomes to rise significantly or substantially.

Any important decision that needs to be made and taken should be based on a sensible guess about how it could possibly sustain the future environment and generations, and also help them create or preserve their own options as well. Future generations should be given a foundation that can motivate them to choose even natural or greener options, and inspire them to value and choose nature over many technologies or consumer goods that have been damaging the environment.

Manmade/Artificial Pollution of Orbital Space

A lot had been discovered about the threat of manmade pollution to life on Earth; this, coupled with mankind’s increasing number of journeys and activities in space had gotten scientists thinking that the debris in orbit would eventually be a growing threat to human activities in space and life on Earth.

The attention had shifted from manmade or artificial pollution of the Earth to manmade pollution of orbital space: In 1981, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics convened a panel of experts who unanimously agreed and concluded that the growth of debris in space could pose “an unacceptable threat” to life in space within a decade. The debris referred to is saturated in an area of space that is between 160 and 1,760 kilometers above the Earth and it consists of shrapnel from explosions in space, rockets shells, spent fuel tanks, and satellites that are no longer functioning—i.e., non-functioning satellites.

With better designs and methods of disposal of satellites, much waste due to non-functioning space satellites could be avoided. The overall creation of space debris is an unavoidable consequence of using reactors and testing space machinery and weapons. The Earth’s debris belt could continue growing unhindered if mankind doesn’t dispose space debris or reduce the numbers and activities of satellite and space-based weapons.

Before searching for efficient ways to dispose space debris—if possible—the most sensible thing to do at the moment is to minimize space debris by reducing or halting the further testing and deployment of space-based weapons, and sufficiently limiting the number of weapons designed and uses in space.

Cleaning up space debris would be expensive, but a proposal that the major world powers should retrieve larger pieces of space debris could be practically possible and much less expensive. The proposal, however, seems to have elicited little to no enthusiasm or motivation.

With space activities likely to continue increasing due to mankind’s increasing interest in space exploration, many reactors and nuclear-powered spacecraft would likely threaten life on Earth if the products they emit fall around or on the Earth. There are two basic approaches to prevent contamination due to nuclear-powered spacecraft: 1. Ban them, or 2. Regulate how they are being used.

The best option, in this writer’s humble opinion, is to ban the use of all radioactive materials in space. In fact, it is the least expensive option to enact—at maybe even zero cost—and would not only eliminate any potential problems forever, but would also halt or at least seriously stunt the further development and deployment of space-based systems and machines. It would be easy to monitor any ban on reactors in space because the heat waste produced by reactors can be detected by infrared sensors from great distances.

There are a variety of methods for regulating how radioactive materials are used in space, but the most important ones probably include restricting the size of reactors used in orbit, providing sufficient amount of shield around radioactive material(s) in order to prevent them from reentering into the Earth’s atmosphere, and conducting deep space disposal of spacecraft that use or consists of radioactive material(s).

Although these methods options are all technologically feasible, they could be expensive and complex, depending on the job that needs to be done. Nevertheless, they should be implemented as a starting point or the least step that needs to be taken.

Concluding words

Controlling space debris and the use of nuclear materials in orbital space should be done with more vigor, especially as it seems to have long been overdue. The international community should design, implement, and regulate a space regime that can make the orbital space around the Earth more secure and peaceful for the benefit of all present life forms and the future generations.

If there’s any need to use space technology, then it should be employed for environmental protection, to study the Earth’s natural resources and control how they are being reproduced and utilized.

Gigantic Ocean 3 Times the Volume of Earth’s Combined Surface Oceans Was Found in Rock 700 km Below Earth Surface

Although it is unlikely that this no longer new news, it may still be worth sharing for interested people who have not yet been informed: A gigantic ocean that is three times the volume of our planet’s combined surface ocean waters was found located in a rock named ringwoodite 700 kilometers below the Earth surface!

I was shocked when I first heard about the discovery. This discovery isn’t fiction, neither is it the plot of a sci-fi novel. But it is actually a startling discovery made by a team of scientists/researchers from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The discovery may help to further unravel more mysteries of our planet’s water origins.

Imagine the total volume of water held by all the Earth’s oceans. Now, imagine one gigantic underwater ocean that is located 700 kilometers beneath the Earth surface but still has a volume of water that is three times the total volume of water held by all of our planet’s surface ocean waters. Just imagine that! Imagine the colossal ocean that researchers found within the Earth’s mantle, 700 kilometers below the earth crust.

But how did it all start: what motivated the researchers?

The gigantic ocean was found as scientists/researchers continued looking for clues to find the origins of our planet’s water. Details of the research findings were published in a 2014 study titled “Dehydration Melting at the Top of the Lower Mantle” in which the scientists described how they discovered the colossal ocean that is hidden in a rock located about 700 kilometers beneath our feet.

The 700 km deep rock is blue in color and called “ringwoodite”. Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen, who is a researcher at Northwestern University in Illinois and key member of the discovery team, had said at the time: “The ringwoodite is like a sponge, soaking up water, there is something very special about the crystal structure of ringwoodite that allows it to attract hydrogen and trap water”. He further said: “I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet. Scientists have been looking for this missing deep water for decades”.

The size of the mega Ocean (which is thrice the volume of the Earth’s total surface ocean waters) has led some scientists to feel that surface oceans may have gradually grown in size from the interior of the primitive Earth. Lead author of the research/study, Steven Jacobsen, told New Scientist back in 2014: “It’s good evidence that the Earth’s water came from within.”

Methodology employed in the research

The researchers used an array of 2000 seismographs across the United States and focussed on 500 earthquakes from which they analyzed seismic waves which had passed through the inner layers of the Earth and core, but slowed down when travelling through wet or dampened rock. The scientists discovered vast water deposits due to the deceleration of the seismic waves in wet rock. By gauging the speed of the seismic waves at various depths, the scientists were able to identify rock types.

Concluding words

This discovery proposes a new theory regarding the origin of our planet Earth’s water cycle: the surface oceans may have gradually grown or seeped out from beneath the Earth, and it might not have originated via comet impacts, as some theories have postulated.

With this research and discovery/findings, researchers would be keener than ever before to gather more seismic data from different parts of the world to determine or discover more unknown things and provide fresh insights into the water cycle which is one of the Earth’s most fundamental processes.

Human Efforts on Outer Space to Monitor & Protect the Earth’s Health

The continuously degrading state of different kinds of environment—on land, in sea, and especially in air—across the world has always called for the need to institute space or outer space monitoring systems to monitor and access different environments, help provide better data, and inspire new strategies that can curb and halt environmental degradation, the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide, acid precipitation, depletion of stratospheric ozone, tropical forest destruction, etc.

Although recognized institutions have set up outer space monitoring systems in space, the worrying environmental situation in contemporary times is probably silently calling for a new combined earth/space monitoring system, a new body or agency that would be equipped to have enough resources capable of adequately monitoring, reporting, and providing recommendations to save the total environment and ecological view of the biosphere in very systematic and environmentally uplifting ways.

That said, the efforts made in outer space by humans to ensure the continued sustainability and protection of the Earth’s health, cannot and should not be overlooked. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 recognizes that no country has the right to claim sovereignty over outer space which includes the moon and all celestial bodies. In view of this agreement, virtually all countries consider space as a global commons and part of the common heritage of mankind, and the United Nations Committee on “the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space” has been striving to ensure that this ideal remains on its agenda and humans do not succumb to any temptation to start an arms race in space.

Nowadays, various kinds of satellites help to unveil and gather new knowledge about the systems and environments on the Earth. When satellites first started revealing the spread of volcanic gases, scientists could for the first time describe the particular links between a major natural disturbance of the upper atmosphere and the shifts occurring in a weather that was thousands of miles away.

Satellites in outer space contributed to the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer that hovered over Antarctica in 1986. Observation of this phenomenon and examination of archived satellite data helped provide a record of seasonal ozone fluctuation that extended back by almost ten years. In the 1980s, satellites aided scientists in closely monitoring drought in the Sahel region of Africa. A broader understanding of droughts may not have been possible without satellite-generated maps that correlate rainfall patterns and biomass.

From an economic standpoint, the most important part of the Earth’s orbital space is a band of space that is 36,000 kilometers above the Earth’s equator. This band of orbital space is known as the “geosynchronous orbit”, an orbit where many weather satellites and military orbits are located, and most communication are sent to and received from. The geosynchronous orbit is a highly valuable and but limited global resource that has a lot to give humanity.

The increase in satellite communication traffic during the 1970s led to some conflict of interest, mainly between “industrial nations” and “equatorial developing nations”, over the ownership and use of the geosynchronous orbit, especially as industrial nations have the capacity to put satellites in the geosynchronous orbit and the equatorial developing nations do not but are rather only equipped enough to place satellites beneath the geosynchronous orbit or band of space.

The 1976 Bogota Declaration, which was signed by seven equatorial countries, was the first effort made to formulate a property regime for the geosynchronous orbit and clear up any misunderstanding over its ownership and how it should be used. The seven countries declared—and maybe rightfully so—that the orbits above their countries, regardless of how far they extend into space or outer space, were direct extensions of their territorial airspace.

But the Bogota Declaration has been challenged by some countries nations because, according to them, it contradicts the “non-appropriation” principle of the Outer Space Treaty. In response to the Bogota Declaration, a group of developing countries proposed that a licensing system should be used for the geosynchronous orbit: countries would be given slots which they can rent, sell, or reserve for future use.

Another way for the geosynchronous orbit to be shared in regard to the common interest of concerned nations would be for an international body to own and license geosynchronous orbit slots to bidders at an auction. But, this alternative would be similar in some respects though otherwise dissimilar to the Seabed Authority in the Law of the Sea Convention.

The proposal for a licensing system and the creation of property rights for the geosynchronous orbit have been heavily opposed by industrial countries, most especially because it granted or allocated the rights (to slots) to countries that cannot use the geosynchronous orbit immediately, at the moment, or now! The industrial nations argue that such allocation of rights would drive up costs and reduce the incentive of the private sector to develop and use the geosynchronous orbit. Other countries argue that regulatory regimes should be instituted before any competition for geosynchronous orbit slots makes things more difficult or complicated.

Over some past several years, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) set up a de facto regime for allocating geosynchronous orbit slots through satellite communications that involve the use of radio waves—i.e., the part of the electromagnetic spectrum used for communication.

The task of allocating radio waves, in combination with strict adherence to compliance by any user, has created a successful international resource regime for effective management of the geosynchronous orbit resource. Whether this approach will last or succeed in the long run would depend to a great extent on the decisions made and agreed on at conferences.

The Law of the Sea—Meant to Protect Nature’s Great Waters!

Laws, laws, laws—laws are everywhere! There is even a Law of the Sea—a law meant to protect Nature’s great waters! The United Nations Conference on Law of the Sea was a rare move aimed at motivating the world’s countries to make an international agreement to manage the oceans in the most environmentally protective and best ways possible.

The Convention paved way for an integrated management regime for the oceans and has since been encouraging national and international activities for effective management of the oceans. A lot of barriers had to be broken: the Convention harmonized or reconciled the vast differences between the divergent interests of countries or member states, and also established a basis for the use of the oceans and their resources.

The Convention recognized the power of coastal states to exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea, sea-bed, subsoil, and the superjacent air space of up to a distance of 12 nautical miles (one nautical mile is equal to exactly 1,852 meters or 1.852 kilometers). The Convention redefined the rights of coastal states as per the continental shelf, and established EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zones) of up to 200 nautical miles within which each coastal state may exercise sovereign rights over the management of national resources, living resources, and non-living resources in the seas, sea bed, and subsoil. However, the Convention placed the management of mining activities (conducted in the sea bed) under the control of an International Seabed Authority.

Empowering coastal states is recommendable, but what if certain great waters could be a source of conflict? To prevent the growing conflict between member states, the Convention removed 35% of the oceans by stipulating that coastal states must do everything within their power to prevent living resources within some areas of the EEZs from being endangered by overexploitation; thereby, implying that the government of each coastal state has an obligation to apply sound principles of resource management within the EEZs area.

Generally, the Convention promotes the exchange of scientific information and regional cooperation to formulate and implement management and conservation strategies that can sustain living marine resources, conserve and develop stocks, and use highly migratory species to an optimum level.

Over the years, coastal states have had growing interest in the sound management of the continental shelf and prevention of sea pollution due to land- and sea-based activities. The interests of coastal states are in line with the Convention which recognizes that “coastal states may adopt laws and regulations for their EEZs compatible with international rules and standards to combat pollution from vessels”.

What about areas beyond the EEZs or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction? Well, the Convention also defines the waters, sea bed, and subsoil that are beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and as a result, recognizes them as international jurisdictions and consequently declares them as resources that are a “common heritage of mankind”. This concept is widely understood and accepted in the realm of international cooperation.

By early 1987, 159 countries had signed the Convention, and 32 countries had ratified it. However, a small number of important countries notified the Convention that they would likely not ratify it. And what was their main reason? Their main reason was the regime instituted to manage the common sea bed—a “common heritage of mankind”.

Concluding remarks

Despite the small number of important countries that indicated they would likely not ratify the Convention because of the regime that was instituted to manage the common sea bed, many other provisions of the Convention have been widely accepted by all member states and recognized as international law that has to be put to practice in various ways.

The practice of any international law to protect the seas should be encouraged, especially in regard to particular provisions that relate to the environment and are meant to protect it through actions that need to be taken in the interests of the seas and oceans’ life-support system which is increasingly being threatened in contemporary times.

Brief History of Measures Taken to Control Waste Disposal in Oceans

The “London Dumping Convention”, technically coined as The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, ended in November, 1972, and enforced its regulations on August 30, 1975. The Convention was one of the first to be applied on a world-wide scale. Initially consisting mostly of countries that dumped wastes into oceans, the Convention now has majority of countries that don’t dump wastes into oceans. The Convention presently comprises of 61 contracting states or parties, with secretariat facilities provided by the International Maritime Organization.

Although the London Dumping Convention addressed and applies to all types of wastes that are deliberately disposed at/into seas, the disposal of radioactive wastes into oceans has attracted the most attention, especially as the perpetrators seem to be unconcerned about the lives of the living organisms that could be affected by radioactive wastes disposal.

The dumping of wastes into oceans is being regulated by three annexes to the London Dumping Convention:

• Annex I prohibits the dumping of extremely dangerous substances, including high-level radioactive wastes.
• Annex II concerns the dumping of somewhat less noxious substances which can be permitted only by “prior special permit”.
• Annex III concerns the dumping of all other substances which can be permitted only by a general permit issued by national authorities.

Before 1963, the north-east Atlantic dumpsite (located in the international waters off Spain’s coast) had low-level wastes regularly dumped on it by Belgium, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Despite the objections made by representatives of these nations (during the London Dumping Convention) to continue carrying out dumping during 1983, all countries still understand—but some have not formally agreed—that, until any disposal is confirmed to be environmentally safe, it should not be allowed into the ocean.

In an effort to protect land, seas, and oceans from uncontrolled waste disposal, the London Dumping Convention instituted an intergovernmental panel of experts in 1986 to analyze the issue of comparative risks of land- and sea-based alternatives for radioactive waste disposal. Furthermore, the Commission would recommend and encourage all states to “continue refraining from disposing of either low- or high- level wastes at sea or in the sea-bed”.

A number of other conventions regulate waste disposal at the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and north-east Atlantic and North Sea, with most of the Regional Seas Conventions including a regulation that urges contracting parties to do everything they possibly can to reduce and prevent pollution caused by dumping.

The Paris Convention, technically coined as The Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources, was formally approved or ratified in 1978 by the European Economic Community and eight states. It may be important to note that although the Paris Convention has strengthened international cooperation between states and countries, it has been somewhat been silent on nuclear plants and the acceptable levels of radioactive discharges from the nuclear plants.

The Law of the Sea Convention urges countries or states to establish regulations or laws that can “prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from dumping”. In addition, the Convention recommends that coastal states give approval only if they are sure it will be safe to dump wastes in the territorial sea, in the EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones), and onto the continental shelf.

Concluding remarks

Coastal states have the right and also a duty to protect coastal waters, seas, and oceans. Any state that is not convinced of its right and duty still has an obligation under the Law of the Sea to prevent activities that are detrimental to the health of living organisms and the environment of neighboring states and the commons.

To this effect, the Law of the Sea Commission had urged the London Dumping Convention to validate or reaffirm the rights and duties or responsibilities of countries or states to control and regulate dumping within the 200-mile EEZ so that oceans and food chains can be stable.  States are expected to report to the appropriate Convention Secretariat, and competent authorities must document and keep records of all types and quantities of disposed wastes.

Threats Faced by Organisms That Live Undersea

The living things, resources, or organisms that live undersea or underneath the sea surface generally face threats from activities that can be tied to pollution, overexploitation, and land-based development. Studies have reported that most of the major familiar fish stocks living throughout the waters over the continental shelves are now being threatened by overfishing.

Some threats faced by undersea living organisms are more concentrated in certain areas, depending on the presence and kind of activity or activities that take place there. This calls to mind surplus evidence of the severe effects of pollution and land development in semi-closed seas and coastal waters that exist along the world’s shore lines. The use of semi-closed seas and coastal areas/waters for industry, energy facilities, and recreation, and as transportation spots/shipping terminals manipulates estuarine river systems through diversion or dams for municipal water supply and agricultural purposes. The pressures culminating from these activities have destroyed estuarine habitats to such limits that filling, direct dredging, or paving—all man-made activities—have. If the current “business-as-usual” approach continues being applied to the helpless environment, then shore-lines and their resources will continue to suffer ever-increasing damage.

Some onshore development activities are ecologically insensitive because they don’t take into consideration the balance needed by coastal and offshore waters for the health and safety of the living organisms that live within the waters’ borders. There has been a lot of concern regarding the level of ongoing pollution in coastal areas where pollution exists via domestic sewage, industrial sewage/wastes, and fertilizer and pesticide run-off which may also threaten the development of fisheries.

Even the balances of the high seas have been showing signs of stress due to the billions of tons of contaminants that have been added to the high seas each year. Imagine how the sediments that travel to the oceans through big rivers such as the Amazon are being traced for as much as two thousand kilometers out to sea. In addition, heavy metals from coal-burning plants and certain types of industrial processes also travel to the oceans through the atmosphere. Reputable reports have it that the quantity of oil spilled from tankers is as high as 1.5 million tons per year, and the marine environment (which was a number of times exposed to nuclear radiation from past nuclear weapons tests) is being exposed even the more to continuing disposal of low-level radioactive wastes.

With continuous evidence of possible rapid ozone layer depletion and consequent increase in ultraviolet radiation posing a threat, not only to human life but to ocean life as well, some scientists are beginning to believe that such radiation could kill sensitive phytoplankton and fish larvae floating near oceans’ respective surfaces, thereby destabilizing or damaging ocean food chains and potentially disrupting planetary life support systems.

Heavy metals, petroleum, and organochlorines have been found in high concentrations on the oceans’ surfaces. Continuous accumulation of these substances could have dangerous, complex, and long-lasting effects on all forms of marine life, even down to the sea-floor area which is a region of complex physical, chemical, and biological activity where microbial processes play a major role in sustaining water life. The fact that every form of marine life has not yet become extinct should not provide any grounds for complacency.

The Oceans Give Balance to Our Planet’s Wheel of Life

Although the international community had implemented international conventions long time ago to protect the oceans and their sea-bed, it’s obvious that some countries have so far not been adhering to the multilateral agreement, and this has been sucking some life out of our oceans and even seas which give balance to our planet Earth’s wheel of life.

With the level of ongoing pollution in oceans, it’s obvious that a number of countries and citizens don’t value the oceans as much either because of their outright hatred for nature or seeming ignorance of the balance that oceans give to all forms of life!

The common and claimed ocean waters or bodies form interlocked ecological and economic systems whose health and sanity depends to a great extent on the health of each other—therefore, the institution of treaties! Antarctica, for instance, has had a binding treaty hovering over its head for over 25 years. Many countries or state members that aren’t party to the treaty, feel they have a right to partake in any stake of the oceans that is a part of the global commons.

Covering over 70% of the Earth’s surface, oceans play a critical role in maintaining all life-support systems, moderating the planet’s climate, sustaining various sizes of animals and plants, and generally giving balance in many regards—providing energy, protein, transportation routes, employment, avenues for recreation, and other social, cultural, and economic activities.

In addition, the oceans serve as a pit for collecting or receiving the by-products of human activities: sewage and wastewater from farms, cities, and industries; dumps of garbage or rubbish from barges and ships; storm water, river discharge, and coastal run-off; light or minute particles due to atmospheric transportation; etc.

Unfortunately, within the last few decades, the human activities that have aided the growth of the world economy have also or on the other hand accumulated discharges of wastes which have put so much pressure on the balance oceans provide, thereby pushing them unduly against their bountiful limits.

The oceans connect the cycles of energy and empower the climate to support living marine resources, human activities, coastal waters, and regional seas, and puts pressure on groundwater to move from nation to nation, and through complex food chains from one species to another, thereby enhancing the totality of life and bringing benefits to both rich and poor people.

Protection of oceans and their respective sea-beds requires sound management of the oceans themselves and human land-based activities as well. The following five zones are crucial to sound management:

• inland areas—affect the oceans mostly through rivers.
• coastal lands such as swamps, marshes, etc.—where human activities directly affect adjacent waters due to their closeness to the ocean and sea.
• coastal waters such as lagoons, estuaries, lagoons, and shallow waters—where the effects of land-based activities are predominant.
• offshore waters—waters that reach the edge of the continental shelf.
• high seas.

It’s essential to have a formal international agreement and management scheme in place, including improved frameworks that can help organize and coordinate national and international actions needed to protect and enhance all areas/aspects of oceans which give balance to our planet Earth’s wheel of life.

Characteristics of Environmental Problems in Industrial World Cities

The environmental crisis in Third World cities is not damning enough to cover the characteristics of the kind of environmental problems that occurs within the borders of industrial world cities. Although these cities provide much of the world’s resources and energy, they have serious problems such as but not limited to environmental degradation, deteriorating infrastructure, inner-city decay, and neighborhood collapse.

The city or municipal governments that oversee the affairs of industrial cities often battle with the problem of refuse collection. Although the quality of air may generally improve, owing to a decline in the emission of sulfur oxides and particles, most efforts to restore water quality have not been so successful due to pollution, notably nitrates and other fertilizers and pesticides.

The environmental conditions in industrial world cities are greatly influenced by motor vehicles. Many of the coastal areas beside industrial world cities are close to major sewage outlets and in a considerable state of deterioration. Chemical pollutants somehow find their way into drinking water, toxic wastes have an appreciable impact on groundwater quality, and noise pollution tends to be on the increase.

Generally speaking, the urban population and extent of industrialization in the industrial world cities of developed countries is largely responsible for the following resulting characteristics or trends:

• A net drain on ecosystems and natural resources and production of very large carbon footprint due to over-exploitation of natural resources.
• Loss of nutrient-rich farmland and forest lands due to expansion of urban areas.
• Land and water pollution due to large consumption of materials and littering of domestic, municipal, and industrial solid waste which causes many environmental and human health issues.
• Soil and groundwater pollution due to sewage discharged from domestic, commercial, and industrial buildings, thereby making groundwater become unsafe for human use.
• Air pollution due to automobiles, industries and human induced activities which emit gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of Sulfur and Nitrogen, hydrocarbons, and toxic substances and vapors of organic compounds.
• Large areas of impervious surfaces that don’t allow water to seep naturally into the ground; this causes huge floods or runoffs of water and transports chemicals and pollutants into waterways, streams, and rivers.
• Rise in uncomfortable temperatures, especially as a result of unplanned construction of apartments and large buildings which absorb and emit solar radiation, leading to many health issues.
• Emission of a lot of light at night. Some studies have indicated that all artificial or human-produced light emitted during the night has been disrupting the natural biological functioning of organisms that have adapted to the natural night and daylight cycles.
• Isolation and extinction of wildlife animal and plant species due to increase in urban development which has affected certain organisms’ capacity to reproduce, and reduced their genetic diversity within the remaining populations.
• Loss of intimate connection with nature: a misunderstanding of how nature really works! The increasing disconnect from nature has led to lack of concern for nature and creation of many unsustainable public policies. The simple fact is that people will hardly care for or protect that which they don’t understand or have empathy for.
• Increase in poverty since state or local governments focus more on industrialization that providing other services for people.

Concluding remarks

It is important to make industrial world cities become more efficient and less polluted than ever. Regardless of how much industrial world cities would like to develop, they and their inhabitants must reconnect with nature if they really want to save it together with our only dear planet.

A Study Suggests Humans Should Be More Concerned About Plastic Bottle Water

There is no outright recommendation that people should stop drinking bottled water, but a study reported in different ways by seven different online outlets may suggests that we should at least we be wary or concerned about plastic bottle water, even if we decide to drink it:

1. CNN: “Bottled water contains thousands of nanoplastics so small they can invade the body’s cells, study says…new study revealed that bottled water sold in stores can contain 10 to 100 times more bits of plastic than previously estimated—nanoparticles so infinitesimally tiny they cannot be seen under a microscope”.

2. Forbes: “Bottled water contains hundreds of thousands of potentially toxic tiny plastics, study finds…A new study found a litre of bottled water contains hundreds of thousands of nanoplastics, which experts believe may cause health risks like gastrointestinal disorders, birth defects and increased mortality”.

3. EuroNews: “Bottled water contains 100 times more plastic nanoparticles than previously thought…The average litre of bottled water has nearly a quarter of a million pieces of microplastics and tiny, invisible nanoplastics, new research has found. These have been detected and categorised for the first time by a microscope using dual lasers”.

4. The Herald: “Bottled water contains more plastic particles: Study…A typical one-litre bottle of water contains some 240,000 plastic fragments on average according to a new study. Many of those fragments have historically gone undetected, the researchers determines, suggesting that health concerns linked to plastic pollution may be dramatically underestimated”.

5. CBS News: “Bottled water contains up to 100 times more plastic than previously estimated, new study says…With the new capacities to study nanoplastics, scientists found that the amount of plastic fragments in bottled water is about 10 to 100 times more than was previously discovered”.

6. Bloomberg: “Researchers found hundreds of thousands of plastic particles in one-litre bottles of water sold in the US, 90% of them small enough to enter the human bloodstream…The findings show that bottled water could contain up to 100 times more plastic particles than previously estimated, as earlier studies only accounted for microplastics, or pieces between 1 and 5,000 micrometers…They found 110,000 to 370,000 tiny plastic particles in each litre, 90% of them nanoplastics.”.

7. Mother Jones: “Bottled Water Contains 240,000 Plastic Particles per Liter, Study Finds…A paper published Monday used a novel technique to analyze one-liter samples of bottled water for plastic granules, going down to just 50 to 100 nanometers in length—roughly the width of a virus. They found nearly a quarter-million of these tiny particles per liter, about 10 to 100 times more than previously published estimates”…“We’ve opened up a whole new world”, Wei Min, one of the paper’s authors and a chemistry professor at Columbia University, told Grist”.

Concluding remarks

Scary, isn’t it? No wonder, according to EuroNews, researchers cut their bottled water use after shocking discovery of a quarter of a million tiny plastic pieces per litre. The Herald stated that: “A typical one-litre bottle of water contains some 240,000 plastic fragments on average according to a new study. Many of those fragments have historically gone undetected, the researchers determines, suggesting that health concerns linked to plastic pollution may be dramatically underestimated”. Bloomberg noted that: “Researchers found hundreds of thousands of plastic particles in one-litre bottles of water sold in the US, 90% of them small enough to enter the human bloodstream”.

Although some reports sound scarier than others, one underlying fact is that plastic bottle water may not good for us, even if we love it. It is advisable to stick with tap water and do our best to cut down the hundreds of millions of tons of plastics being produced on a global scale each year, with much eventually ending up in landfills. Majority of the plastic doesn’t degrade; rather, it breaks down into smaller pieces over a period of time.

Environmental Crisis in Third World Cities

The hustle for shelter along with goods and services is characteristic of most Third World cities, and many houses used by poor people are either worn out or partially broken down. Civic buildings are weak or in a state of utter decay; so also is essential government and public infrastructure of the city.

Various forms of public transport are either overcrowded or have been overused way beyond their capacity, and most cities are occupied by populations that don’t often have potable water, storm drainage, and roads; water supply systems leak at many places, resulting in gradual seepage of sewage into drinking water, and consequent pollution.

Only a handful of city governments in the Third or developing World have the resources and staff that are capable of providing their rapidly growing populations with the goods, services, facilities, and land they need to live a fruitful and high quality life that has uninterrupted access to clean water, transportation, sanitation, colleges or schools, etc. Instead, most of the cities have lots of primitive facilities and poorly constructed illegal settlements overrun by increased overcrowding and different kinds of diseases associated with an unhealthy environments.

Many sewage systems are disjointed and not organized, due to the fact that most people, especially the poor and uneducated, organize and construct housing units by themselves without complete or any assistance from urban/city planners, architects, and engineers, and also without undergoing proper supervision by local or national parastatals or governments. In many cases, national and local parastatals or governments collect bribes and allow people to construct houses anyhow they deem fit. The fact that people are allowed to take laws into their own hands when it comes to building and city planning goes a long way to show just how much the inhabitants themselves are moulding a damning global image of Third World cities and districts.

Part of the urban population suffer from mainly tuberculosis, diarrhoea, hepatitis, typhoid, dysentery, endemic acute respiratory diseases, intestinal parasites, and diseases that are generally associated with unhealthy environments, poor sanitation, and contaminated drinking water.

Third World cities are generally at a lower level of industrial development, but a considerable number of cities have many industries that cause water, air, water, land, and noise pollution problems and exert a negative impact on the life and health of people living in the cities. Only one or few nearby polluted rivers are usually enough to contaminate many people’s source of drinking, washing, and cooking water.

Very disturbing are the situations that are characterized by overcrowded shanties and slums located close to hazardous industries—a place where, nobody in their right senses, would want to live! The proximity alone poses significant health to the poor who continue to increase in numbers—in many cases, without control!

Uncontrolled building and development leads to uncontrolled physical expansion of cities. This is particularly worrying in Third World countries that have a bad economy—an economy that’s unable to provide sufficient housing, water supply, roads, sewers, and other public services for its citizens.

Uncontrolled or haphazard development erodes the quality of land, the type needed for public infrastructure such as urban parks and recreation areas. Due to lack of proper planning, urban growth in Third World cities has often been initiated without first establishing a solid economic base that can support the development of housing, infrastructure, and employment.

Studies have shown that environmental problems in Third World cities are mainly associated with inappropriate patterns of industrial development and lack of logical, orderly, and consistent relation between strategies for agricultural and urban development.

Environmental problems in some Third World cities

Only 8 out of India’s 3,119 towns and cities had full sewage and sewage treatment facilities, and only 209 had partial sewage and sewage treatment facilities. On a daily basis, fifty thousand or more inhabitants in cities on river Ganges dump untreated sewage into the river; in addition, tanneries, Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) factories, rubber factories, fertilizer and petrochemical industries, paper and pulp mills, and many other industries discharge their wastes into the river. Located near Calcutta is the Hoogly estuary congested with discharges of untreated industrial wastes from more than 150 major factories, all located around Calcutta, with sixty per cent of Calcutta population suffering from bronchitis, pneumonia, and other air pollution-related respiratory diseases.

Twenty cities in China have their borders saturated with most of the industries that use coal in outdated furnaces and boilers, causing a high level of air pollution. Chinese cities have a lung cancer mortality that is between four and seven times higher than it is in the whole republic or nation. This difference is largely linked to heavy air pollution.

The highly urbanized Klang Valley in Malaysia has a pollution level that is between two and three times the pollution levels of major cities in the United States, and the Klang river system is heavily polluted by the industrial and agricultural sewage and effluents discharged into it.

References

1. J.E. Hardoy and D. Satterthwaite, “Shelter, Infrastructure and Services in Third World Cities”, Habitat International, Vol. 10, No 4, 1986.

2. Centre for science and Environment, State of India’s Environment: A Citizens’ Report (New Delhi: 1983); Vaclav Smil, The Bad Earth: Environmental Degradation in China (London: Zed Press, 1986); Sahabat Alam Malaysia, The State of Malaysian Environment 1983-84 – Towards Greater Environmental Awareness (Penang, Malaysia: 1983).

3. J.E. Hardoy and D. Satterthwaite, “Third World Cities and the Environment of Poverty”, Geoforum, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1984. See also World Social Prospects Association, The Urban Tragedy (Geneva: UNITAR, 1986).

4. Osvaldo Sunkel, “Debt, Development and Environment”, submitted to WCED Public Hearings, Sao Paulo, 1985; Ricardo Jordan S., “Population and the Planning of Large Cities in Latin America”, paper submitted to the International Conference on Population and the Urban Future, Barcelona, Spain, 19-22 May 1986.

The Man Who Grew a 5.5 Million Square Meter Forest in Over 40 Years

Imagine an environmentalist who didn’t need formal education to do the needful, to protect the environment. An environmentalist by heart, an environmentalist by calling, he has grown a 5.5 million square meter forest in over 40 years, since 1979. By name, Jadav Molai Payeng (from Assam, India), he is also known as the “Forest Man”; a man who has been saving plant and animal life in environment by planting, nurturing, and protecting countless species of trees on a sandbar in the Brahmaputra River, turning it into a natural home for a wide variety of plant and animal species.

The painful event that motivated Payeng to save the environment took place in 1979 when the sandbar where he lived was overrun by a devastating flood which destroyed a large number of trees and left the sandbar barren. Payeng took it upon himself initiate and continuously take any necessary actions to restore the sandbar to its former healthy state; so he started by planting a small number of trees, and he gradually increased planting and nurturing more and more trees over the years—actually a number of decades of planting and tending trees on a sandbar of the river Brahmaputra, eventually turning it into a forest called Molai forest which is named after him. The forest, which covers over 5.5 million square meters is located near Kokilamukh of Jorhat, Assam, in India.

Payeng started by planting around 20 bamboo seedlings on the sandbar in 1979, with the intention of transforming the area into a forest which currently houses thousands of trees (including but  ot limited to species such as ejar, valcol, arjun, ejar, goldmohur, koroi, moj and himolu species) and animals such as but not limited to Indian rhinoceros, deers, rabbits, monkeys, rhinos, Bengal tigers, several varieties of birds, including a large number of vultures and numerous species of birds, reptiles, and mammals. About a hundred elephants visit the forest every year and are housed in the forest for a duration of about six months.

Payeng’s commitment to tree planting has made a great impact on the environment, in the positive sense: it is home for a wide variety of plant and animal species, and connects larger forests in the region, thereby providing a safe haven for animals to breed, thrive, and live.

At the end of the day, unlike many other unsung heroes, Payeng’s efforts and work did not and have not gone unnoticed: He has received and continues to receive widespread recognition for his effort and work, including the Padma Shri which one of highest civilian awards in India. His efforts and work has been featured in numerous documentaries and articles which are inspiring countless people take all necessary steps to protect and preserve our GOD-given environment.

10 Species Saved from Extinction by Endangered Species Act of 1973

The United States has always recorded large numbers of endangered animal species. In fact, the United States currently has the second-highest number of endangered species worldwide, only behind first-place Indonesia; with Arizona, California, and Florida states leading the way in term of activities that threaten the existence of certain animals.

Efforts to preserve or conserve species were cemented 50 years ago when American Congress passed the Endangered Species Act which is a legislation established to save animal and plant species that face the threat or risk of becoming extinct. Congress had to act after realizing that without any regulations, many species could or would become extinct.

Many species have been provided higher levels of protection ever since and have actually been saved from the threat of extinction—and extinction itself; their numbers have increased to such an extent that they have been delisted from the endangered species list, as they don’t require any more protection. Other species still on the list have improved from low numbers which were recorded before the Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress.

The bill for the Endangered Species Act, which was signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, declared that wildlife, fish, and plant species in the United States were of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people”. A study published in 2019 credited the Endangered Species Act with saving 99% of listed and protected species from extinction.

The following ten animal species have since increased or improved in numbers after taking a place on the endangered list.

• American alligator: By the 1950s and 60s, the American alligator species was nearly wiped out, mainly due to hunting and loss of habitat. In 1967 it was declared as an endangered species throughout South America where hunting was banned, and it gained protection. After The Fish and Wildlife Service had determined in 1987 that American alligator species had increased in large numbers, it was removed from the engendered species list.
• Bald eagle: There were an estimated 400,000 bald eagles in the early 1700s, but due to loss of habitat and food contamination by insecticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), the species was almost becoming extinct by the mid-1900s. In 1967, the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species. After DDT was banned and other steps were taken to save the species and increase its numbers, the bald eagle was removed from the list of endangered species in 2007.
• Black-footed ferret: This animal species, which is the only species of ferret that is native to America, once had a population between 500,000 and one million in the late 1800s. The species was presumed to have gone extinct by the late 1950s, and by 1967 it was placed on the endangered species list. Good news is that the species has not gone extinct, since there are currently about 300 black-footed ferrets in the wild today, and ongoing efforts are still being made to save the species that was thought to have gone extinct.
• California condor: The California condor first gained attention and protection in 1967, but unfortunately only 22 condors were in the wild by 1982. To save condors from extinction, the remaining condors were captured and placed under a breeding program, and by 2008, there were more condors in the wild than in captivity. In fact, there are presently more than 300 condors flying and living in the wild.
• Florida manatee: The Florida manatee was listed as endangered in 1973 after much of its numbers was reduced to as little as 1,267 due to many collisions between the species and boats controlled by humans. Today, there is an estimated 6,300 Florida manatees in Florida, and about 13,000 throughout their total area of activities. The species was removed from the endangered list in 2017.
• Gray wolves: The populations of gray wolves, which were once in large numbers, were drastically decimated by predator control efforts and hunting, so much so that the species was placed under the endangered species list in 1974. Since then, its populations have been increasing, and there are presently about 2,000 to 3,000 gray wolves in the North Rockies and 4,200 in the Great Lakes region. Although Trump’s administration delisted the gray wolves species in 2020, a federal judge placed it back on the list in 2022 to continue offering it protection.
• Grizzly bear: There was once an estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roaming around West America, but hunting and habitat loss almost made the species become extinct, as their numbers decreased to as low as 600. After many years of effort, grizzly bears are now up to an estimated 2,100, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is presently assessing whether to remove the species from the list of endangered species.
• Humpback whale: Due to commercial whaling activities in the 19th and 20th centuries, the population of this species fell to as low as about 10,000 throughout the world’s oceans. It was placed in the list of endangered species in 1970. As a result of whale conservation protection efforts, the species numbers have recovered to an estimated 80,000 whales.
• Peregrine falcon: There were about 3,875 nesting pairs of peregrine falcons before 1940s. Peregrine falcons became an endangered species in the 1970s due to food contamination by synthetic pesticide DDT, hunting, egg collection, and loss of habitat as well. By 1975, the species had reduced to 324 nesting pairs. But peregrine falcons have since increased in numbers and were once about 6,000 in the wild. It was removed from the endangered list in 1999.
• Whooping crane: Many decades ago, there was once an estimated 10,000 whooping cranes in North America, but hunting and habitat eliminated much of the species, so much such that the whooping crane was place on the endangered species list in 1970. However, the species has continued to recover in numbers ever since. In 1941, there were 21 whooping cranes in the wild, but presently that are more than 500 in the wild.

Initiatives for Conserving and Protecting Species

Some initiatives are already being used internationally to conserve or protect species in the wonderful environment provided by Nature; however, the initiatives or measures are only partially successful either because their scope is limited or there are insufficient funds to achieve set goals. In many or most cases, funds are insufficient in the midst of available broad scopes.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), for instance, operates a World Heritage Fund that supports the management of some exceptional ecosystems and species in different parts of the world; but it’s important to point out that the management activities receive insufficient funds or small budgets.

UNESCO has put in a lot of effort to set up a universal system of Biosphere Reserves to represent the Earth’s 200 “biotic provinces” and provide shelter for sample communities of species. But, once again, it’s important to point out that only one-third of the required reserves have been set up, due to insufficient funding; the remaining two-third would cost about $150 million a year to set up and conduct necessary operations.

United Nation (UN) agencies such as UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) have established measures, initiatives, or programmes for conserving or protecting genetic resources, threatened species, and the countless variety of genetic resources. But, there are too many needs and insufficient funds to take care of the needs.

Among national agencies that show concern for the conservation and protection of species is the U.S. Agency for International Development which has been leading the way when it comes to acknowledging the value of species conservation. Legislation that was once passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986 would ensure the provision of $2.5 million a year for the purpose of species conservation. This gesture of the past by the U.S. Congress is of great value and importance when compared with efforts made today by bilateral agencies; but is at the same time not enough to take care of too many needs and open up many opportunities.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in collaboration with the World Bank, UNEP, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), and other types of international technical assistance agencies, has instituted a “Conservation Monitoring Center” where anybody from any part of the world can easily and quickly access data on species and ecosystems. Other kinds of technical assistance are also available for countries, organizations, businesses, and sectors that are interested in setting up local data bases for various applications to achieve certain goals.

The Tropical Forestry Action Plan (a collaborative effort coordinated by FAO involving the IUCN, the World Bank, the World Resources Institute, and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), amongst numerous other institutions) is one initiative that has stood out in terms of making efforts to put conservation in the limelight, especially on the agendas of international development concerns. This across-the-board effort aims at formulating national forestry plans, national forestry reviews, research and identification of new projects, and increasing the cooperation between development aid agencies and the utilization of financial and technical resources in forestry and related fields.

Initiatives that aim to establish procedures and norms in regard to species resources are equally as important as sufficient funding. The precedents that set for norms to safeguard habitats and their species include the Convention on Conservation of Islands for Science, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

The Economic Value of Species in the Environment

Species have economic value, therefore species conservation is not only important for environmental reasons but is also important for economic reasons as well. It may be important to note that there are also cultural, aesthetic, ethical, and scientific reasons why species conservation is important—but the focus of this post is about the economic value of species, species conservation, or species preservation.

Industrialized nations have greater scientific and industrial capacity to convert materials from wildlife species into useful industrial and medical products; as a result, it’s not surprising why industrialized nations gain far much more financial benefits from wild species than developing nations do; also, industrialized nations trade more agricultural products than developing nations do.

More and more U.S. Northern crop breeders, for instance, rely on genetic materials from wild relatives of wheat and maize which are two crops heavily involved in international grain trade. Estimates made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture had showed that the use of plant genetic material increases productivity, averaging about one per cent yearly, with a farm-gate value that runs into billions of dollars.

A surviving primitive wild species of maize that had been discovered in a montane forest of south-central Mexico was covering a bare four hectares land area while at the same time being threatened by loggers and farmers. The wild species of maize is a perennial crop, while all other classes, varieties, or kinds of maize are annual crops.

Cross-breeding wild maize with other varieties of maize would produce perennial species and help farmers save money and energy spent annually on ploughing and sowing annual maize which has to be grown every year.

The genetic benefits of wild maize plant, which were discovered when only a few thousand stalks had last remained, could attract several thousand million dollars a year. Wild species are also useful in the production of medicines or medical products. In fact, half of all administered prescriptions originate from wild species or organisms.

Drugs and medicines in the U.S. were once noted to have been attracting some $14 billion per year. Worldwide, the estimate exceeds $40 billion per year, showing just how much certain industries benefit commercially or economically from wildlife species.

Many insecticides, oils, dyes, gums, vegetable fats, waxes, and other types of compounds owe their existence to wildlife-derived materials.  Wild plants that bear oil-rich seeds are useful in manufacturing detergents, fibres, detergents, and general comestibles. The Fevillea genus of rain-forest vines, for example, has very high oil content, such that a hectare of it could produce more oil than a hectare of oil palm plantation.

Nature has allotted few plant species with hydrocarbons instead of carbohydrates; due to this trait, some of the plants can thrive and bloom in environments that have been degraded by activities such as strip-mining. By implication, growing plants that have hydrocarbons could help to rehabilitate land that has been degraded by the process of extracting hydrocarbons.

Species preservation or conservation could even help in the improvement of other species. Advancements in gene technology during the last two decades have raised hopes of eventually harvesting crops from seawater, deserts, and other kinds of environments that don’t naturally support the growth of crops.

Many countries that are unable to manage living resources (especially developing or Third World countries) are the same countries that have the highest number of living species and threatened species. Many developing nations have realized the importance of protecting threatened species, but they don’t have the funds and scientific skills to conserve such species.

Industrial nations should support Third World nations, particularly rural peoples, to conserve and reap economic benefits from their indigenous species or genetic resources.

References

1. Agricultural Research Service, Introduction, Classification. Maintenance. Evaluation, and Documentation of Plant Germplasm (Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985).

2. L.A. Tatum. ‘The Southern Corn Leaf Blight Epidemic’, Science. Vol. 171. pp. 1113-16, 1971.

3. H.H. Iltis et al., ‘Zea diploperennis (Gramineae), a New Teosinte from Mexico’, Science, 12 January 1979.

4. A.C. Fisher. ‘Economic Analysis and the Extinction of Species’, Department of Energy and Resources. University of California. Berkeley. 1982.

5. N.R. Farnsworth and D.D. Soejarto. ‘Potential Consequence of Plant Extinction in the United States on the Current and Future Availability of Prescription Drugs’, Economic Botany, Vol. 39. pp. 231-40. 1985.

6. N. Myers, A Wealth of Wild Species (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 1983).

7. M.L. Oldfield, ‘The Value of Conserving Genetic Resources’, National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC, 1984; L.H. Princen, ‘New Crop Development for Industrial Oils’, Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, Vol. 56, pp. 845-48, 1979.

8. A.H. Gentry and R. Wettach, ‘Fevillea – A New Oilseed from Amazonian Peru’, Economic Botany, Vol. 40, pp. 177-85, 1986.

9. M. Calvin. ‘Hydrocarbons from Plants: Analytical Methods and Observations’, Naturwissenschaften. Vol. 67, pp. 525-33, 1980; C.W. Hinman et al., ‘Five Potential New Crops for Arid Lands’, Environmental Conservation. Winter 1985.

10. T. Eisner. ‘Chemicals. Genes, and the Loss of Species’. Nature Conservancy News, Vol. 33. No. 6, pp. 23-24, 1983.

11. W.J. Brill. ‘Nitrogen Fixation: Basic to Applied’, American Scientist, Vol. 67, pp. 458-65. 1979.

Some Causes of Extinction of Wildlife Species

Some common causes of extinction of living and wildlife species include—but may not be limited to:

1. Extensive agriculture

Those tropics that host the greatest number and diversity of species and have a population that grows fast and is mostly poor, usually experience a lot of species extinction due to poverty which forces indigenous farmers to carry out extensive agricultural activities which are unstable and extend throughout the remaining wildlife environments.

Countries (such as Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Kenya, Cote d’lvoire, and Madagascar) that have tropical forests and an unusual abundance of species, suffer from extinction due to the movement of farmers from traditional homelands into virgin territories.

If farmers are encouraged to practise more intensive agriculture, then there could be less encroachment into the tropics and little or no extinction into wildlife species zones or areas. But farmers would need help, government support, marketing support, training, tools, fertilizers, and pesticides—if not free, should be at affordable rates.

2. Population growth

Population growth poses a serious threat to species conservation efforts in many developing nations and is generally a major cause of extinction of some wildlife species. Kenya has allocated 6 % of its region in the form of reserves and parks to protect wildlife but, despite this, Kenya’s present population has been putting so much pressure on the reserves and parks, so much such that they are being lost to invading farmers.

Other countries whose parks and living or wildlife species are being affected by similar population pressures include Uganda, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and other countries that are ravaged by poverty.

3. Conversion of tropical forests to livestock ranches

Many governments in South and Central and South America have encouraged the conversion of tropical forests to livestock ranches which has proven to be ecologically and economically unstable or unsound and caused the depletion of nutrients and replacement of planted grasses with weed species that have led to an abrupt decline in pasture productivity.

In fact, the construction of such ranches have led to the loss of  tens of millions of hectares of tropical forest, mostly due to governments’ underwritten conversions involving subsidized loans, tax holidays, tax credits, large land grants, and other incentives.

4. Importation of unprocessed logs either duty-free or at minimal tariff rates

Deforestation and species extinction is also caused by the importation of tropical timber into some industrial countries via favorable trade incentives or low tariffs in combination with weak domestic forest policies and the disincentives and high costs to harvesting in industrial countries.

Some industrial countries usually import unprocessed logs at minimal rates or duty-free, thereby encouraging industries in developed country to use logs from tropical forests instead or their own domestic logs. This pattern is reinforced by domestic restrictions on the quantities of logs that can be cut down in domestic forests.

Concluding remarks

The matter of the fact is that species extinction is basically an environmental problem that has been driven by overpopulation, widespread poverty, famine, drought, famine, desertification, environmental refugees, political instability, etc.

Many species around the world are dying and becoming extinct because their respective environments have been plundered, over-exploited, and neglected.

The right thing to do is to be sufficiently sensitive to the well-being of the species in different tropical environments and do all we can to save or preserve them much better than the present norm—at the time of writing.

Extinction Patterns and Trends in the Environment

Extinction has been a part of life, maybe since life first began. The few million species currently living are survivors of an estimated five hundred million species that have ever lived. Natural processes were the cause of almost all extinctions that occurred in the past, but human activities are the main cause of extinctions today.

The average span of a species is about five million years. Estimates made in recent times state that an average of nine hundred thousand species has become extinct in every one million years during the last two hundred million years. This implies that the average rate of extinction is about one in every one and one-ninth years.

The present extinction rate, which is mainly driven by human activities, is hundreds of times higher, and can possibly become thousands of times higher—but we don’t know yet! To get a clue or idea, we’d need to have accurate figures about the current extinction rates, and this may be difficult when most disappearing species are not documented entirely or to an acceptable degree; examples include different types of insects in tropical forests.

Apart from tropical moist forests which are very rich in terms of genetic diversity and extremely threatened by human activities, other major ecological zones around the world are also under the threat of extinction, even by an activity such as the expansion of livestock herding.

Coral reefs, with an estimated half-a-million species covering four hundred thousand square kilometers, are vanishing at rates that may possibly leave behind little or nothing of them in a century’s time. It will be a great loss if this happens because coral-reef organisms have generated various kinds of highly valuable toxins in modern-day medicine.

Although tropical moist forests cover only six per cent of the planet’s land surface, they contain at least half of the planet’s total species which is between a minimum of five million and maximum of thirty million. Mature tropical forests once covered between 1.5 and 1.6 billion hectares in the past, now the existing ones cover only nine hundred million hectares.

Reports once had it that between 7.6 million and 10 million hectares is destroyed annually, and the living conditions of at least 10 million hectares are grossly disrupted, yearly. But it may be important to note that this data and figures are from surveys conducted in the late 1970s, and deforestation rates have accelerated since then.

It is unlikely that the forests in the following zones will survive beyond a few decades, especially as the global demand for some wood products continues to expand and the number of forestland farmers increases: parts of the island of New Guinea, outside of the Zaire Basin, the western half of Brazilian Amazonia, and the Guyana tract of forest in northern South America.

If the current rates of deforestation continue in Amazonia, sooner or a bit later, about fifteen per cent of plant species there would be lost. If the Amazonian forest cover is reduced to as low as the cover in established park and reserve areas, then sixty-six per cent of plant species would disappear, along with about sixty-nine per cent of bird species and some other major categories of species.

About twenty per cent of the world’s species are located in Latin American forests outside of Amazonia, while another twenty per cent is located in the forests of Asia and Africa outside the Zaire Basin. The forests in these areas are threatened, and hundreds of thousands of species could go missing or become extinct if the forests were to be eliminated.

If appropriate management measures are not established for the long term, at least one-quarter, one-third, or even a higher fraction of the species living today can become extinct. Many experts advise that at least twenty per cent of tropical forests be protected, but it’s unfortunate that, presently, only fewer than 5 per cent have been protected in any way.

If as much as half of the forest in the Amazonia were protected and the other remaining half extremely disrupted or eliminated, the Amazonia would lose so much moisture that there won’t be enough to keep the remaining forest slightly wet or moist and lively; implying that it could gradually dry up and eventually become somewhat like an open woodland that lacks many species and suffers from species extinction.

The increase in greenhouse gases and widespread climatic changes are likely to cause more changes in extinction patterns and trends within the foreseeable future. Such changes will impose considerable stress on all ecosystems, thereby making it more important than ever before to maintain natural diversity as a means of adaptation.

References

1. D.D. Raup. “Biological Extinction in Earth History”, Science. 28 March 1986.

2. Wilson, op. cit.; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, op. cit.; Myers. “The Latest News”, op. cit.; Soule. op. cit.

3. G.D. Ruggieri and N.D. Rosenberg, The Healing Sea (New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1978).

4. FAO/UNEP. Tropical Forest Resources. Forestry Paper No. 30 (Rome: 1982); J.M. Melillo et al., “A Comparison of Recent Estimates of Disturbance in Tropical Forests”, Environmental Conservation. Spring 1985; N. Myers. The Primary Source (New York: W.W. Norton, 1984); Myers “The Latest News”, op. cit.; J. Molofsky et al., “A Comparison of Tropical Forest Surveys”, Carbon Dioxide Program. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington DC. 1986.

5. D. Simberloff, “Are We On the Verge of a Mass Extinction in Tropical Rain Forests?” in D.K. Elliott (ed.), Dynamics of Extinction (Chichester. UK: John Wiley & Sons. 1986); Raven. op. cit.

6. E. Salati and P.B. Vose, “Amazon Basin: A System in Equilibrium”, Science, 13 July 1984.

Disappearance & Extinction of Species in the Environment

The development of many economies depends on the conservation of living natural resources such as the countless varieties of animals, plants, micro-organisms, and the non-living things which contribute to the growth of various industries and attract billions of dollars each year.

This is the main reason why conservation of wild living resources is top priority for many governments; imagine, almost 4% of the Earth’s total land area is managed to preserve species and ecosystems.

Despite all efforts, the major challenge facing many nations today is implementation of conservation practices in accordance with national interests and within any available means of implementation in each country.

If nations can preserve species, the world can focus on creating new and improved foods, medicines, and raw materials for many industries, and they can continue using species to make innumerable significant contributions to human welfare.

Preservation of species needs support from vital life processes of nature which would require stable or recuperating climatic conditions, good air, healthy soils, watersheds, nurseries, and breeding grounds, etc. We—and I mean all of humanity—cannot conserve natural ecosystems and processes without conserving the individual species within each of the ecosystems, and managing the ecosystems and species together.

However, the reality facing us is fully expressed through increasing scientific consensus that the Earth’s species are disappearing or becoming extinct at rates never seen or recorded before.

Although there is some controversy regarding the rates of extinction and the risks they pose, the obvious fact remains that the world is losing certain species which it has little or no knowledge of, and the species are being lost in the remotest habitats one could hardly imagine without actually seeing a satellite study and new field report.

Many of the ecosystems that are biologically sound and promising are being severely threatened and in danger of disappearing, especially due to manmade or artificial activities of mankind.

So many studies prove this, with instances from coral reefs, grasslands, tropical forests, savannas, arid zones, temperate forests, and mangrove forests. Most of these studies provide lists of individual species that are at risk or recently became extinct.

The alteration of natural habitats and extinction of species are not the only threat. The Earth is also experiencing loss of races within species and the loss of varieties of races within species. Everyone would appreciate the variety inherent in one single species by considering, for instance, the many races of dogs, or the many types of maize being developed by breeders.

Many of the species that are losing whole populations are losing them at a rate that is rapidly reducing their genetic variability and consequently reducing their ability to adapt to changes in climatic conditions and other types of environmental adversity.

For instance the existing, remaining, or current diversity of gene pools of plants such as rice and maize are only a fraction of what they used to be just a few decades ago. (This tells the difference between loss of species and loss of gene reservoirs.) Although the species themselves are not yet threatened, this is not good news.

Few places where species are being threatened or have become extinct

1. Over 500 cichlid fish species in Lake Malawi, Central Africa, with 99% of them endemic or native to that region, are being threatened by pollution from industrial installations and the purported introduction of alien species.

2. Almost all the forests have been destroyed in western Ecuador since 1960 to make way for banana plantations, oil wells, and human settlements. Although western Ecuador might have once contained about 200,000 species, the number of species thus eliminated due to destruction of forests could well be around 50,000 or more within just 25 years.

3. Scientists once estimated that not less than 93% of the original forest in Madagascar Island’s eastern strip had been eliminated, resulting in the disappearance of not less than half of the original species. It may be important to note that Madagascar Island’s eastern strip of forest once had 12,000 plant species and likely about 190,000 animal species, with at least 60% of them native to the region and found nowhere else on the planet.

Concluding remarks

Species such as termites, bees, earthworms, and hosts of other living things or organisms and their respective species are very important because of the respective roles they play in maintaining healthy and productive ecosystems across the whole wide world.

Therefore, we all have to make more effort to safeguard the millions of species on Earth: governments should enact stronger laws and policies to encourage people and communities to protect species and their gene pools or reservoirs because of their importance to nature and human welfare.

Empowering Vulnerable Peoples: A Touchstone of Sustainable Development

The processes of modern-day sustainable development and development in general should strive to integrate local, underdeveloped, and undeveloped communities into larger social and economic frameworks. However, some communities in many countries, especially the communities that are occupied by so-called indigenous or tribal peoples, continue to remain vulnerable and isolated or marginalized due to various reasons.

The marginalization reflects a style of development that obviously neglects human and environmental considerations, respectively. Therefore, the interests of indigenous people should be carefully considered when creating sustainable development policies.

Examples of indigenous or tribal peoples can be found in the deserts of North Africa, Central America, in the Amazon Basin, in Australia, in the forests and hills of Asia, and other places in different parts of the world.

The isolation of indigenous or tribal peoples has in a way preserved their traditional or natural way of life and kept them in close harmony with their natural environment which they became adapted to over the course of ages.

Unfortunately, their isolation has isolated them from the goods of any available form of national, economic, and social development; this isolation has many effects and is reflected in the poor levels of nutrition, health, and education of indigenous peoples.

The more that organized and sustainable development can advance into the isolated regions occupied by indigenous or tribal peoples, the more the indigenous or tribal peoples would become less isolated.

Many indigenous peoples live in parts of the world that are rich in highly valuable natural resources which planners and developers from inside and outside their communities exploit, with the extent  of exploitation disrupting the local environment and endangering the traditional ways of life of various peoples and animals.

In many places where natural resources are being exploited, the locals or indigenous peoples are often left out of economic and sustainable processes. Cultural barriers and social discrimination alienate indigenous people from national political processes and makes them vulnerable and subject to exploitation by selfish individuals or leaders who occupy top positions at local or national level.

Many indigenous peoples have become dispossessed and marginalized; their natural or traditional way of life has been eroding or disappearing, and they have become examples of what one could call cultural extinction.

Because the communities of indigenous peoples have monuments of ancient or old and traditional knowledge and experience, their decay or disappearance would be a loss to society because society has a great deal to learn from the old or traditional knowledge and skills of indigenous peoples which has managed to sustain the natural environment much better than many new generation processes.

The appropriate form of justice for isolated peoples is the recognition and protection of their tradition/way of life, traditional rights, natural resources, and environment or land—even if non-indigenous people don’t have any regard for them.

The recognition of traditional rights should go hand in hand with measures to protect the indigenous or local institutions that oversee natural resource use and allow local communities to participate in important decision-making processes which should include positive measures to enhance the well-being of indigenous communities in ways that fit their natural or desired life-style.

Any implemented policies for indigenous peoples must tread a fine line between keeping them (i.e., the indigenous peoples) away from unwanted isolation and indiscriminately destroying their lifestyles. Hence broader measures of human resource development would be required to ensure that local or indigenous communities derive full benefit from such projects, especially through jobs.

Failure of Governments to Tackle Institutions Whose Actions Degrade the Environment

The objective of sustainable development seems to be a bit silent when it comes to institutions and national and international organizations that make money but continue to conduct activities that degrade the environment, especially in developing nations.

Despite all recommendable efforts made by various governments, individually or jointly, something still remains missing: inaction and reluctance by governments to sufficiently speed up response to environmentally degrading activities (especially in developing nations) and charge culpable and guilty institutions and national and international organizations.

As governments see the need for institutions and national and international organizations whose actions degrade the environment, one would agree that we—the masses, the whole world—see even more need for the leaders of different governments to be firm in ensuring that culprits of environmental destruction correct their wrongdoings or pay for their environmentally destructive activities.

The main problem in the first place is governments’ unwillingness to ensure that its bodies or parastatals in charge of protecting the environment properly enforce policies to prevent environmental degradation.

Governments have established environmental ministries and agencies to enhance resources and improve water and air quality. However, much of their work has been repair and damage: they correct one problem today and knowingly create another or others tomorrow.

As a result, the institutions and organizations that work to make money and become national or global, find spaces for their activities to thrive while it leaves the environment destroyed far behind. It’s quite worrying, especially when one can’t find any tangible link between the culpable institutions/organizations and the leaders of governments.

At the end of the day, what’s the need of having ministries, parastatals, or agencies if they can’t bring complete justice to situations in accordance with the mandate of the highest seat of power which represents the will of the people?

Yes, the existence of ministries and agencies has given many citizens hopes—mostly false hopes—of protecting and enhancing the environment; however, for whatever reason(s), many industries and organizations especially in most developing countries, continue to pollute water and air, overharvest and deplete groundwater, and proliferate hazardous waste and toxic chemicals.

These problems sit side by side with other problems such as acidification, global warming, desertification, erosion, etc.—while the mandates of ministries watch helplessly as various parts of the human environment are affected by their reluctance or indecision.

Governments should put in more effort to protect the environment in the same way that or more than it protects its money-making business partners and all culprits from crackdown to help the environment. But the normal way of conducting things has to change—and it all starts from the top, from leaders!

Sustainable Development Should be in Harmony with Population Size & Growth

Humanity—we, the remaining people on Earth—have the joint ability to conduct our sustainable development activities in ways that will not only sustain or meet the needs of the present generations who are presently living, but will do so without crippling the joint ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Although the concept of contemporary sustainable development makes a lot of emphasis and places limits or limitations on technology, pollution, combustion, the use of toxic or hazardous chemicals, the use of environmental resources, etc., it seems we need to make equal or more emphasis on limiting population size and growth in order to strengthen our environment’s or biosphere’s ability to absorb the potential negative impacts of human activities which only worsens with increasing population size and growth.

Technology, pollution, combustion, the use of toxic or hazardous chemicals, the use of environmental resources, etc., can all be regulated, managed, and modified to achieve desirable outcomes; however, population size and growth cannot be managed so easily, except with an iron fist to place it under control and prevent it from continuing to be one of the main contributing factors to poverty.

The population of different parts of the world and the whole world is growing at rates that obviously can’t be sustained by the available natural resources; it is becoming increasingly difficult and impossible for governments and organizations to provide adequate food, housing, security, health care, energy supplies, etc.

Rapidly growing populations put immense pressure on natural resources (both renewable and nonrenewable) and make it difficult for standards of living to improve. Sustainable development activities will face less or even no pressure and yield desired results if they are in harmony with a population size and growth that is sustainable.

The main issue arising from population is not just the increasing numbers of people; it’s about the ratio between the numbers of people and the available natural resources meant to cater for various countless needs. Therefore, the remaining population(s) on Earth must work together to control population size and growth to ensure more equitable access to resources and easier management of those resources.

Concluding remarks

For sustainable development practices or activities to succeed and bring expected results, painful choices have to be made. Based on the current deplorable state of the environment, urgent steps need to be taken to limit or possibly halt the high rates of population growth.

However, one must admit that it may not be straightforward or easy to manage population size and growth to such an extent that it perfectly harmonizes with sustainable development efforts and activities meant to help an environment comprising billions of people.

Although decisions may need to be taken and enforced, people would still have to be provided with facilities and education that can enable them to wisely choose the size of their families in a way that the size will still be in harmony with available or expected natural resources.

Governments that need to enforce laws to control population growth should develop long-term policies aimed at strengthening cultural, social, and economic motivations for family planning in order to cut down overexploitation of resources and poverty due to insufficient resources.

Development Trends that Erode Natural Resources & the Environment

We live in an age when the industrial world has arguably used up much of our planet’s replenishing power, resources, and ecological capital. The imbalance between input or regeneration of resources by nature and output or consumption by living things, especially humans, has created an imbalance which has become our planet’s main environmental problem.

Unlike in the past when governments and concerned bodies were more concerned about the impacts of economic growth on the environment, we are now more concerned about the impacts of development trends that induce ecological stress, soil degradation, atmospheric pollution, etc., in the same environment.

There have been profound impacts of development trends or activities on the biosphere, as our world’s respective populations continue to invest in houses, transportation, farming, and industrial growth while pulling away much raw material from soils, forests, seas, and waterways.

Although development trends in the form of advanced and new technology have enabled us to produce more goods and food with less effort and resources, move information and goods faster around the world, and increase industrial production by more than fiftyfold over the past century, it has clearly left behind continuously increasing levels of pollution, environmental decay, poverty, and hardship in the midst of ever-diminishing resources.

Many processes that have produced the greatest benefits for mankind have on the other hand given rise to development trends that the planet, its various populations, and respective environments can’t continue bearing. There are also environmental trends that threaten to alter the natural course of the Earth and threaten the lives of its countless species, including humans.

Many development trends continue to leave increasing numbers of people vulnerable and poor and degrade the environment during and after the operations or processes that drive them. The world has more numbers of hungry people than ever before, and their numbers continue rising along with the numbers of people who can’t read or write, the numbers of people who don’t have access to sound homes and safe water, and the numbers of people who can’t acquire at least wood—even if not kerosene or gas—to cook, sustain themselves, and keep themselves warm.

On top of the pile of problems, the gap between rich and poor countries continues widening instead of shrinking, and based on current development trends and institutional arrangements, there is little hope the situations will improve to sustain natural resources and halt environmental degradation.

It was once on record that “every year six million hectares of productive dryland turns into worthless desert” and “more than eleven million hectares of forests are destroyed yearly”. In fact, much of the forestlands that are being used as farmlands are not in a state that can support the growth of crops for farmers who wish to settle on them.

In Europe, development trends have given rise to increasing levels of acid precipitation which has been acidifying various soil types beyond any fair hope of repair, and silently killing lakes and forests and damaging the cultural, architectural, and artistic heritages of different nations.

The continuous combustion of fossil fuels has been discharging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and giving rise to gradually increasing levels of global warming which, if left unchecked, can rise high enough to raise sea levels, flood especially coastal cities, degrade land and water environments, and leave national economies disrupted or broken.

Other industrial development trends that emit gases threaten to deplete the Earth’s ozone layer (which is its protective shield), interrupt the oceans’ food chain, and indirectly put human food chain at the mercy of toxic substances that enter into the oceans’ food chain and may remain difficult or impossible to clean up, considerably or completely.

The deforestation activities on highlands and highland farms, which are aimed at increasing development, causes flooding to occur downhill on lowland farms and downstream nations; degradation of drylands causes millions of environmental refugees to seek refuge across national borders; discharge of toxic wastewater from factories pollutes rivers and robs local fishermen of their means of livelihood or living.

Despite the on-going development trends and consequent environmental degradation, the industries that take away much of the natural/environmental resources and heavily pollute and degrade the environment are the most rapidly growing industries of developed nations, regardless of where their operations take place around the world.

We are living on borrowed time, borrowing environmental capital from future generations with no plan(s) in place to pay back. Future generations are the ones who will be at the receiving end and inherit all environmental or natural resource deficits or losses being incurred by present generations.

Unborn and future generations who aren’t alive, can’t vote, and don’t have any political or financial power, will certainly damn present generations if we don’t put our current development trends in check and prepare a better environment for now and the future.

Concluding remarks

Many present forms of development are eroding the natural or environmental resources upon which their growth and sustenance is based. Unfortunately, poverty is causing many countries to face enormous economic pressures, domestically and internationally, to such an extent that they hardly have any better option than to overexploit or overharvest their environmental resources. 

But won’t the continuation of this eventually bring global poverty upon the whole world and close out any options for future generations? Most of the world’s current decision makers and middle-aged leaders will be dead before the planet degrades much further and experiences heavier effects of ozone depletion, acid precipitation, widespread desertification, global warming, and species loss.

It’s high time the world approaches and deals with environmental problems through a broader perspective that can address uncontrolled population growth, overexploitation of natural/environmental resources, poverty, and most especially the environmentally destructive capabilities of current development trends.

We need commitment from all individuals, institutes, businesses, voluntary/non-governmental organizations, and governments to do everything possible to save the environment and secure and sustain the remaining natural resources in order to sustain this generation and coming generations.

Research Findings Show that Children are More Interested in Violent Games

The findings of an interesting study on middle school 7th grade students proved the findings of a previous study: children are more interested in violent games (İşçibaşı, 2011); it also proved the findings from another different study conducted by Yakışan and Velioğlu (2019) on primary school 4th grade students, which stated that the students were influenced by the war games they played on the internet and the images of war they saw in the media; therefore, they made designs for technological products to protect and defend themselves and people against war.

One may argue that maybe—just maybe—students as a whole, regardless of their location, could be more interested in violent games or images of war because it gets them mentally prepared to protect themselves and people against war. Sounds interesting, if true!

The aim of the study conducted on the middle school 7th grade students was to identify the technological products students would like to design, inspired by the characteristics of animals they admire, to solve problems they encounter in their daily lives: the students were asked to draw the technological products they would like to design, inspired by the characteristics of the animals, as a picture.

There were 30 students in the study group: 18 girls and 12 boys, all in 7th grade of the same secondary school. The researchers chose seventh grade students for the study because they believed the students had reached the age range in which they could use their imagination in the best way and express their creativity.

Methodology

First: the students were shown a biomimicry video that contained the characteristics of living things, including animals, and the technological products designed, inspired by the characteristics or features of the living things.

Second: the students were asked to select an animal and draw the technological products they intend to design from its features on their worksheet and briefly explain their drawings.

In the study which took place within one class hour, the students were allowed to express their thoughts by drawing in any way they desired, inspired by the characteristics of animals.

The drawings of different students, inspired by the characteristics of animals, were classified into six categories:

• military vehicles

• land vehicles

• tools used in daily life

• tools specific to the living senses

• underwater vehicles

• air vehicles

Findings

The information/data gathered at the conclusion of the study and drawings of technological products drawn by the 30 students, individually, showed that the students were mostly interested in designing military vehicles: the students made drawings of the designs of observers, agent, tank, helmet and various military vehicles in the military vehicles category.

The students made drawings about war and defense technology designs in parallel with the war images they see in games such as war games and TV news and movies.

This observation reinforced the conclusion arrived at by an earlier/different research which stated that children are more interested in violent games (İşçibaşı, 2011).

Another different study conducted by Yakışan and Velioğlu (2019) on primary school 4th grade students concluded that the students were influenced by the war games they played on the internet and the images of war they saw in the media; as a result, they made designs for technological products to protect and defend themselves and people against war.

The drawings of the students who considered designing military vehicles showed that they were mostly inspired by the following animals: chameleon, millipede, ant, horse, dog, elephant, and turtle:

• 1 student designed a military vehicle, inspired by the centipede

• 1 student designed a military vehicle inspired by a dog

• 1 student designed a tank, inspired by an elephant

• 1 student designed a tank, inspired by a horse

• 1 student drew ant agent technological product, and

• 1 student drew turtle helmet technological product.

Students mostly likened the chameleon to military vehicles: a total of 2 students designed observers, inspired by the chameleon.

One student in particular designed a watcher by making use of the chameleon’s camouflage or color-changing feature: the student, who had attached a camera to the chameleon’s eye and added a peephole and sticky feet, explained his design as follows: “When the chameleon observer encounters the terrorists, it will change its color and the weapon inside will not be visible and will shoot the terrorists”.

Although the chameleon was the most inspiring animal under the military vehicles category, the animal that generally (in the whole research or all categories) inspired students the most was the turtle: a total of 4 students drew their helmet and house designs using the characteristics of the turtle.

Followed by the turtle (in terms of inspiration or popularity) were the elephant and the worm, respectively. A total of 3 students were inspired by the elephant and 3 students were also inspired by the worm.

Generally, the number of students inspired by the characteristics of animals in each of the six categories was as follows:

• military vehicles: 8

• land vehicles: 7

• tools used in daily life: 5

• tools specific to the living senses: 4

• underwater vehicles: 3

• air vehicles: 3

Saving the Environment by Using One Organism’s Waste as Food for Another Organism and Vice Versa

One of the most essential practical strategies that can help our world achieve environmental sustainability and sustainable materials management is the environmentally-enhancing activity called “cradle-to-cradle” design.

The term “cradle-to-cradle” was first coined about fifty years ago in the 1970s by Walter Stahel and Michael Braungart. In this post, “cradle-to-cradle” is known or coined as “using one organism’s waste as food for another organism and vice versa”.

The main principles upon which cradle-to-cradle design was founded were first outlined as the “Intelligent Product System (IPS)” by Braugart et al. in 1992.

The principles were further developed and formally expressed in written words by Michael Braungart and William McDonough in 2002 in their book titled Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things.

Biomimicry: 15 Examples & 7 Benefits of Copying Nature

Classification/Levels of Biomimicry (Nature-inspired Design)

18 Best Ways to Save the Environment Much More

Cradle-to-cradle design applies the same concept as Nature: ensuring that one organism’s waste becomes/is used as food for another organism and vice versa. It may be important to note or be reminded that Nature has a host of countless organisms that do this.

Nature uses the same nature-born materials as food and as waste, respectively, to ensure that one organism’s waste serves as food for another/other organisms and vice versa.

Cradle-to-cradle design copies Nature by following Nature’s pattern to circulate nutrients, benignly and productively via metabolisms. Biological nutrients are cycled inside biological metabolisms and technical nutrients are cycled inside technical metabolisms.

Biomimicry: Definitions

Brief History of Biomimicry

10 Features of Ecocities & Ecovillages that Inspire our World to Be More Sustainable

Biological metabolism is the system or orderly grouping of natural processes that sustain or support life or living things. Biological processes which are fuelled by solar energy (i.e., energy from the sun) include biodegradation of organic materials and possibly other forms of degradation, and incorporation of the same into living organisms.

The nature-born materials that enable biological metabolisms to be productive are technically known as biological nutrients which are renewable but degradable.

Industries produce environmentally-degrading products which consist of biological nutrients that can be integrated into both natural and manmade (i.e., artificial) or engineered biological metabolisms (examples include composting, anaerobic digestion, water treatment processes, etc.) in ways that can cut down waste and the on-going level of environmental pollution and subsequent degradation.

The waste or output from biological metabolisms serves as resources for generating new biological nutrients. To save the environment, any industrial product that needs to be discharged into it should be designed as a biological nutrient, despite its intended or present functional use.

Industries can also copy/mimic Nature’s or natural processes by producing technical metabolisms which propagate technical nutrients. Technical nutrients are usually non-renewable but still highly valuable due to their performance qualities.

Examples of technical nutrients include metals such as aluminium or copper which can be recovered and recycled over and over, again and again, without degrading in quality and causing harm to people and the environment.

In addition, technical nutrients can be designed for reuse in one industry or between similar or dissimilar industries, depending on the material. When utilized properly, products made from technical nutrients can minimize expenditure of energy and cost.

Concluding remarks

Except in very few cases, life and living things on Earth are ultimately fuelled and sustained by solar energy—i.e., energy from the sun—directly and indirectly.

Our industries can improve and save the environment by mimicking the natural design principles used by Nature or employed in natural systems which also thrive on biodiversity, but arguably to a lesser degree than they thrive on the sun.

Generally speaking, since Nature utilizes different forms of waste, humans and their industries should also find ways to use waste in one way or another, especially as food for other organisms or processes: the product or waste from one organism can and should serve as food or another or other organisms.

Practicing this to a great or greater extent than the norm can help circulate materials productively, thereby reducing or even completely eliminating waste and the concept of waste from society.

If mankind’s industries can evolve or be redesigned based on Nature’s natural processes or models, then it can only lead us upwards to social and environmental prosperity.

What We Should Stop Subjecting Nature to (Recommendations for an Environmentally Sustainable Society)

Many would hardly disagree that the prosperity of the modern-day Western world is “for the most part” a product of the Industrial Revolution which, on one hand is characterized by transformation from an agricultural to an industrial world, but on the other hand is characterized by:

• taking from Nature/the environment
• making new products, and
• throwing excess waste right back at Nature/the environment.

To summarize in a few words, the Industrial Revolution’s model seems to follow a pattern that consists of three main activities: “take, make, and waste”. In a short period of time and on a persistent basis, raw materials are “taken” from Nature, “made or turned” into products, and the “waste” generated is thrown back at Nature, into the environment, or into society.

Activities and products meant to help mankind are generating wastes that have the potential to cause public health concerns and problems that could stay around for decades and even hundreds of years. For example, some materials that food items are packaged in could actually take up to hundreds of years to decompose by natural processes. Their presence could constitute problems.

So, although the Industrial Revolution and its advanced industrial activities have brought enormous benefits to mankind, it has left the same mankind’s environment and Nature in jeopardy, environmentally, with so many negative consequences: countless wastes and toxic substances, over-harvested or depleted natural resources, global warming, contaminated ecosystems, endangered and exterminated species, etc.

These and many more will continue to haunt and remind us about what we should stop subjecting Nature to. Somewhere along the line we started it, and we are the ones who should stop it.

For our environment and society to be sustainable while our planet is still on the path to recovery (or unfortunately maybe on the path to destruction), we should stop subjecting Nature and the environment to the following main or broad categories of activities:

1. Over-extraction

Over-extraction means extracting renewable and non-renewable resources from nutrients and the Earth’s crust much faster than Nature is capable of replenishing them, thereby stalling Nature’s order and reducing Her overall productive capacity in the long run.

As powerful as Nature is, She has limits! Mind you, it may take Nature a few months or years to replenish some resources, while other types of resources (especially the non-renewable and highly valuable ones like oil and gas from fossil fuels) may take Nature thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.

Therefore our rates of extraction of minerals, fossil fuels, and other resources that pose environmental threats should be checked, not necessarily stopped but checked and reduced to the bare minimum before we choke.

We can substitute scarce resources that take a very long time to replenish with resources that are more abundant. If we can’t substitute them, we can use them in ways that could raise their value in the same way that we have raised the value of some abundant resources that are not so scarce.

Not subjecting Nature and the environment to over-extraction means we should use natural resources fairly, efficiently, effectively, and responsibly so that the needs of the world’s current population and the future population which is not yet born, can be met. 

2. Excess waste

Excess combustion and dumping of human-made/artificial wastes and unnatural compounds on land and in water should be drastically curtailed, even if we have to admit that it may not be possible to stop it completely.

If we need to live with some waste, then we should reduce dependence on fossil fuel and replace wastes of unnatural compounds with compounds that are either more normally/naturally abundant or can break down easily and completely in nature.

Concluding remarks

For our world to have a sustainable environment and society, the rate at which we extract resources should be lesser than or at most equal to the rate at which the powerful forces of Nature regenerate or renew them for our sustenance. In addition, we should do our utmost best to:

• replace the use of non-renewable resources with renewable resources and recycled/recyclable materials
• use substances that assimilate quickly without causing harm, and
• reduce substances that are toxic and capable of causing harm to humans and the environment. 

 

Roots/Origins of Environmental Engineering: A Brief History

The term or phrase “environmental engineering” is not as old as other terms or phrases that popped up in the modern era, especially since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Environmental engineering actually has a long or longer history, depending on the dates provided by different records or accounts. The roots of environmental engineering go way back to the beginning of culture or civilization. Primitive ways of disposing volumes of waste and providing clean water were commonplace within organized settlements which consisted of many people.

In the distant past, the term “environmental engineer” and “environmental engineering” hadn’t yet been coined. It didn’t exist then. Back then, the masons and builders of wells and aqueducts were the same people who built the city walls, structures, ditches filled with water (i.e., moats), as well as large catapults and other primitive engines used for war.

In the present time, it is only fair enough to respectfully recognize the ancient masons and builders as “engineers of antiquity”. They deserve the utmost respect for laying down some of the best and lasting foundations for modern-day civil, water, and environmental engineering fields respectively.

It wasn’t until the eighteenth century (i.e., mid-1700s) that the engineers who built structures and facilities for civilian populations started distinguishing themselves from the engineers who were mainly concerned with war/warfare. This gave rise to the field and term “civil engineering”.

During the early years of the then young United States, engineers were either mostly self-taught or received training at the United States Military Academy. Some selected engineers—later known better as “civil engineers” or engineers who specialized in constructing buildings, roads, railways, roads, bridges, structures, etc.—were tasked with designing and constructing water supply facilities for cities, and providing adequate waste management systems to properly control and dispose storm water and waterborne wastes.

With the passage of time, increasing population growth and rising levels of industrialization were causing unsanitary conditions in the cities and environment which even suffered the most due to the absence of adequate water supply and appropriate waste management policies and systems.

The populace didn’t seem to bother, as long as the bell didn’t ring too loud; however, almost everyone became concerned when scientists discovered the potential that water had to carry diseases right into helpless populations.

Public health became the concern of civil engineers who were entrusted with building structures and cities and providing water supplies to population centers: civil engineers now knew that they had an even greater responsibility that required more than just constructing cities and buildings and providing adequate water supply, etc.

Civil engineers had to find ways to prevent or protect water supply—adequate or inadequate—from becoming a vector for disease transmission.

In fact, the main objective of the civil engineers during the late 19th century (i.e., 1800s) was to prevent and eliminate waterborne diseases, and many state Acts and regulations were instituted to help engineers take on the new responsibility to achieve their main objective.

Thus the civil engineers that were first entrusted with constructing buildings and drainages and providing clean water supplies became “public health engineers” (as coined in Britain) and “sanitary engineers” (as coined in the United States)—both, forerunners for the now-popular term “environmental engineers”.

Modern-day environmental engineering

Environmental, public health, and sanitary engineers have made a lot of effort to reduce the transmission of acute diseases by contaminated water and air. In the United States, for instance, the acute effects of pollution have been curtailed or even eliminated; however, they have been replaced by more chronic and complex problems such as depleting aquifers; the questionable safety of rapidly emerging materials such as nanoparticles; indoor air pollution; global transportation of toxic and bioaccumulating chemicals; climate change; impacts chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and wastewater effluents on streams and rivers; etc.

The same or related problems exist in many cities, countries, and parts of the world. The challenges to each environmental media such as air, water, and land required the focus of not only “broad science” but more of “specific environmental engineering”.

To address 21st century or modern-day chronic environmental problems and avoid unintended consequences which can grow horns, environmental engineers now seek to understand people, the environment, the cities, and industries, etc., as interconnected and interacting systems.

In most developed countries today where the health effects of environmental contamination are not the only problem of concern, the preservation of species and protection of wildlife habitat, amongst other responsibilities, have also become major objectives for environmental engineers who supposedly should only be concerned with engineering in regard to the environment!

Therefore, the mission to not only design artificial or manmade structures, but to go a step further and protect natural resources and other forms of life (species) as well, has become a major motivator or driving force behind modern environmental engineering which fully recognizes that the Earth’s ecosystems and natural capital are not inexhaustible, and should thus be handled with care.

The modern-day environmental engineer knows full well that to preserve and maintain environmental or public health, the health, social, and economic wellbeing of people has to be protected by preserving and maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems and ecosystem services Nature has given mankind without expecting anything but good management—not only for our good but for the good of the whole environment which consists of countless beings and things.

Nowadays, the common goal of environmental engineering and engineers across the world is “sustainability” or “sustainable development” which, according to a definition formulated by a 1987 United Nations commission in the Brundtland Report, is any “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

Concluding remarks

Environmental engineering, sanitary engineering, and public health engineering—whichever one of the three you use to refer to engineering practices meant to protect the environment— is more prepared now than ever before to deal with complex matters, if the world’s populations will cooperate.

In the past, when environmental engineering was not yet coined but rather wore civil engineering clothing, the civil engineers of the time focussed mainly on providing structures and facilities that populations desperately needed as their numbers were growing unhindered.

As the challenges faced by early civil engineers continued to expand into the environment and local pollution problems were gradually becoming more complex and global in scale, there became a growing need for more focus on establishing principles and frameworks to guide the development of solutions that can protect the environment, people, animals, and everything that is worth protecting.

As a result, environmental engineering and environmental engineers were born and have been expected to work with diverse stakeholders to protect human health, animal health, plant health, and the environment, and generally solve different kinds of environmental problems. 

Illegal Activities that Thrive Under Legal Markets and Cause Environmental & Economic Harm

Profit-making activities can take on various forms, illegal and legal, respectively. The motives for profit-making can lead to deviant, corrupt, unethical, and criminal behavior, depending on the offender or group of people and their ability to evade the radar of regulatory or state agencies—in fact, environmental agencies, with respect to this post which sheds light on illegal activities that thrive under legal markets and cause environmental and economic harm.

Despite the fact that many regulatory bodies and governments worldwide have banned toxic and hazardous chemicals over the past ten or more years, why do extremely toxic chemicals produced by computer component manufacturers or electroplating companies still exist in one form or another in people’s stores or garages?

Why do major industrial sectors still contract out dirty and toxic cleanup operations to contractors who are not competent enough to safely handle toxic and hazardous chemicals?

Why do the powers that be just sit and watch illegal activities thrive unhindered under legal markets and cause both environmental and economic harm?

We could go on and on and on asking countless questions about illegal activities that thrive under the radar or guise of legal or licit markets which have been supposedly designed to permit only legal activities and nothing less. 

The point here is that the overlapping relationship between legal markets (or activities) and some illegal activities causes and hides the environmental and economic harm caused by such illegal activities that thrive under legal markets.

In many cases, profit-making is frequently enhanced through the connection between legal and illegal markets and the close connection between legal and illegal activities or practices.

For those who don’t know, a legal market is one that permits legal activities and is regulated by the state or government, depending on the country, continent, or region of the world. An illegal market on the other hand, is one that is unregulated, untaxed, and occurs outside of the official channels sanctioned by the state or government.

The bad news for the environment is that many legal/licit and illegal/illicit markets basically allow or engage in the same or similar activities/practices, as all the partakers are driven by profit-making and economic imperatives.

The environment and economy suffer as a result of the illegal activities that sit uninterrupted either on the fringes or within the borders of legal markets: depending on the type of goods or commodity, overlapping between legal markets and illegal activities often occurs unhindered.

The following cases illustrate how illegal activities sit unhindered and thrive under legal markets to cause environmental harm, or economic harm, or both:

1. Illegal logging

As legal as “logging” may sound, it is illegal in some parts of the world and disallowed to protect the environment or economy, or both, or maybe more than both. Illegal and legal logging activities often overlap each other.

Commercial-scale illegal logging activities are commonly practiced by companies licensed to log in selected areas, for example, near the province of Papua, Indonesia, where logging is disallowed in order to protect the watershed of forests and other selected areas.

Akella and Cannon (2004: 16) noted it’s either that companies log by themselves, subcontract logging to smaller local companies, or buy logs directly without doing it legally—meaning, without acquiring the official or right papers to back up their activities.

2. Lobster poaching

Over-harvesting or harvesting too much of a species can erase it from the Earth and also destroy environmentally essential habitats. As innocent as “lobster hunting”—or specifically “lobster poaching”—may sound, lobster hunting is disallowed for good reasons in some parts of the world; thus it is considered illegal; hence, the word “poaching” is associated with “lobster hunting” to give rise to “lobster poaching”.

In the Atlantic provinces of Canada, for instance, buyers and sellers of poached or illegal lobsters strike deals with legal businesses such as hotels and restaurants, and cause harm to the economy—i.e., economic harm, making the government’s tax revenue to continuously run at a loss.

The illegal activities of the illegal buyers and sellers generated immense profits for perpetrators of illegal activities, leaving the government helplessly and completely out of the equation, while growing an illegal underground economy on the side and harming the government’s legal economy.

Generally, restaurants and hotel operators, for example, would buy lobsters at cheap prices from outlaw poachers and sell them at higher prices to make greater profit. McMullan and Perrier (2002: 710) had observed that lobster and fish companies even purchased lobsters from outlaw poachers using cash without obtaining receipts.

As a result, unrecorded profits were being made through illegal/poaching activities under the government’s very watch—the legal market which consists of restaurants, hotels, communities, lobster and fish companies, and individuals.

3. Illegal mining

One major challenge most African countries have faced is the environmental and economic impacts of illegal mining activities which have been overlapping small-scale legal mining activities and generating huge amounts of wastes and wastewater.

Illegal mining is popularly known as “galamsey” in Ghana, for instance, where more people are involved in illegal mining which technically means “mining without official permission or license” from Ghana’s regulatory bodies such as the Minerals Commission of Ghana.

Duncan (2020) noted that in Fenaso of Ghana, small-scale legal and illegal mining activities are controlled by rich people who use sophisticated equipment and methods that will have a long-term impact on communities and their respective natural resources. In 2020, an estimated 80,000 locals, including women, were believed to be involved in small-scale legal and illegal mining of gold in Ghana. It’s not so surprising that Ghana has the largest number of skilled mining workers who are involved in small-scale mining in Africa.

However, illegal mining has created many challenges in Fena River and incurred environmental and economic costs:

• Mining on the river bed has resulted in high levels of siltation that potentially dry up the river.
• The high levels of suspended solids produced (which can potentially carry heavy metals into the river) have resulted in high cost of water treatment in some water treatment plants and even led to their eventual closure as well.
• The rocks, gravels, and mud displaced during dredging have been disrupting the river’s natural flow pattern.
• Last but not the least: local fishermen who live in the area complain of reduced yield, meaning that they haven’t been enjoying as much fish yield or harvest as they used to in the past.

These challenges pose serious threats to the health of the people and communities in Fenaso and its environs, especially to people who depend on the river for many domestic activities. Based on the nature and level of illegal mining activities, the sustainability of Fena River’s flow cannot be guaranteed, but this is a topic of discussion for another day.

4. Illegal wildlife exports

Activities that are done to smuggle wildlife transnationally (i.e., across national borders) have the potential to endanger certain species and introduce diseases and pests into areas that do not have them. As a result, and maybe based on other reasons too, wildlife exportation is banned and hence illegal in some parts of the world.

As always, one thing or another makes an activity legal or illegal. Halstead (1992: 8) noted, for instance, that “opening up a legal export trade in captive-bred birds would provide opportunities for laundering wild-caught birds, and concealing rare species of similar appearance”. Common sense would tell government to prevent the export of captive-bred birds (i.e., make the export of captive-bred birds illegal) to prevent laundering of wild-caught birds, etc.

It may be important to warn: any government or legal market will eventually run at a loss, economically, and cause environmental problems if all it does is sit and watch people forge permits and other documentation to carry out illegal wildlife exploitation and exportation, while pests and diseases are entering into and growing in their numbers in the environment.

Concluding remarks

It’s not okay to assume that environmental and economic risks come only from “tangible” or major sources; however, it’s important to consider that they may come from intangible or minor sources as well. Intangible sources may be difficult or more difficult to nail, pin down, or identify.

For instance, scarcity is a tangible source, but is nevertheless significant. Scarcity is one of the main motivators for both legal and illegal kinds of activities. Another tangible one is poverty. No one can/should underestimate the impact of poverty which has strong links with unemployment. No one should underestimate the impact of unemployment which can tempt and make good people become bad, very bad, or worse.

Some poor workers or unemployed people benefit substantially by engaging in illegal activities such as illegal fishing, illegal logging, illegal mining, harmful forms of industrial and waste disposal, etc.

Pellow (2004) pointed out that the degree of social inequality is to such a degree that people continue to do illegal activities under the most harmful and damaging conditions, regardless of whether or not such activities are under legal markets.

Some people have more regard for the goods or services that will keep them alive than the legality (or lack of) that is backing the activity or activities done to attract goods or services for sustenance. 

Some people don’t care whether certain goods are legally or illegally acquired, or both; neither do they care whether the environment or economy recovers from illegal activities. At the end of the day, what matters is only the income or profit, especially if there’s no other means of subsistence.

We conclude by stating something important that McMullan and Perrier (2002) had noted: as demonstrated in Canada’s lobster industry, there may be strong support and massive involvement in activities that are formally regarded as illegal. Old fishing and hunting traditions that are deeply embedded in local cultures and communities continue to transgress environmental and criminal laws because of their age or degree of influence on whole groups of people. 

Addressing Profitable & Pleasurable Activities that are Environmentally Destructive

Many people who harm the environment may continue to do so if their activities, which contribute to environmental degradation remain nothing short of profitable or pleasurable, and it may become difficult to halt the harm.

As the discussion about saving the environment to prevent further environmental degradation or destruction continues to grow at national and world levels, it’s obvious but still a bit surprising that profit and pleasure—two main driving forces of consumerism and environmental destruction—are not often discussed or tackled, especially in this era that is characterized by environmental decay and is arguably witnessing a level of environmental degradation that has never ever been seen or recorded in history.  

World leaders and many people have wielded a hammer on discussions about environmental degradation; however, they would have to wield a hammer much more on the profitable and pleasurable activities that are increasingly causing further environmental destruction in these contemporary times.

Why not address the profitable and pleasurable schemes and activities that generate immense cash and fun but at the same time are also environmentally destructive?

It feels good to mine metals, manufacture airplanes, refine crude oil, and clear out whole forests; yes, these activities feel good all in the name of making money and enjoying the emotions that come with them. But the degree of environmental degradation that comes with these and many other activities—especially unchecked activities—would be detrimental to the lives of countless tons of generations presently living and countless others coming in the future.

It is foolish, useless, and time-wasting to welcome future generations with profitable and pleasurable activities that cause environmental degradation and public health problems; it is a waste of time, especially when some things can be done in time to manage things better or completely halt them if need be.

Today, consumption is based more on desires rather than on real needs, especially as the sheer volume of material goods and services is going up and has influenced how humans view life and view themselves in the midst of life; it has also influenced how people relate with others.

Unfortunately for the environment, the whole aim of many of today’s advertisements is to ensure that people use or consume everything that is being produced, even if people don’t necessarily need them

The whole aim of many people who advertise in today’s world is hinged upon unlimited and often unnecessary growth in directions that can be best described as “environmentally destructive”.

The current level of consumption, especially in affluent countries, is way out of control and has taken the environment backward, far behind what is truly sustainable. 

To make matters worse, what many people or consumers feel they need is, of course, heavily influenced by regular advertisements and advertising flyers that have been designed to keep people in line.

Unchecked advertising (which can be regarded as the face of modern-day consumerism) is limiting the choices and decisions of consumers and also increasingly degrading our environment—our home

It is quite unfortunate for our dear environment that the human beings of this age are increasingly being respected and defined by what they possess or the number of properties they have; this level of reasoning and others are contributing to continuous environmental deterioration.

Gorz (1989: 120) observed that the strive for the necessary and especially unnecessary material things of life has redefined the ways in which progress and success are rated or measured.

Mass acquisition is now much more highly regarded than production and has become the main goal of many people. The increase in desire for and accumulation of commodities—instilled by advertising or advertisements—is on par with the calculated efforts made through advertising efforts to halt any limits to material acquisition or growth.

Concluding remarks

Advertising affects audiences, but not always positively; at times there is obviously no direct or one-to-one relationship between what consumers actually want and what advertisers provide and advertise, which is based on the pleasures and profits they make for a living.

Unchecked advertising and product promotions should be blamed for influencing some of the trending and reigning consumer buying patterns and consumers’ desire for various kinds of environmentally destructive goods that are not really needed.

Just check out many cases of untold quantities of materials or goods that are lying in waste, but we can find a way out of the mess if we really want to.

Environmental Harm is About How We Harm the Environment and Ourselves

If it were in Nature’s character or nature to speak out as we do under duress, it would definitely complain each time we harm or commit crimes against Her—environmental harm, environmental crimes!

Our basic assumptions about what the environment and life in the environment should or should not be—as opposed to what it has been designed by the Creator to be from the beginning—continue to make it difficult for many people to agree with the notion that the blame for environmental harm and consequent degradation lies on our own heads­—on each one of us individuals.

How we harm the environment through our actions is basically a social process involving interactions with each other to meet our individual or collective needs in specific ways. Therefore, we deserve much of the blame before placing it further on capitalism, the variety of populations, and technology—the three broadly classified perpetrators of environmental crimes.

This post discusses environmental harm through the following nine ways in which we the people individually and collectively harmed or cooperated to harm the environment in the past or continue to harm it in the present:

1. Uncontrolled environmental (air, water, and land) pollution

In the process of treating natural resources as a commodity in the environment, mainly for the sake of making profits, we have succeeded in transforming our existing or potential use-values into exchange-values.

However, on the other end, we have over-supplied and excessively distributed many materials and goods through market mechanisms that unfortunately generate large quantities of waste byproducts and refuse, thereby causing untold environmental harm through uncontrolled air, water, and land pollution in many parts of the world.

2. The appropriation or transformation of Nature—especially without Her consent

Appropriation means any act that is done deliberately to acquire something without the permission of the owner. Appropriation is what we have been doing on a grand scale; it is thus the best word to describe acts employed in creating or producing genetically modified organisms or crops—things made without Nature’s consent and most especially without a care in the world for what Nature may want to remain UNCHANGED.

Nature and the environment were in the best possible states at the beginning when GOD created them and gave them to mankind for free. Why do we have to make or accept unnatural or artificial changes in our biodiversity without expecting Nature to resist or even strike back to maintain harmony in an aspect of life we know little or nothing about?

Just take a look at the many cases of genetic modifications or changes in organisms or food crops—i.e., changes in the GOD-given or natural codes of the Earth’s biological diversity. One must be prompted to ask: does Nature approve of such transformations or alterations? After any transformation, what will eventually—even if not immediately—happen to modified species or the people or living organisms that consume them?

For those who don’t know, genetic modification is the use of genetic engineering techniques to generally do any of the following:

• delete, multiply, or move genes within a living organism; transfer genes from one organism to another
• modify existing genes or produce novel genes and incorporate them into any organism, and
• utilize offspring or subsequent generations of modified organisms.

The issue here is not about whether Nature should or should not be transformed; the issue is rather about what Nature may want to remain UNCHANGED especially as She is in a constant state of transformation. Harvey (1996: 147) perfectly noted: “What exists “in nature” is in a constant state of transformation”.

And this is true: Mankind, animals, plants, the Earth’s crust, and even the stars and galaxies are all in a constant state of transformation. Therefore, is it still necessary to get into the equation, especially when we don’t know what the repercussions may be?

3. Over-exploitation of natural resources beyond Nature’s GOD-given ability to replenish them faster than we consume

We put immense pressure on and harm the environment by over-exploiting it when it can only reproduce or replenish natural resources at a rate that is, in my opinion, very okay but not as fast as we have been consuming or depleting it, especially within the last 50 or 100 years that have witnessed increasingly high rates of population growth.

Many peoples, lands, plants, and animals have all been traded, used to make profits, and over-exploited as properties, goods, or commodities in many instances and in many parts of the world in both the past and present times.

4. Biopiracy of organisms that belong to indigenous lands—especially without the people’s consent

Biopiracy also means “biological theft” (WordWeb Dictionary defines biopiracy as the “illegal collection of indigenous plants by corporations who patent them for their own use”)—in my opinion—by corporations who are mainly interested in making profits without the consent or any care for indigenous peoples who have the right to reject procedures foreign to their cultural or religious beliefs to protect their GOD-given resources in any way(s) that interests them.

Biopiracy thrives even when indigenous lands are not outrightly taken away from the owner (indigenous people) by a public authority or any government.

In the past, biopiracy was mainly spearheaded by technologically advanced nations, as they preyed on weaker peoples; nowadays, biopiracy continues in ways beyond what can best be regarded as outright expropriation. WordWeb Dictionary defines expropriation as: “taking out of an owner’s hands (especially taking property by public authority)”.

Rush (2002) pointed out that “colonialist intervention has meant that even with treaties and land rights in places such as British Columbia and Alberta in Canada, governments and companies are free to exploit indigenous lands for timber and water resources”. 

It seems the colonialists feel okay exploiting timber and water resources because maybe in their opinion timber and water are so cheap that they can be taken without the owners’ consent or without any care about the owners’ feelings.

In many places such as Australia, New Zealand, and North and South America, indigenous territories were once considered frontier lands and exploited without regard for the interests and ownership rights of indigenous inhabitants which were and are still ignored or considered irrelevant by the foreign invading individuals or colonial State(s).

South (2007: 239) narrates a familiar story involving the biopiracy of indigenous lands or people:

“…in 1986 Loren Miller obtained a US patent on a purported variety of an Amazonian vine also known as Ayahuasca. In 1994 the existence of this patent was discovered with some dismay by the body representing the organisations of indigenous peoples of the Amazon Basin. Ayahuasca has been cultivated and used for medicinal and religious purposes throughout this region for centuries so the evident question was how a stranger could ‘discover’ its properties and claim ownership? A long dispute followed with the patent first being overturned in 1999 but then reinstated in 2001. Future continuing dispute is likely”.

5. Environmental racism

In many cases, we the people harm the environment by knowingly or unknowingly practicing environmental racism, as demonstrated by both foreign and indigenous governments and companies that have made calculated efforts to exclude indigenous people or communities from participating in decision-making processes that can help protect or save their land and GOD-given natural resources.

Generally, there has been a history of complete disregard for the emotional, physical, and cultural well-being of indigenous peoples, and their love, appreciation, and desire to protect what GOD has given them.

6. Contamination of indigenous lands

Attempts have been made in the past to forcefully contaminate indigenous lands. For instance, the indigenous lands of the Tjarutja people at the site of Maralinga (in South Australia) were severely affected by the British nuclear testing program between 1955 and 1963, carried out by the British government with the approval of Australian authorities.

Attempts were made to forcefully remove the Tjarutja people from their lands because the British government knew about the extent of contamination, even when the Tjarutja people continued to travel through contaminated lands.

White and Habibis (2005: 170–171) noted that, because information about the nuclear tests on the indigenous lands of the Tjarutja people was classified as top secret, it took decades for detailed knowledge about the contamination to see the light of day.

Nowadays, even within countries that carry out nuclear testing, the lands belonging to specific tribes or communities are being selected and used for nuclear-testing against the wishes of the people, thus violating the people and their respective lands, and damaging their environment and culture.

7. Criminalization and unlawful arrest of indigenous peoples

Attempts by indigenous people to contest against the powers that be and insist that they must have a say in decision-making processes that affect their environments and themselves have often been met with hostility and unfriendly or even coercive responses. Robyn (2002: 198), noted that attempts by the Indian people in North America, for instance, to challenge the government and multinational corporate giants through political activism in order to halt environmentally destructive projects on their lands were criminalized and the people were arrested to silence their claims.

8. Unnecessary pressure on especially poor developing countries to adopt genetically modified (GM) crops

A number of countries that have been unwilling to adopt genetically modified (GM) crops/food were subjected to unnecessary pressures to comply with this global political economy agenda that promotes GM technologies and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) along with the consumption of GM crops, all produced by large transnational corporations and forced on people who have serious reservations about possible risks that GM crops may pose to human health in their indigenous land.

According to Walters (2005: 39), instances where poor developing countries refused to adopt GMOs have, in turn, been interpreted as a contravention of international environmental law which the world knows is meant to safeguard the autonomy of biological diversity of individual nation states and to protect them from the exploitive and aggressive trade policies of powerful Western states.

Zambia, for instance, was once under unnecessary pressure to introduce and adopt GM crops, but the country never conformed. In some media forums, US officials had criticized Zambia’s refusal to adopt GM crops.

The rejection by Zambia was based on concerns regarding any potential harm the GM crops may inflict on the country’s population and biodiversity. As Walters (2005) noted, grain (especially maize and cassava) is a foundation/one of the pillars of Zambian society, highly valued culturally, socially, and politically, dating back as much as thousands of years.

At the end of the day, the Zambian government or authorities, backed by widespread popular support, were being cautious as any wise person would and should do when safeguarding biological integrity and preventing the pollution of locally grown grains, thereby placing more power in the hands of local grain growers. GM maize is regarded in some quarters as an altered specie that is harmful to human health and could contaminate the existing varieties of natural maize.

The Zambian Minister of Agriculture told Walters:

“We are adopting the precautionary principle on GM food and until we have more accurate scientific facts that clearly show that it is safe, we will not introduce it into our environment … I am wanting to explore the potential of our biodiversity before we destroy what we already freely have, what God has given us for free. How can we accept GMOs when I know that such technology could destroy our biodiversity, the possibilities of which are still unknown (Walters 2005: 29)?”.

9. The development of certain kinds of unnecessary consumption habits and incorporation of same into everyday life

The desire and drive to constantly look for new investment opportunities to maintain, make, and increase profit creates new forms of consumption which unfortunately builds up the temptation to consume unnecessarily or on a “more than required” basis, thereby consequently leading to the development of unnecessary eating and spending habits which, over time, unconsciously seeps into everyday life and negatively impacts personal health and the environment.

Who are the Actual Perpetrators of Environmental Crimes?

Those studies that mainly blame capitalism and its corporations for environmental crimes are somewhat limited in scope because they do not look further at the actions (negligent or otherwise) of the individuals (managers, workers, etc) within individual corporations and among a conglomerate of corporations. People or populations have always birthed and run corporations, and this shall remain unchanged.

Many of the people whom we see go to work each day live in houses or environments that all contribute to environmental problems en masse; therefore, it may not be wrong to say that environmental harm is omnipresent, at least here on Earth, and corporations do not deserve all the blame, even though it’s quite obvious that some or many of their environmentally degrading actions are being overseen or perpetrated by careless individuals.

So who are the actual perpetrators of environmental crimes?

Although the following three broad categories of perpetrators should be blamed for environmental crimes, it’s actually the individuals and groups from countless backgrounds and socio-economic situations within each category that deserve the blame:

1. Capitalism: corporations

By virtue of its actions, capitalism, through transnational and large business corporations, commits some of the most significant environmental harms that are bounded mainly by political economic contexts but still harm the environment immensely.

The environmental crimes perpetrated by capitalism take place side by side with the highest levels of production on state, national, and global scales. As proven during many occasions throughout history, the strive for profits involves the exploitation of human beings at the point of production; nowadays, the strive for profits and power over new markets over-exploits nature by overusing natural resources much faster than nature is designed to replenish them.

Global capitalism has sucked the life out of many birds in the air, many fishes in the sea, many animals in the forest, and many plants that live in their respective homes. The situation, which remains stronger even more now than ever before, prompted Foster (2007) to note that “the fundamental character of global capitalism is left unchallenged”.

On one end capitalism and corporations act in indiscriminate ways that degrade the environment; on another other end, corporations heavily influence governments through corporate lobbying efforts and other acts that translate into massive environmental degradation (Beder 2006).

However, capitalism alone should not be solely blamed for environmental crime; population and technology also deserve individual places in the blame equation.

2. Population: the masses

Population pressure is also a driver of environmental harm. The masses also deserve a fair share of the blame when it comes to environmental crimes and degradation. Overpopulation is now at its peak, it seems like more than ever before, and it can be so disheartening to see most of the world’s poor and dispossessed in such weak and unhealthy circumstances that they aren’t able to protect their respective environments with the levels of protection they deserve.

Although the population of especially poor people can be blamed for some of the world’s worst cases of environmental crime and degradation, population control may not be the perfect solution to the problem which also has part of its roots in capitalism and technology, side by side with population—the masses.

3. Technology: application of science

It’s true that technology solves many problems and makes life easy or easier in countless ways; however, based on the extent of environmental degradation that has occurred in many parts of the world, as a result of many technological activities, it may not be wrong to state that environmental crimes and degradation seem to have found another path and upped their tempo most especially since the advent of The Industrial Revolution.

Even many suggested “technological solutions” have questionable loopholes that may only exacerbate the extreme nature of the present-day environmental crisis which will not come to a complete halt by completely halting the use of technology or all forms of technology.

Concluding remark

For environmental catastrophe to be averted, any solution(s) to environmental crimes have to transcend the highest levels of environmentally damaging activities that emanate from capitalism, population, and technology.

9 Cases of Transnational Environmental Harm that Can Make Us Wiser

Environmental harm—i.e., “harming the environment”—inevitably occurs all around the world and can take place anywhere and overlap between diverse kinds of legal and illegal and useful and useless activities that show an obvious direct relationship between the increasing globalization of different economies and the environmental degradation of ecosystems, habitats, and living spaces/environments that belong to many of the world’s poorest peoples.

The growth and expansion of corporations that are headquartered in developed or advanced nations only continue to enrich their pockets, particularly in nations that have weak government and environmental regulations and enticing tax incentives.

Most especially, the environments that belong to blacks, minorities, and poor or indigenous peoples have been stripped of crude oil, minerals, and other kinds of natural resources which have been extracted in ways that devastated their ecosystems, destroyed their livelihood and culture, and polluted their groundwater, soil, and atmosphere. To summarize the situation better in one sentence: minorities and poor people worldwide are at the receiving end of all forms of legal and illegal waste disposal practices.

Schmidt (2004) and Harvey (1996) noted there is sizeable evidence that globalization is the driving force behind the transfer of dirty industrial wastes to environments in Third World countries. Brook (2000), Bullard (1994), and Simon (2000) all pointed out that there is strong evidence, internationally, that poor people and people of color are often forced to live close to waste disposal sites. Pellow (2004) and Julian (2004) individually coined this act as “environmental racism”.

The relationship between local and global activities that cause harm or degrade the environment can be regarded as transnational activities which are the hallmarks of transnational environmental harm in the present-day world.

Transnational environmental harm is actually global in scope and has characteristics and trends associated with globalization which is the global or worldwide industrial growth of companies belonging to developed or advanced nations that dictate 21st-century capitalism.

We now look at nine cases of environmental harm that occurred in the past:

1. On December 26 (Boxing Day), 2004, the powerful tsunami in Somalia overturned reinforced containers of hazardous toxic waste that European companies had been dumping near the offshore for more than ten years without any supervision by a proper regulatory body in the African “failed state”. The force of the tsunami tore apart some containers that were storing lead, mercury, cadmium, and radioactive waste from Europe’s industrial processes.

The United Nations reported that fumes and toxic dust killed an unknown number of people; Bridgland (2006) pointed out that European companies had been giving Somalian warlords money for a long time to dispose of their waste, but the warlords used the money to purchase arms instead of treating and disposing of the waste which was were never really regarded in the grand scheme of things.

The warlords and European companies were not responsible for the tsunami, but they were obviously responsible for not treating and disposing of waste in a timely manner.

2. Rosoff et al. (1998: 97) noted that the USA was giving some impoverished countries which had massive foreign debts as little as $3 per ton to dispose of toxins on the environment in their borders. The rate is very low compared to the high cost of legitimately disposing of toxic waste in the USA which sat at about $2,500 per ton around the time.

Bridgland (2006) noted that rubbish from North America and European was being dumped in landfill sites off the coastline of Africa and plastic waste was being buried in the Egyptian desert; in addition, French and German radioactive waste was finding its way to African states in one or another.

It’s obvious that Third World countries and advanced nations never really cared enough about the environment, especially the environments in Third World countries.

3. In August 2006, about 600 tons of petroleum and caustic soda were dumped at 18 public waste sites (open-air type) in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, causing vomiting, nausea, nosebleeds, and spreading an awful rotten egg smell stench around the city that had about five million inhabitants around the time. It’s quite obvious that the government dumped most of the petroleum and caustic soda residues in poorer parts of the city and on a roadside field located beside a prison because the government didn’t value both the prisoners and poor people very highly. Another dump site included the city’s main garbage dump at the lagoon side.

Sixteen people died as a result of the waste dumping, more than 100,000 people had to seek medical attention, and about 75 people were hospitalized. Amsterdam News (2006) reported that the Ivory Coast government planned to destroy the plots of tomatoes and bananas that were located close to the main rubbish dumps; and because of fish contamination, the government banned fishing in Abidjan’s vast lagoon.

The environmental harm and disaster in Ivory Coast would not have occurred if good choices and decisions were made.

4. Lambrecht (2006) observed that Lagos businessmen were paying American brokers and scrap dealers money to ship useless computers, working computers, used laptops, old televisions, and other low-quality electronic equipment to Lagos. On one hand, the Americans avoid high dumping costs in the USA; on the other hand, the Nigerians make profit from crap but continue to throw away what is remaining or much less valuable into the environment.

The waste from deals involving American brokers and scrap dealers contains toxins such as mercury, lead, and other chemicals and wastes that are eventually transferred from rich countries to poor countries like Nigeria.

5. A study by Robinson (2000) noted the classic case of American-owned factories across the Mexico border where there were about 2,000 maquiladoras (assembly plants in Mexico, near the United States border) freely polluting and discharging high levels of chemical pollution, thereby causing contamination, exposing the environment to toxic materials, and degrading the border environment while at the same time affecting workers and residents who have stuff to do around the location.

6. Low and Gleeson (1998) noted the immense environmental damage that the activities of Australian mining corporation BHP brought on the Ok Tedi River in PNG (Papua New Guinea). Because the PNG government depended too much on earnings from the Ok Tedi copper mine, one can hardly disagree that the government knowingly or unknowingly cooperated with BHP to destroy or degrade its local rainforest and a greater part of the river system.

Low and Gleeson (1998) pointed out that many villagers lost their whole environment which completely supported their way of life.

7. The Blacksmith Institute (2007) had identified 200,000 people who were to be potentially affected by pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, fly ash, nitrogen oxides, lead, arsenic, etc., as a result of nearby tar refineries, coal mines, and steel factories that have had a striking negative impact on air, land, and water quality, including drinking water.

8. The Blacksmith Institute (2007) had again in another different scenario identified 250,000 people who were to be potentially affected by pollution in Kitwe which is Zambia’s second largest city; this time the environmental threat was due to activities during the city’s history of lead mining and smelting which has left the city’s soil and water poisoned from lead concentrations.

9. Casey (2007) pointed out that not less than one hundred thousand marine animals, one million seabirds, and countless fish were being killed each year in the North Pacific, either as a result of unknowingly eating plastic waste that spans across hundreds of kilometers of sea length, or as a result of being trapped by plastic waste and drowning to death. 

Concluding remarks

These nine cases highlight the degree to which capitalist globalization and state policies drive and continue to increase environmentally degrading or destructive activities. In addition, they express a feeling that is hidden but obvious: developed or advanced nations seem to believe that waste should be avoided by rich countries and continue to be a problem for only poor countries or their poor and wretched citizens.

It’s unfortunate to see the rich West transfer unpopular and illegal hazard-producing wastes across national boundaries to nation-states that often welcome such transfers of waste and regard them as “investments” in their own lands and communities.

We—I mean “all of us”—have to work harder to prevent transnational environmental crimes and harms which are global and continue to be perpetrated together by both rich and poor countries.

What Constitutes an Environmental Crime—or Environmental Harm?

If GOD Himself doesn’t tell us the exact things that are harmful or wrong, how should we—I mean, humanity—know, note, or define it? A quick look at the Old Testament Bible will reveal that at certain times in the past, GOD advised His people the Israelites to keep the environment clean or tidy, even though cleaning the environment was and still isn’t one of GOD’s laws in the ten commandments. This means GOD valued the environment on Earth, even though He never resided and still doesn’t reside in it.

Environmental issues have attracted a lot of attention and public interest in this age. Although what constitutes environmental harm, and consequently an environmental crime, depends on the kind of activity or relationship going on between a person or group of people and nature, the world as a whole still doesn’t seem to have made an agreement on how “harm” and consequently “crime” should be defined. 

It is important to note the usual divide: on one side you have those who consider strict legal procedure or definitions when defining harm; on the other side you have those who consider a broader socio-legal procedure or approach that considers detailed investigation of any activity or phenomenon that causes harm—in this instance, environmental harm, not based solely on definitions created and established by the State.

When it comes to agreeing on what environmental harm means—or what constitutes environmental harm—it seems the greatest challenge is the obvious fact that certain activities considered by many people to be the most serious kinds of environmental harm are in fact “normal social practices” or legal, even though they are obviously environmentally damaging.

Agreeing on a common definition is further complicated due to the “politics of denial” whereby any environmental injury or damage is either ignored, changed, redefined, or adulterated to make them look less relevant, completely irrelevant, or much less damaging than they actually are, even when they haven’t yet been weighed against the views or recommendation(s) of either a nation-state criminal justice system or a high-level academic criminological research/study.

So what on GOD’s Earth makes some companies and nation-states justify and even legitimatize some kinds of environmentally unfriendly activities? Why do some nation-states allow media campaigns that deceive the public by not revealing the actual truth about the nature of environmentally damaging activities corporate business practices carried out in regard to the environment? What makes some nation-states and their politicians legitimatize the arguments of critics who are in support of some kinds of technology and activities that harm the environment?

Nation-states or governments that deny or alter evidence of environmental harm usually do so to get closer and closer to achieving their economic aims through different forms of sustainable development that end up degrading or damaging the environment with every passing day.

But those who are objective see that what is wrong is plain wrong because the real concept of “harm” ought to take into consideration any activities that have a negative impact on the environment and people, even if they may be regarded as legal or legitimate.

It would be easier to agree on the kinds of activities that constitute environmental harm by considering the kinds of issues such activities cause to both mankind and the environment. Examples of activities that at least constitute gross environmental harm:

• The environmental degradation of people’s lands, knowingly or unknowingly perpetrated by companies with or without the knowledge of nation-states or governments.
• The exploitation of biotechnology and manipulation of nature, especially when it comes to the genetics of animal and plant species.
• The trans-border transportation and dumping of waste materials or products on other or foreign lands.
• The generation of toxic waste in less developed nation-states or countries by foreign companies that are based in developed or industrialized nations.
• Pollution of and deterioration in the quality and quantity of available drinking water worldwide. This is compounded by the influence or politics of companies in controlling water resources
• The institutionalized abuse of animals and destruction of highly efficient ecosystems.

In addition to these, there are or may be many other cases in the future. But for now, one may wonder why specific environmentally destructive activities events, or incidents attract sanctions from powerful nation-states or organizations, while the same nation-states or organizations still allow other ecologically or environmentally harmful practices to continue. For instance, Halsey (1997a, 1997b) identified some social practices that are legal but at the same time environmentally destructive such as the clear felling of old-growth forests.

Concluding remarks

At the end of the day, the definition of environmental harm is in the eyes of the beholder and depends on the interpretation of the justice system and legislators. However, it would be important to listen to different voices, regardless of status.

It is crucial to consult the testing and diagnosis that scientific research/study provides, especially in light of ongoing theoretical developments. However, it is equally crucial to properly scrutinize scientific knowledge claims and establish criteria to determine who or what suffers from the effects of environmental victimization.

6 Importances of Privacy & Security for Your Business

What has your online or offline business been doing to demonstrate to your customers and the general public that privacy and security is important to it? It seems many business owners aren’t living up to expectations when it comes to matters on privacy and security, especially on the internet.

A few decades ago, when there were fewer ways to hack, many hackers were not around; even the few that existed didn’t have the type of advanced technology that could use personal data against people. Therefore, data privacy and security was not as much of an issue as it is today.

Nowadays, people are more interested in knowing what exactly businesses are doing with their precious data which could become destructive if not protected properly. Any good business, big or small, would have to ensure that their customers’ data is not tampered with, sold, or misused.

Privacy and security is now a huge concern and is gradually becoming one of the most important aspects of anything that is internet-related. This is the main reason why the privacy and security of your customers and all internet users have been addressed by various regulations like GDPR (general data protection regulation) and CCPA (California consumer privacy act). The former applies to EU residents’ data, while the latter applies to California residents’ data.

The GDPR and CCPA laws are not the only ones that serve to protect customers’ privacy and security; it’s important for customers to be aware of others out there. Notwithstanding, if you’re interested in finding out the importance of data and security to your business, follow this post right through.

The importances of privacy and security to your business on the internet environment are as follows:

1. Privacy & security can gain your customers’ trust

Your customers are even more important than your business, most especially because your business just can’t thrive without them. If you sufficiently implement security controls in your business to protect personal data, then you’re preventing data breaches, access to credit card details, and sensitive information from being stolen, all at a time. If you succeed, it will definitely help to gain your customers’ trust.

2. Privacy & security can attract customers to your brand

Customers care about their privacy and security, and many do a lot of research before submitting their data and buying products. However, they are reluctant to share personal data with platforms that are not yet well known or have no proven track record on privacy and security. Even if your business is not just up there yet, it should still be able to prove that it is on at least a sufficient level privacy and security, as this can attract customers who are willing to take a risk or “test the waters”. You should do all you can to enhance or safeguard your company’s privacy and security levels, religiously, so that you can eventually have loyal customers in the long run.

3. Privacy & security can prevent data breaches and cyber crime

Implementation of strong firewalls and security safeguards is one of the main priorities in the protection of personal data, and it is a practice that should be common to all businesses today because of the immense benefits it brings in its train, especially the reduction or total prevention of security issues that result in privacy breaches and theft of customer information. No data breach indirectly implies that your business won’t lose the trust and loyalty of its customers.

4. Privacy & security can help your business meet up with compliance requirements

Businesses that do not legally comply with regulations that border on contractual requirements regarding privacy protection risk losing customers and valuable business relationships. You have to comply with regulations for the public to regard or see your business as one that complies with general legal requirements. Any company that fails to comply or implement customer privacy protection regulations usually faces penalties and could lose some, much, or all of its customer base.

5. Privacy & security can protect your business’ reputation

Privacy and security and the rights tied to it are crucial because they protect users’ dignity and integrity by ensuring that their personal information is not mishandled, altered, or stolen. A track record of upholding this recommendable practice establishes your company’s reputation and protects it, even when minor issues occur which are not your own fault or of your own making.

6. Privacy & security can help you avoid legal actions

Businesses that either violate or do not comply with consumer privacy rights face the risk of being sued by any customer(s) who believes their personal information has been mishandled in any way. Any legal action can be costly for your company, especially because lawsuits attract negative publicity for businesses and give the public the impression that your company is a violator of consumer privacy rights. Any platform that has sound privacy and security measures would be in the best position to avoid such incidences.

 

Why You Should Respect & Care for the Environment Much More

Is it just my opinion or the opinion of many others that the environment deserves much more respect than all humans have been giving it, especially during this age?

Anyways, it is my opinion that the environment is bigger than us all, not only in terms of size but much more in terms of what it offers and is capable of offering if only we halt the current direction that humanity as a whole has been taking the environment, especially towards possible total destruction.

GOD forbid destruction. But if we gradually sow environmental degradation or destruction, as the case has been the case mostly during the past few decades, we will eventually reap environmental degradation or destruction, as we have been witnessing. And the world is still watching.

A quick look around will convince you that many people do not care for the environment at all. Even amongst those who do care, you will find those that either care for the environment only to some extent or they do not care enough or as much as they can or should—like me! Just being honest because I can always do better.

I believe that only GOD completely cares for the environment and at this stage of the world, only He can restore it to its glorious days as it was way back in the beginning. Since GOD entrusted the environment in our care, I think—and many would agree—that we have obviously done a very very bad job at caring for and managing it. In the first place, we do not even respect the environment that much. Just look around you and see what different people do.

GOD will hold all of us accountable and to the same standards. But to whom much is given, much is expected. Therefore, GOD may hold politicians and people who are more knowledgeable people—people “who should know better”—to different and higher standards.

Even though a combination of our actions, natural catastrophes, and scientific research continue to warn us that we may not have much time on our side to turn the tide, we can still do a better job at caring for the environment from any point in time.

Five reasons why you should respect and care for the environment much more

1. Respect and care for the environment much more because it provides life-support systems that sustain our very physical or material form of existence. It is unfortunate that many economies are struggling to tap into the immense benefits that are inherent in all life-supporting systems and life-sustaining services. When it comes down to the environment of this age, humanity is like the prodigal son who devalued his main GOD-given gift and needs to go back to GOD the Father of all.

2. Respect and care for the environment much more because it provides goods and services directly to consumers, and basic materials to produce shelter and clothing. In other words/a broader picture: the environment provides each economy with raw materials which they transform into consumer products through energy and the production process. Unfortunately, in one way or another, different environments return these raw materials as waste products in different forms and streams back into the environment.

3. Respect and care for the environment much more because it directly or indirectly provides the nutrients, nutrition, and vitality we ingest from food and drink. It is quite unfortunate the level to which we have been polluting the air, wetlands, and water quality, and destroying the natural order of plant and animal biodiversity that make us comfortable and healthy.

4. Respect and care for the environment much more because of the countless beautiful treats it provides us with: the exhilarating waterfalls or valleys, the total serenity of some wildernesses or oceans, the breathtaking beauty of many sunsets or clouds, etc.—countless and priceless treats. Unfortunately, we have been polluting the environments that provide these, and we have been doing it in much the same way or maybe worse than we have been polluting air, wetlands, and water quality, and destroying the natural order of plant and animal biodiversity.

5. Respect and care for the environment much more because of the variety of non-substitutable unique gifts it provides without expecting anything back—except maybe at least some respect or recognition in return! Breathable air, for instance, has no substitute. The Moon has no substitute. Sunlight also has no substitute. Therefore, by implication, the Sun which produces sunlight has no substitute. There is just no substitute for countless other things, whether we think they are essential or not. It seemed GOD had said there’ll be no substitute for some unique or particular things.

If the Sun or Moon were nearby, around us, or thousands of miles away from us here on Earth, I believe that we might have gotten them messed up too, as we have done with every substitutable thing that is nearby, around us, or thousands of miles away from us here on Earth.

Concluding remarks

The implication of how we treat our planet and its immediate environs as a closed system can be summed up in the first law of thermodynamics which is “energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed”. This implies that we cannot destroy any waste of materials (or any kind of materials) by creating or pouring them into the environment; in other words: we can only destroy waste by not creating it in the first place. Yes, we can completely destroy wastes by recycling or reusing it!

Alternatively, the implication of how we treat our planet and its immediate environs as a closed system can be summed up in the spiritual law which states that “you shall reap whatever you sow”. This implies that if we sow environmentally destructive activities or trends in the environment, we will eventually reap environmental degradation and destruction.

Degraded environments have environmental problems and excessive wastes which further depreciates the totality of the best material asset we’ve got, which is still the environment. Symptoms of degraded environments are easy to notice: air pollution which causes respiratory problems; polluted drinking water which causes cancer; smog which leads to reduced vision; climate change which causes flooding in coastal areas; etc.

We, I mean humanity as a whole, can do a much better job in terms of respecting and caring for the environment in the neatest way possible in order not to impede the countless varieties of services it serves us with during our temporary physical life which is only a small part of our eternal spiritual life.

11 Types of Non-hazardous Solid Waste Streams

Definition of non-hazardous solid waste: What is non-hazardous solid waste?

Non-hazardous waste is any waste that, although is not toxic and may not cause serious harm to human health, is still not worthy of being recommended or suggested for a place in the environment. Non-hazardous waste can generally be defined as any type of industrial waste which, according to regulations, should not be discharged in a dumpster or sewage line. Non-hazardous wastes are often generated from non-hazardous materials which are any goods that do not pose a risk to human and public/environmental health.

Types of non-hazardous solid waste streams

Non-hazardous waste streams can be classified into eleven major types which can pose a risk, cause health and safety problems to people, and have a damaging impact on the environment.

1. Agricultural & animal waste

This type of non-hazardous waste stream, produced mainly from farms, vineyards, orchards, dairies, etc., consists of residues from crops, residues from food processing, decomposing fruits and vegetables, animal feed, animal urine and droppings, dead animals, etc., which can all degrade water quality and cause aesthetic and health problems.

2. Cement Kiln dust waste

This non-hazardous waste stream consists of the solid, fine-grained, very alkaline waste—mostly unreacted raw material—that is discharged from the exhaust gases of cement kilns and cement factories.

3. Construction & demolition wastes

This type of non-hazardous waste stream is generated by construction and demolition activities; contaminated soil, fiberglass, roofing materials, electrical wiring and fixtures, asphalt from shingle and paving, different kinds of plastics, rubble and masonry,  demolished concrete and other construction materials, metals (aluminium, iron, lead, mercury, copper, etc.) of various kinds, paint containers, waste oil and grease, roofing materials, vinyl, drywall and plaster, different kinds of wood, chemical additives, preservatives, wood contaminants, paints and coatings, varnishes, pesticide, herbicide, insulation containing asbestos, chemical containers, etc.

4. Crude oil, coal, and natural gas waste

This non-hazardous waste stream includes all wastes that are generated by processes in the development, exploration, and production of natural gas, crude oil, and geothermal energy; it includes thorium and its decay products, uranium and its decay products, radium and its decay products, and lead-210, coal ash, boiler slag, and flue gas materials from reduced sulfur dioxide emissions.

5. Industrial wastes

This type of non-hazardous waste stream consists of mainly wastewater and may be solids, liquids, or gases. Industrial wastes include but may not be limited to paper, packaging material, straw, cardboard, metals, heavy metals, plastics of all types, sludge, wood, street sweepings, gravel and dirt, ashes, food waste from cafeterias, glass, animal remains, non-combustible inert materials, and chemicals including resins, oils, paints, solvents, adhesives, raw chemical materials, finished products, and byproducts.

6. Medical waste

This non-hazardous waste stream is infectious and may consist of solid, liquid, or sharps. Medical wastes include body fluids, body parts, blood-saturated material, cultures, human blood, blood products, a variety of infectious agents, sharps, contaminated animal carcasses from research work, and contaminated gloves and towels.

7. Mineral processing waste

This type of non-hazardous waste stream is generated whenever there is a change in chemical content during the smelting, electrolytic refining, or digestion processes of concentrating and extracting minerals from the surrounding material. Some related minerals include aluminium, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, selenium, strontium, uranium, etc.

8. Mining waste

This non-hazardous waste stream includes wastes generated from beneficiation (crushing and separating ore), extraction, and processing. Mining wastes include waste rock, tailings, mine water, water treatment sludge, processing wastes, non-metallic byproducts of the metal smelting process, and gaseous wastes and particulates from dust, sulfur oxides, and other gases.

9. Municipal solid waste

Schools, hospitals, and businesses generate this type of non-hazardous waste stream. Municipal solid waste includes clothing, newspaper, glass, electronics, paperboard, metals, road debris, paint and solvents, furniture and appliances, used oil, batteries, volatile goods or materials, paper, cardboard, plastics, yard trimmings, food waste, packaging from various products, volatile materials, used oil, batteries, household cleaners, pesticides, etc. Some cities regard municipal waste as the total city waste which includes institutional waste, industrial waste, construction and demolition wastes, and wastes generated by the city’s municipal services including waste treatment plants.

10. Sewage treatment wastes

This non-hazardous waste stream is generated by sewage treatment plants/wastewater treatment processes and consists mainly of sewage sludge in liquid, slurry, semi-solid, or solid form. Sewage treatment wastes include contaminated liquids and solids from sewers, industrial wastes from businesses and industries, and biogas can be another waste by-product of sewage treatment if anaerobic treatment processes are involved.

11. Special wastes

This type of non-hazardous waste stream is a category of non-hazardous waste that was established by the United States Congress for some particular wastes that are being generated in large volumes but still not regarded as life-threatening or as risky as hazardous waste. Special wastes consist of materials from commercial combustion, oil and gas drilling, cement kilns, mining, air pollution control residues, etc.

21 Specific Environmental Problems

1. Air pollution (outdoor and indoor)

Air pollution can be outdoor or indoor. People are exposed to many different types of air pollutants in outdoor/outside air, and their presence depends on the location, weather conditions, time of year, and various environmental factors; also, people are often exposed to different kinds of indoor air pollutants in their various residences, thereby facing the risk of potential diseases, nausea, fatigue, headaches, and direct or indirect health hazards. Air pollutants cause environmental problems and include but may not be limited to tobacco smoke, asbestos, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, biological contaminants including allergens, radon, formaldehyde, pesticide residues, radon, respirable particles from sources of combustion, wood smoke, and volatile organic compounds.

2. Asbestos particles

Due to the importance of asbestos in buildings/structures, people usually find themselves exposed to it and other materials that contain asbestos and release particles or fibers into the air, thereby constituting one of the specific/main environmental problems and causing asbestosis, pleural disorders, mesothelioma, non-malignant lung, lung cancer, and other cancers.

3. Brownfield sites

A brownfield is a property that, although contaminated/polluted by a variety of chemicals that are enclosed firmly in the earth and/or the water beneath it, is still being considered for reuse or redevelopment purposes. The problems associated with the reuse/conversion of brownfield sites include environmental liability for the past and future of the property, financial challenges due to the nature of the land tied to the brownfield, the nature and cost of cleaning up the site and establishing a reuse plan which must fit with economic and community environmental goals.

4. Chromated copper arsenic

Chromated copper arsenic is a chemical used in the manufacture of wood products to resist rot and decay; however, it is highly toxic and can cause cancer in humans.

5. Combustion pollutants

Combustion pollutants include particles or gases, usually nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates. Products of combustion of organic materials exist in different types of chambers including ovens, fireplaces, furnaces, and ranges; they can also be discharged from working water heaters and clothing dryers.

6. Drywall (from China)

Drywall from China is known to discharge volatile sulfur compounds that often corrode copper water lines in homes where it has been/is being used. It also causes corrosion within wiring, electrical switches, and any locations where copper is used. Health issues include eye irritation, asthma, breathing problems, respiratory irritations, and headaches.

7. Emergencies and disasters

The frequent occurrence of natural disasters such as tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, life-threatening heat conditions, winter storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc., causes substantial damage to human health and property like buildings and other kinds of structures.

8. Environmental injuries

Many badly constructed homes and environments are usually unsafe and have been associated with many unintentional injuries, and even deaths due to falls, cracks, fires, etc.

9. Food production

Millions of people get sick from contaminated food due to improper refrigeration and inadequate storage of cooked food. In addition, outbreaks of diseases are quite common due to improper hand washing, sanitation, and cleaning of surfaces.

10. Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is a colorless flammable gas mainly discharged outdoors/in outdoor air from power plants, automobile exhausts, and manufacturing facilities. At high concentrations, it causes burning in the nose, eyes, and lungs.

11. Hazardous household waste

Hazardous household waste includes all types of batteries, compact fluorescent light bulbs, various electronic devices, discarded surgical gloves, medical waste including bandages, discarded needles, etc. They cause public health problems, especially when discharged into water, thereby contaminating it.

12. Insects and rodents

Insects and rodents spread a lot of diseases throughout the world. When any microorganism that causes a specific disease is present in a bird, wild animal, or human being, an insect or rodent transmits the disease from the bird, wild animal, or human being to a new bird, wild animal, or human being.

13. Lead

It is difficult to clean up lead dust properly, especially after it spreads easily through structures or exterior soil. Children may chew on windowsills and household materials that contain lead, while others play outside and unknowingly ingest the lead which has already contaminated the surrounding soil. Accumulation of lead in a child’s blood and soft tissue over time causes toxic effects on the brain and many organs and systems.

14. Mold

Mold poses a highly significant public health problem within every type of building or structure. The growth of mold is supported by moisture. The dust within the homes may contain mold, readily become airborne, and be inhaled by people living around it, causing asthma, allergic reactions, respiratory problems, and pneumonia.

15. Noise

Noise is created by industries, roads, highways, railroads, airplanes, and many other sources. It can distract one’s attention and be very annoying. Uncontrolled or excess noise interferes with sleep and can impair one’s ability to perform various tasks.

16. On-site sewage disposal

Septic tanks and on-site sewage systems are the main means of disposing liquid waste in many suburban and rural areas. However, many septic tanks and sewage systems fail due to poor planning or design: many types of soil are not just able to accept high quantities of discharged liquid waste.

17. On-site water source

On-site water sources such as wells are quite common where on-site sewage disposal systems are being used. The reduction in the quantity of water from the environment (especially soil) for long distances draws a lot of pollutants that were buried or have been existing in dump sites. Contaminated groundwater causes various kinds of diseases in some people who come in contact with it.

18. Pesticides

Although pesticides help to eliminate diseases and protect our homes from insects, they often constitute an environmental problem when people are exposed to various kinds and concentrations of pesticides for long periods of time.

19. Poisoning

People usually inhale or ingest different substances including cleaning products, prescription medicines, cosmetics, personal care products, pain relievers, etc. Considerable or high levels of ingestion pose a major public health problem; for instance, poisoning occurs in elderly people as a result of confusion, poor vision, and overuse of prescription medicines. Carbon monoxide discharge and poisoning occur from stoves, gas generators, appliances, and poorly vented furnaces and fireplaces.

20. Solid waste disposal

The production of raw materials, disposal of materials, and production of new products release gases that can change the ambient atmosphere, cause unnecessary weather changes, and create a ton of environmental problems. Generally, there are various types of waste collection, storage, and disposal systems and streams that create different types of environmental problems

21. Swimming areas/environments

The health benefits of swimming and that other water-based cannot be underrated, and swimming is one of the most popular exercises or sports in the world. However, many badly managed swimming pools are known to be the source of recreational water illness which is generally tied to swimming areas and may be caused by microorganisms that enter the body after water from swimming pools is swallowed. Poor water quality in recreational water areas is due to contamination by organic matter, feces, or free-living microorganisms. Beach sand might be contaminated by animal activities and droppings.

20 Best Practices for Improving Built Environments in Urban Areas

It is important to have best practices in place to improve the built environment which is the sum total of all physical changes made by mankind on the natural environment, including homes, communities, businesses, schools, places of worship, roads, highways, dams, waterworks, industrial areas, agricultural areas, landfills, etc.

Although the built environment has been very beneficial to mankind, it interrupts the workings of the natural environment which includes the air we breathe, the water and land we use, and the inherent or surrounding ecosystems where communities of organisms interact in ways that sustain the natural environment which, on the other hand, helps to regulate the quantity and frequency of precipitation, the ambient air temperatures, and prevent flooding.

The nature of mankind’s built environment has a huge impact on everything, including everybody; the impact is even greater in substandard and badly managed built environments, causing health, welfare, and health problems for inhabitants due to poor housing conditions and discharge of pollutants from motor vehicles, industries, and other sources.

Poorly constructed or managed built environments, houses, and the condition of neighborhoods cause physical, social, and mental health problems including depression, anxiety, asthma, heart disease, etc. Therefore best practices are required to improve built or developed environments, especially in urban areas.

The following best practices are highly recommended for built environments, especially the housing aspect which includes building location, design, renovation, maintenance, renovation, and sustainability:

1. Inspect every existing structure and ensure that all concerned individuals employ best practices via local zoning, housing, and other codes or regulations.

2. Assess all existing structures to determine how to make them more durable and efficient, and last longer, if possible, even up to at least the next two or three decades.

3. Before developing virgin land at the periphery of any urban area, thoroughly utilize every land that is already being serviced by water, electricity, gas, sewage, etc., as this would be much more cost-effective, efficient, and prevent unnecessary high levels of pollution and destruction of natural habitats.

4. Do not locate industries that discharge hazardous waste within, around, or close to people and houses. Doing so would prevent extra health and safety issues.

5. Reduce or halt the construction of imperviable surfaces where possible to increase the quantity of groundwater supply and decrease the possibility of wildfires, especially in areas where substantial areas of land have been covered by roads and parking spaces.

6. Establish enforcement codes, fair and appropriate rules, laws, or regulations for housing, plumbing, wastewater discharge, fire, and the use of various safety devices.

7. Consult with and utilize the knowledge and experience of various qualified professionals to make built environments more sustainable, environmentally sound, safer, and livable, safer.

8. Create local committees of research groups on land use to give advice on planning in all aspects of urban development.

9. Construct groups or clusters of buildings/structures on smaller lot sizes, thereby making it possible for more people to live comfortably in a smaller area and conserve resources and energy, and enhance green areas which help to increase groundwater supply, reduce air pollutants, and provide a healthier environment for everybody living there.

10. Clean up all contaminated areas in the built urban environment and prevent or halt the destruction of existing wetlands.

11. Replace the most important equipment in all buildings/structures when their lifespan is over, and continue to do so on a scheduled and regular basis.

12. Enforce specifications and schedules for carrying out appropriate maintenance in all structures and on all their related equipment.

13. Use anaerobic and composting digestion and recycling processes where feasible to help reduce solid waste and enhance waste minimization in the built environment.

14. Determine the condition of building water, gas, sewage, and other housing infrastructure and design a far-reaching and long-lasting plan to maintain or upgrade each one to prevent potential hazards and unwanted breakdowns.

15. Enforce emission standards for vehicles in order to curb and reduce the potential air pollutants to increase, especially at alarming rates which only create serious health problems.

16. Determine the efficiency and capacity of existing water treatment and sewage treatment plants, and upgrade or expand them when necessary.

17. Periodically monitor and evaluate the entire watershed to ensure that it continues to provide adequate quality water to sustain the built environment or urban area and its ecosystems.

18. Set up an all-inclusive hazardous and solid waste program with techniques that would help manage and reduce the unnecessary use of many materials, increase the recycling/reuse of bottles, plastics, paper, metals, and glass, and recover energy from various types of waste.

19. Provide much better energy-efficient transportation services by utilizing renewable energy sources whenever possible, and institute an overall comprehensive energy reduction and energy-saving plan for the entire built environment or urban area.

20. Establish educational programs to inform, educate, and motivate people to take constructive actions to reduce pollutants, and energy use, and increase the livability of buildings and all structures.

5 Qualities that Can Make Buildings Protect the Environment Much Better

Everything that functions in such a proper, efficient, and outstanding manner as Dear Mother Nature does deserves to be imitated as much as possible. That’s one of the main reasons why many of us believe that our institutions still have a lot to emulate from Her—Mother Nature.

A careful study of Nature will reveal one obvious truth: many things work together and in harmony—this is what our buildings should be designed to do since they can’t do it on their helpless own.

Buildings should be designed to feed on the environment which, in turn, should also be able to feed on output or waste from the variety of processes that occur in and around buildings which can help sustain environments better by depending totally on Nature’s resources/natural sources of energy and taking care of/recycling their own generated wastes in the same manner that ecosystems and their diversity of living organisms do.

Top 9 Sustainability Practices of Nature that You Should Practice

8 Principles Used by Nature: Principles of Natural Design

Architects, civil and structural engineers should instill some of Nature’s outstanding qualities into buildings during design and construction to make them more efficient enough to protect the environment better than has been the predominant case, especially over the past few decades in which the world has witnessed the highest levels of environmental degradation.

In addition, individual buildings should be made to work together by performing ancillary design functions to achieve a common goal for the benefit of everyone and the environment which is home to all.

15 Reasons Why You Should Study Environmental Science

Buildings should be designed in ways that if one stops functioning effectively to protect a flourishing environment or neighborhood, the conglomerate of other remaining buildings can still be able to support that flourishing environment until the malfunctioning building is repaired or gets back on its feet.

That is Nature’s specialty: whenever one species fails—temporarily or permanently—in an ecosystem, the healthy web of remaining species still finds a way to support the ecosystem or environment until the weakened specie gets back on its feet.

Why Environmental Pollution Increases Despite the Usage of Pollution Prevention & Clean-up Measures

Our belief is that if buildings can be organized as a whole cluster to achieve some aims (harmony, sustainability, waste reduction, etc.), then we can definitely have sustainable communities and a sustainable future for everybody, all living things, and the environment itself.

To design buildings or “living buildings” that can be as efficient as Nature and achieve the common goal of environmental sustainability, we have to apply Nature’s principles—the principles of natural design on a minimum number or set of buildings during design and construction.

This would help create environmentally sustainable communities and cities that can be as smart and intelligent as Nature Herself. Our buildings would then function independently and efficiently like Nature’s trees; while, on a larger scale, our cities would function independently and efficiently like Nature’s forests.

The following five qualities or traits of Nature should be instilled into buildings during design and construction to help protect the environment much better:

1. Local materials: buildings in a particular part of the world would better sustain that environment if made of materials that are local or adapted to that environment or particular part of the world. The use of local materials saves energy input and can prevent disruption of stable local ecosystems across the world.

2. Local animals and plants: building occupants in each locality should accommodate the animals and plants that are local to their environment/ecosystem and feed on them in sustainable ways that can preserve all forms of life in the environment and the environment itself which is home to all in that locality.

3. Natural ventilation—and maybe even illumination: although artificial/manmade ventilation may be a perfect fit in some buildings or situations, the general environmental pollution and degrading climate caused by such ventilation has become a cause of concern and has been increasing the demand for natural ventilation, especially within the scientific community.

4. Solar energy or income: instead of feeding off on artificial or man-made electricity grids, buildings should be designed to feed off more or completely on the free solar income provided by Nature. This would definitely reduce environmental pollution and halt degrading climatic conditions due to combustion.

5. Recycle/reuse: to halt unnecessary environmental pollution, especially if buildings are destroyed or collapse in the future, the majority of buildings should be constructed with materials that are obviously reusable, even at the end of each building’s lifetime.

8 Principles Used by Nature: Principles of Natural Design

Nature is worth imitating. She is worth following! The more effort we make to understand and imitate Nature or Her natural activities, the more we’ll continue to discover the principles She uses in ways that maintain balance and harmony in our world and for the good of our future.

The word “principle” may have other definitions, but when it comes to environment or biomimicry, a principle is defined as a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex system such as any of the many activities of Nature. Nature has many rules or activities which She is known for.

The following are eight principles used by Nature—principles of natural design:

1. Use the sun/solar power & other natural sources of energy

GOD created and programmed Nature and living things to make use of/depend on natural sources of power, especially solar power. However, even though Nature runs on a lot of sunlight, here and there, She also uses other direct and indirect sources of solar energy—i.e., other natural sources of energy.

2. Use only the required amount of energy/resources—no more, no less

Although Nature’s generosity is limitless, She is still very economical and material-saving: unlike many people, Nature avoids excesses; She uses only the “required” amount of energy or resources, thereby adequately managing resource consumption, minimizing energy, and avoiding waste—at zero cost.

3. Use the utmost or maximum—tap the power of limits

Although Nature voids excesses or waste, She doesn’t go lower than necessary. To achieve this, She uses the utmost of everything required, even the highest limits or optimally under some “favorable restriction”. Despite the tough environmental conditions some organisms face, they still source for and use the utmost quantities of energy or materials they possibly can. Many have been known to adapt and survive.

4. Use form/structure to function efficiently

Many living things are wired or programmed to get the best out of their form or structure. One example is the Namibian desert beetle whose back has a form that perfectly fits a certain function for survival. Its Nanostructure has a hydrophilic surface that attracts water droplets and keeps them alive in a desert that has negligible rainfall. Another example is a bird’s structure, especially the wings which have a shape that is very crucial for flight.

5. Recycle everything

Nature recycles everything while working in cycles or perfectly closed loops in ways that ensure nothing is wasted. One example is the hydrologic cycle which is a never-ending process of water recycling and circulation from the atmosphere or clouds to the land or seas/ocean, and from the seas/ocean back to the atmosphere.

6. Reward every symbiotic relationship, form of cooperation, or activity

Nature rewards every activity and everything stands to gain something in one way or another. For instance, animals grow by feeding on plants; plants, on the other hand, can grow from animal waste that is used as manure or fertilizer; the wastewater and food scraps discharged as waste from buildings can be used to feed fishes in ponds. Fishes, on the other hand, participate in the natural process of treating wastewater or purifying used water, thereby making it less contaminated, reducing treatment costs, and saving resources.

7. Develop diverse possibilities

Nature, as we all know, is filled with diversity, endless possibilities, and unlimited potential. In fact, Janine Benyus said it all: “Nature banks on diversity”. Look everywhere and you’ll come to realize that the development of diversity is Nature’s hallmark—colors, form, beauty, etc. Nature uses or relies on diverse possibilities, forms/structures, and processes, instead of only a few or just one.

8. Use what is available, here and now

Nature does not compulsorily import many things like humans do. Instead, she uses local expertise and materials, thereby saving time. Nature created every environment with its own plants and animals, adapted to its conditions which offer the best suitable conditions for that environment—not necessarily every other. Nature makes use of the “here and now” to preserve different animal skins, different water-storing strategies, different plant leaves and roots, etc., and this varies from one place to another.

All Minerals are Not Stored Equally

The minerals derived from different foods and used to fuel many processes in the body are somewhat like men and women who are not created equal. All essential minerals are not stored in equal amounts—they are not stored equally—even if each of them is required by the body, gathered from the digestive system, and transported through the huge network of capillaries that are interwoven in the midst of liver cells.

This complex system enables liver cells to be in contact with each of the minerals newly generated by the body. However, even in circumstances that one would expect, the human body doesn’t even come close to storing each mineral in similar or approximately equal amounts.

The body’s liver and fat cells store many minerals and vitamins which are both widely regarded as nutrients; the body’s bones supply calcium and other minerals which it keeps in reserve until needed to meet cell requirements and maintain constant blood levels.

Unlike the liver which is limited in its capacity to store nutrients, fat tissue has a storage capacity that is infinite and able to continue supplying body cells with fat, even when food is not eaten for days, weeks, or even months. The body’s reserves of fat and glucose make it possible for the body to run without energy even on an empty stomach that is hungry for food.

There’s no limit to which certain minerals are stored, even if their quantities reach toxic levels in the body. However, other minerals are stored only in small quantities regardless of the quantity of food or mineral consumed, and such quantities are easily depleted.

It’s important to understand how your body manages various minerals and nutrients (including vitamins) in general, so you can have an idea about your tolerance limits. For instance, it won’t be necessary for you to consume certain foods because the minerals and vitamins they provide probably already exist abundantly in your body.

On the other hand, you would need to consume sources of some other types of minerals at intervals throughout the day because the body’s liver or fat stores less of them than the quantities required by the body each day.

Classification/Levels of Biomimicry (Nature-inspired Design)

Biomimicry development has been advancing at an increasing speed in the recent past, mainly inspired by Nature’s animals (mammals, insects, reptiles, and many other organisms) whose biological systems have been evolving for millions of years, while our manmade technological systems, on the other hand, have been emerging within just a few hundred years.

The countless forms (structures or morphologies), behaviors or processes, and ecosystems of some living things had inspired early biomimicry pioneers (Benyus and Zari, respectively) to categorize or classify biomimicry into three different classes or levels—also known in some circles as “levels of biomimicry”—which have greatly inspired many designers to imitate nature in their designs, buildings, structural shapes, and ornamentation.

The three levels of biomimicry have in their own individual regard been a great source of insight and helped invent manmade designs, systems, and processes, and solve many design challenges and human problems whenever they have been properly imitated.

The three classes or levels of biomimicry are different ways “specific” living organisms or entities accomplish a function that inspires manmade design(s). “Specific living organisms” implies that some particular organisms have certain natural qualities, abilities, or behaviors that inspire one or more manmade designs and solve one or more problems.

Any design that either imitates, emulates, copies, or mimics at least one aspect of a living organism (say, a bird for example), is a product of the inspiration gained from at least one of the three levels of biomimicry.

Classification or levels of Biomimicry

The three classes or levels of biomimicry are as follows:

1. The form (structure or morphology) level

2. The behavior or process level

3. The ecosystem level

1. Imitating an entity’s form (structure or morphology)

The first of three levels of biomimicry is the form (structure or morphology) of a specific or particular living organism or entity. The form or shape of a living thing enables it to perform certain functions and achieve specific goals that humans may only be able to achieve if they mimic that particular form of the living thing.

For example, the most common manmade aerodynamic shape employed in the aircraft industry and for air flights mimics the bird shape which is common in nature. Another example is the 1450 Brickell Office building (in Miami) which is V-shaped and illustrates the concept of imitating a creature’s form which, in this instance, is a group of birds that fly in V-shaped formation and, in so doing, expend less energy.

Biomimicry: Examples & Benefits of Copying Nature

A third example that involves imitating a creature’s form is the past improvements in wind turbines to increase their efficiency. Highly efficient wind turbine blades were inspired by the structure or morphology of humpback whale blades and can decrease wind resistance, thereby making turbines move faster, in the same vein that whale blades decrease water wave resistance and enable whales to swim faster.

2. Imitating an entity’s behavior or process

The second of three levels of biomimicry is the behavior or process of a specific living organism or entity. The behavior or process of a living thing or entity enables it to produce certain effects that humans may only be able to produce if they mimic that particular behavior of the living thing.

In the construction of the Eastgate building in Zimbabwe, designers imitated the ventilation process or behavior employed by termites to keep the humidity and temperature of their mounds (and consequently themselves) within narrow and comfortable limits.

Termites’ mounds and the Eastgate building all use a process of ventilation that ensures adequate air movement and constant indoor temperature for comfortable living.

Biomimicry: Examples & Benefits of Copying Nature

3. Imitating an entity’s ecosystem

The third and last (but not least) of three levels of biomimicry is the ecosystem of a specific living organism or entity. An ecosystem enables a creature to achieve certain feats that it wouldn’t be able to achieve elsewhere; humans would only be able to achieve certain things if they mimic that particular ecosystem of the creature.

Biologists John Todd and his team developed an ecologically engineered technology called “Living Machine” that mimics the natural purification processes wetlands (marshes and ponds) use to purify sewage or polluted water.

Just like wetlands, the Living Machine treatment system also treats specific waste streams by using ecosystem properties like food web, symbiotic relationships, diversity, and feedback loops that occur in wetlands which consist of diverse communities of algae, bacteria/other microorganisms, snails, trees, fish, plants, and other living things.

Our Institutions Still Have A Lot to Emulate From Nature

When you say a woman or man still has it despite being way past their prime, just know that Nature has it far much more in a myriad of ways. She ages like fine wine.

For all our careless and senseless neglect, Nature—which is GOD’s child or creation—has never really left us alone! She still cares, but with every new and passing technology that passes by, we humans seem to increasingly forget that we still have a lot to learn from Mother Nature.

Maybe every now and then we (ourselves, our institutions, and our world leaders) need to be reminded that Nature is always at her peak and forever has the best designs we can imitate to eradicate challenges and uplift our world to where it rightfully belongs in the world or worlds—the universe.

Example & Benefits of Copying Nature

Biomimicry: Definitions

Brief History of Biomimicry

The good design inherent in Nature ensures that She works at an optimal level, with minimal effort, and for maximum achievement. Imagine what we may discover if we focus much more on the genius of Nature—the Earth—4.5 billion years of experience and activities that can help improve our manmade designs and solve human problems in many fields or specialties.

Nature proves that GOD offers us a wide range of eye-opening processes and strategies to learn from and apply to enhance our environment and life on Earth. Specifically, GOD made all living things depend on endless natural sources, especially solar energy.

The Reality of Global Warming

Our institutions should look to Nature because She has forever been in the business and tested all material things (gold, silver, precious stones, etc.) for ages. She understands how her materials or little children work, knows what is important and appropriate, and also knows what works and lasts best.

So, why should we be less than prudent enough to look up to Her for guidance and counselling especially to correct the environment’s ills which only a handful of scientists and concerned individuals have done and are still doing? A few people can’t transform our degrading environment into the healthiest state possible; it would take more hands or everyone to promote and transfer ideas from Nature in order to sustain our human or manmade systems.

The Key Difference Between the Proteins and Carbohydrates You Eat

Proteins are very important molecules that we cannot grow or live without; carbohydrates, on the other hand, are equally very important and we can’t function without the energy they provide.

The fundamental or key difference between the proteins and carbohydrates you eat lies in their respective structures. The first key difference between proteins and carbohydrates is that while proteins comprise a mixture of nitrogen atoms along with oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon atoms (the latter three which are also present in carbohydrates and fats), carbohydrates (like fats) do not comprise of any nitrogen. So, the presence of nitrogen in proteins and the absence of nitrogen atoms from carbohydrates is the distinguishing factor. However, it is important to note that some derivatives of carbohydrates may sometimes contain nitrogen. The name amino (which means “nitrogen-containing”) in the name amino acids (which are the building blocks of protein) is attributed to the presence of nitrogen atoms in the molecules. Each protein contains strands of amino acids and each strand of amino acid may comprise 20 different types of amino acids which link up to form protein strands. Large molecules of protein are formed from long strands of amino acids. All amino acids have one carbon atom comprising one part that contains nitrogen (an amine group) and another part that contains an acid group bonded with it.

The second key difference between the proteins and carbohydrates you eat is that while the amino acids in each strand of protein differ from each other, the glucose molecules in carbohydrates (classified as monosaccharides which are building blocks of carbohydrates) are identical to each other.

The Harmful Effects of Alcohol on Vitamins in the Body

In the midst of all the volumes of alcohol being consumed, many people don’t seem to know that alcohol exerts some direct harmful or toxic effects on vitamins and organs of the human body; coupled with malnutrition, the effects of alcohol abuse can have an even greater negative impact.

To start with, alcohol does not provide any calories, just like pure fat and sugar don’t.Therefore, if a person drinks more alcohol, the more unlikely it would be for that same person to get enough energy or have space for the type of food that can provide sufficient quantities of vitamins or nutrients required by their body.

To summarize in a few words: the more alcohol one consumes, the less nutritious their diet and body system would be. The situation may even become a breeding ground for the most known harmful effects of alcohol on vitamins, interrupting and breaking up each tissue’s metabolism of nutrients.

Generally, the harmful effects of alcohol on vitamins include but may not be limited to the following:

• Expulsion of very helpful vitamin folate from the body’s storage location and also from being part of important actions or activities. Folate is a natural form of vitamin B, specifically vitamin B9, which is present in many foods and essential for reproduction and cell growth. Excess alcohol causes leakage in the liver from which folate leaks into the blood, thus increasing folate in the blood and causing the kidneys to discharge it without the need to do so; when this happens, the intestine, which usually discharges folate continuously, becomes impaired as a result of folate leakage and the deficiency caused by alcohol toxicity. Continuous alcohol intake further stagnates the capability of any remaining folate and suppresses the production of new cells. In fact, the most striking effect of alcohol seems to be the one on folate.
• Inhibition to vitamin absorption: alcohol prevents the absorption of other vitamins and thiamine which is also a type of B vitamin that sustains appetite and growth, and prevents beriberi. Coupled with inadequate food intake, frequent alcohol abuse could even lead to thiamine deficiency.
• Loss of efficiency by liver cells to activate vitamin D: liver cells become less efficient in activating vitamin D.
• Unnecessary change in function: instead of processing retinol for vision, as it would normally or naturally do, the body rather processes ethanol.
• Reduction in the capability of liver cells to process and utilize vitamin A.
• Elimination of essential and required minerals such as calcium, zinc, magnesium, and potassium.
• Excess secretion of histamine and acid by stomach cells: the body reacts to the presence of alcohol and produces inflammation (via histamine) which is usually uncomfortable.

Concluding remarks

The harmful effects of alcohol on the performance and capability of vitamins have clearly proven how alcohol affects both nutrition and health. But at the end of the day, it’s up to each individual to decide on their own whether to avoid alcohol or drink it either lightly, heavily, or anywhere in between.

Many studies conclude that although moderate alcohol drinkers may gain little benefits from drinking, they stand to gain better benefits by engaging in regular exercise and sustaining a healthy body weight.

It may be important for non-drinkers never to even start engaging in drinking, based only on the assumption that it would improve their health. Those who decide to drink should do so moderately and cautiously, knowing full well at the back of their minds that alcohol generally hinders the body from using vitamins—even minerals—in an efficient manner and vitamin deficiencies are products of alcohol abuse.

Why Some Scientists Disagree With Saturated Fat Intake Guidelines

The post titled “why you should reduce or replace your saturated fat intakes” provides reasons why most scientists and nutritional guidelines encourage people to either reduce saturated fat intake or replace it. The reasons were spot-on in terms of heart and public health issues which need to be addressed and managed.

However, no matter the number of observations and important discoveries that will ever be made, there will always be critics! Some scientists have criticized and disagree with current saturated fat intake guidelines because they feel that the reasons other scientists solely blame saturated fat for heart issues are unfounded: based on available evidence and their own assessment, these critics or scientists don’t believe saturated fat should be associated with heart health and cardiovascular diseases—or linked to heart issues and diseases.

Although most scientists generally approve of the current saturated fat intakes guidelines, some other scientists just won’t agree with it because of the following three compelling reasons:

1. The difference in the potential of each saturated fat or fatty acid to create risks for heart issues

The first reason why some scientists strongly disagree with the widely held opinion that saturated fat is strongly linked with cardiovascular diseases is that, in reality, the various kinds of saturated fats differ in terms of their potential or lack of potential to cause risks of cardiovascular diseases; as a result, they think it is wrong to label them together as a whole bunch of unimportant fats. Although it is true that most saturated fats elevate blood LDL (low-density lipoproteins or bad cholesterol) and risks for stroke and heart diseases, stearic acid (a saturated fatty acid found in milk products and meats) is different and special because it doesn’t increase blood LDL. Furthermore, inconclusive studies on many other saturated fatty acids in milk products are still ongoing to find out to confirm whether they have any effects on LDL cholesterol and the heart.

2. The absence of a mechanism

The second reason is that no physiological mechanism has firmly demonstrated, for instance, that saturated fat is the cause of atherosclerosis (coronary artery disease). Some scientists believe that the causes of heart diseases are way beyond only saturated fats, and so they would like to see undeniable evidence of the presence of a physiological mechanism employed by saturated fats to cause heart diseases or the risks associated with them.

3. The nature of one’s genes

The third reason some scientists point out is a person’s genes which we all know are inherited and can strongly influence how the body controls saturated fatty acids. In truth, some people’s system has a higher tendency to work independently of diets and easily form bad LDL cholesterol or ineffective kinds of HDL cholesterol. Some scientists believe this possibility should have been considered during the studies that were conducted by researchers who blame saturated fats for heart diseases and heart disease risks.

10 Different Categories of Food—Yours Definitely Falls Into One or More

Many people lean on one or more categories of food without understanding the exact nutrients they are consuming and the cumulative effect it could have on the human body in both the short and long run, as many studies have proven in different cases. A lot of complaints have circled/been circling around the cumulative negative effects of ultra-processed foods and fast foods, respectively; however, one still needs to be mindful of each of the ten categories of food listed a bit later in this post, especially as certain quantities of each category—even the one which chocolate falls into—could greatly benefit the human body in one way or another.

Given the astonishing numbers and varieties of food supplied by today’s food industry, it may be difficult for a consumer to keep track of the constituents of the food they consume; it may be even more difficult to put together a really good health-promoting diet in a world currently full what I call “altered food” (since it is actually altered and in some cases somewhat debased by man-made activities). Despite this, it’s still important to know at least the exact category of food we consume each period of the day and be on the watch out in a world that has reported numerous cases of the negative impacts that altered foods have had on the human health system and body.

With an abundance of foods to select from, it becomes increasingly challenging or even difficult for some people to plan a really good and precise nutritious diet that could potentially have a cumulative positive impact or effect on your body. Regardless of what each category of food is called, eating different foods each day is a sure way to ingest a nutritious diet. The food you eat may fall under any one of the following 10 categories:

1. Natural foods

Natural foods are foods that consist of natural ingredients and are not produced by food processing techniques; as such, they are free of man-made or synthetic ingredients.

2. Organic foods

Organic foods are foods that are produced from farming that does not use man-made fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides.

3. Whole foods

Also known as basic foods, whole foods are foods that either don’t undergo food processing at all or they undergo it minimally: whole foods are neither completely here nor completely there. They include meats such as poultry and fish; milk along with its various products; vegetables such as legumes and whole grains; and different fruits. The blend of whole foods is usually considered nourishing or nutritious.

4. Staple foods

Staple foods are foods that are widely consumed on a frequent or daily basis by most parts of a population or region. For example, rice is a staple food in south-eastern and eastern parts of Asia, while potato is a staple food in Ireland.

5. Functional foods

Functional foods are foods that have been enhanced to provide extra health benefits or essential nutrients beyond the natural composition of the foods, thereby protecting the body against diseases and reducing or eradicating disease risks.

6. Fast foods

Fast foods are foods that are prepared within a short time period—usually within minutes—and served quickly, with a strong emphasis on fast speed of delivery or service. Fast foods may or may not provide one’s nutrient needs; they include milkshakes, salads, hamburgers, and French fries.

7. Enriched/fortified foods

Enriched and/or fortified foods are foods (such as milk or whole grain) that have been fortified or enriched with nutrients that are either absent or exist in small quantities, thereby adding health benefits by improving nutrition or making food more nutritious.

8. Medical foods

Medical foods are foods that have been formed by the application of accredited scientific principles, and administered under a physician’s supervision in order to manage or eradicate diseases that a normal diet’s nutrition cannot.

9. Processed foods

Processed foods are simply foods whose form or natural state has been altered by any food processing technique (such as milling, freezing, baking, cooking, etc.). Processed foods may or may not be nutritious.

10. Ultra-processed foods

Ultra-processed foods are foods, especially packaged foods, produced by many processes that involve the addition of many manufactured ingredients that are not from actual or natural foods. The term “ultra-processed foods” is usually used to coin all the food products—especially heavily advertised ones—that possess a significant amount of industrial additives and ingredients.

Concluding remarks

• Don’t be too concerned if your food falls under any one of the categories listed above. You should rather be more concerned about the constituents of your food and what they have in store for you than the name or category of your food itself. Therefore, do your own research and find out what each particular type of food has in store for you.
• The quality and quantity of nutrients your food would provide depends on the calories, nutrients, and phytochemicals they are made of. To know more than a particular food’s name, you actually need to know about what it consists of—i.e., its inner quality. Even more important to know, maybe, is the type of foods you need to combine to form nutritious diets.

Brief History of Biomimicry

Although the idea of biomimicry or “imitating nature” has undoubtedly been existing for thousands—or maybe even hundreds of thousands of years—it may not be possible to pinpoint the exact time that humans started studying or copying nature to get solutions.

The history of biomimicry exists because certain types of human innovation were inspired or mentored by Nature which, after 3.8 billion years of evolution, has determined and uses the best, most efficient, and lasting methods or processes.

Biomimicry: Definitions

It would be right to state that long before the term “Biomimicry” was coined, our wise old planet Earth had been employing effective methods to preserve its various life forms for over 3.8 billion years since inception; however, it’s only long after this period that humans started studying biomimicry, especially over the past half-century, or thereabout; there are several well-known instances throughout recorded history.

What we now call “biomimicry” was actually in practice in 4000 BC when silk was first fabricated or invented by humans. The use of silk dates back to 4000 BC when the Chinese were the first to learn how to create silk from silkworms—i.e., the idea behind silk originated from silkworms! Therefore, the invention of silk is one of the first applications of biomimicry in recorded human history. Six thousand years after its invention, silk is still being used all over the world.

Lu Ban deserves a place in the history of biomimicry for his invention of the first Chinese umbrellas about 1700 years ago. He got the idea for the umbrella after watching children use lotus leaves to protect themselves from rain. He created his own product, an umbrella, by mimicking the structure, flexibility, and effectiveness of lotus leaves.

After studying the form and strength of eggshells, Filippo Brunelleschi was able to design a lighter and thinner dome for Florence Cathedral which was completed in 1436.

Leonardo Da Vinci was a student of biomimicry—of nature—and generally ahead of his peers and time. One major recorded instance of biomimicry in design is Da Vinci’s study of the flight of birds in the 1480s. This likely culminated in his writing of Codex on the Flight of Birds between 1505 and 1506; it speculates that man-made or human air travel can be modelled after avian flight mechanics. Before leaving this world, Da Vinci produced a lot of works and more than 500 sketches that dealt with the nature of air and flight mechanics. Da Vinci’s fascination for studying birds and their flight inspired him to design many flying machines and make their structure mimic the bone structure of birds.

Inspired by the leaf of a water lily, Joseph Paxton built crisscrossed iron girders that supported almost 300,000 panes of glass all around an open and vast space of the unparalleled architecture of the Crystal Palace for the Great Exhibition which was erected in 1851.

Ernst Haeckel’s publications showed that architects and artists of the early 1900s or twentieth century were mainly inspired by biological life forms, and many structures constructed during the Art Nouveau period imitated nature. One example is the entrance gate to the 1900 World Exhibition in Paris, which was inspired by a radiolarian skeleton and constructed by René Binet.

The Wright brothers (Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright) were inspired by birds, especially how they use air currents to create lift and navigate in different directions; the inspiration was the foundation for their model and the first-ever successful airplane flight which they themselves undertook in 1903 when their aircraft stayed in the air in just less than a minute in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Fast forward to almost a decade later in 1912: the world witnessed the first successful commercial passenger flight which travelled from St. Petersburg to Tampa, all within Florida.

It’s important to note that the practice of applying ideas found in nature became very widespread during the mid-twentieth century, and biomimicry was increasingly being employed in designing ships, vehicles, and aircraft by modeling from biological studies.

Otto Schmitt coined the term “biomimetics” and developed the concept behind it. He continued to work on products that mimic natural systems and had a perception in 1957 that led to a view he would eventually call biomimetics. Not long after in 1960, Jack E. Steele—who worked together with Otto Schmitt at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio—coined the term “bionics” which is similar to—but not the same with—“biomimetics”.

George de Mestral patented Velcro (nylon fabric that is used as fastening) in 1955. The inspiration for his invention came while he was having a walk with his dog in the woods; many cockleburs covered his clothes and dog’s fur, and he was intrigued by how their tiny hooks stuck so strongly. He mimicked the surface covered in tiny hooks, coupled it with a surface wrapped up in tiny loops, and invented Velcro which is one of the most useful products in today’s world.

In 1969, the term “biomimetics” was used for the first time ever by Otto Schmitt, and by 1974 Webster’s Dictionary started having it published among its words. It might be important to note that the term “bionics” entered Webster’s Dictionary much earlier in 1960, and was defined as “a science concerned with the application of data about the functioning of biological systems to the solution of engineering problems”.

It was only in 1982 that the term biomimicry formally appeared and started being used. In the 1990s, less than a hundred papers per year were being written on biomimicry and published; however, the number of papers skyrocketed to a couple thousand per year between the 2000s and 2010s. Part of this was fuelled by the wide use of the term by scientist Janine Benyus in her book, Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature, published in 1997.

Once upon a time in the past, the bullet trains used in Japan were releasing terrible booming noises at the exit of a tunnel whenever they travelled at fast speeds through it. The compressed air around the train’s front part was the cause, and this became a major concern and problem for all nearby inhabitants; however, in the late 1990s, a Japanese chief engineer solved the problem while engaging in his hobby: birdwatching. He studied how the kingfisher bird dives its long beak into the water to get prey. The engineer ended up redesigning the train’s front to take the shape of the kingfisher’s head. The end result eradicated the terrible booming noise. How? The redesigned train could cut the wind and prevent noise instead of trap it in the tunnel and create disturbing noises.

The self-cooling termite hills or mounds that were being constructed by African termites at the time were a source of inspiration for Architect Mick Pearce who designed the Eastgate Centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, in 1996. Instead of using a conventional heating and cooling system in the large office and retail space, a chimney is being used to draw in cool air naturally and sustain a temperate surrounding. The Eastgate Centre uses only ten percent of the total energy that is being used by a conventional building of the same size. It’s important to note that termites are able to maintain a steady temperature in their mounds by opening and closing the holes on the outer shell of the mounds, thereby ensuring that air ventilates and balances the inner temperature.

Janine Benyus published her book titled Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature in 1997 and spread the word about biomimetics, with the goal of bringing an end to environmental degradation and destruction. She made some remarkable statements to National Geographic years after publishing her book: “We’re able to apply fresh thinking to traditional manufacturing to undo the toxic and energy-intensive mistakes of the past”, and “I wish we had been at the design table at the Industrial Revolution.”

In 2006, the Journal of Bionic Engineering published Richard Bonser’s paper which is a study that assessed the growth of biomimetic innovation. Mr. Bonser found out that between 1985 and 2005, the total number of patents worldwide that used the term “biomimetic” or the word “bio-inspired” increased by a factor of 93.

In 2008, Engineer Hansjörg Wyss pledged $125 million to Harvard University to establish the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering which, according to a press release, “will strive to uncover the engineering principles that govern living things, and use this knowledge to develop technology solutions for the most pressing health-care and environmental issues facing humanity”.

By mimicking the microstructure of the Morpho butterfly’s wing scales, dressmaker Donna Sgro was able to create a certain type of dress in 2010, from Teijin Fibers’ Morphotex which is an undyed fabric woven derived from structurally colored fibers.

In 2011, Lynn Reaser, established the Da Vinci Index to evaluate the number and growth of bio-inspired research and innovations by assessing how often biomimetics terms are used in scientific patents, grants, and publications or journals.

In 2012, Deckard Sorensen and Miguel Galvez, who were both undergraduates at Boston College, produced a water bottle that was inspired by the Namib Desert beetle and made to harvest air moisture, just like the insect which absorbs water from air. It was estimated that the device could store up to 3 liters of drinking water every hour. Galvez told the BBC: “If we’re creating [several] liters per day in a cost-effective manner”, you can get this to a community of people in sub-Saharan Africa and other dry regions of the world.”

In July 2014, Lavasa Corporation of India made a second attempt within four years to raise over $100 million to use biomimetic principles to develop a city by incorporating rainwater harvesting, reforestation efforts, and green construction practices.

Based on findings from detailed observations of the material arrangements of living things, led by designer Achim Menges and Dr. Jan Knippers, the ICD (Institute of Computational Design) in collaboration with the ITKE (Institute of Building Structures and Structural Design) at the University of Stuttgart are able to create multiple research pavilions and prototypes. The 2013-2014 pavilion that was created from robotically woven fi­bers is just one example, which is based on an understanding of the geomorphology of beetle shells.

Biomimicry: Definitions

Definitions of Biomimicry or Biomimetics

(1) Biomimicry is an emerging fi­eld that studies nature and living things in order to gain insight from their wide range of natural processes and strategies and create innovative solutions to enhance life on earth.

(2) Biomimicry is the science and art of analyzing, experimenting on, and observing, examining, or studying nature’s activities to discover biological or natural principles and ideas, and use them to solve human and environmental problems.

(3) Biomimicry is the study of nature’s variety of structures, mechanics or constructions, and designs in order to create new products or materials in line with nature’s continuous strive for maximum achievement with minimum effort.

Biomimicry: Examples & Benefits of Copying Nature

(4) Biomimicry is an enabling discipline that analyses how living systems actually work, in order to discover nature’s tricks and ideas, and adapt and adopt them to solve particular problems.

(5) Biomimicry is a new subject area or discipline that studies nature’s time-tested models, processes, elements, and designs in order to gain inspiration from nature and solve problems sustainably.

(6) Biomimicry is the study and application of the basic principles and processes of nature in order to find solutions or ideas that can solve specific problems encountered by humanity.

(7) Biomimicry is an interdisciplinary field (in technology and biology) that studies the functions, processes, structures, and relationships in biological systems to discover solutions for major mechanical or technological problems.

Is Mother Nature Eventually Turning Against Mankind’s Technology?

In the face of alarming environmental concerns, the question still has to be asked why mankind still uses certain kinds of environmentally-degrading activities, especially technologies that burn fossil fuel and coal and produce methane, other greenhouse gases, and carbon cycles with enormous quantities of carbon dioxide that are destroying our helpless atmosphere, oceans, seas, plants, and lands all year round.

Our insistence on using certain kinds of technology has unfortunately brought us face-to-face with threats that are largely self-inflicted—threats that have grown out of our own short-sightedness about how Nature responds to activities that may be against its very nature or ethics.

Because of the desires, inventions, and activities of some individuals and countries, the greater mankind now faces the danger of global warming—a situation that clearly appears as if Mother Nature is turning the Earth’s atmosphere against certain kinds of mankind’s technology or activities.

Global warming is just one self-inflicted problem out of others: we face the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation, especially in modern-day warfare; we face the danger of weaponized disease-causing bacterium, such as COVID-19 and Ebola which are transmitted during coughing or sneezing and could wipe out much of the human race; in addition, we face an ever-increasing population that consumes inadequate resources at an alarming rate which may exceed the Earth’s capacity to replenish.

The following conclusions were drawn by the scientific community in the past; they further highlight a bit of the issues surrounding our planet—issues that our activities may still aggravate in the future:

• Greenhouse gases have been causing the “greenhouse effect” and negatively impacting global climate by warming.
• Carbon dioxide emissions have been at the highest levels in the past thousands of years—specifically, 100,000 years- as reported by some outlets.
• “Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years”—according to a past Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
• Large chunks of ice at the South Pole around the Antarctic Circle gradually breaking off, even though they have surprisingly been stable for tens of thousands of years. In fact, during the year 2000, a piece of ice with an area of 4,200 square miles, broke off. Also, in 2002, a large piece of ice broke off the Thwaites Glacier. In 2007, Greenland’s ice shelves decreased in size by 24 square miles. In 2008, it decreased further to 21 square miles.
• Rising ocean and sea levels allegedly due to global warming and glacier/ice melting. Each time the ocean rises vertically by one foot, it spreads horizontally by about 100 feet and covers more land. Researchers observed that sea levels rose by 8 inches in the past century; this was due to the expansion of seawater as a result of absorbing more heat.
• Fear that water levels may continue to rise if man-made heating activities are not curbed or put to appreciable or permanent rest. According to the United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by the year 2100. The weight of our technologies is seemingly causing an imbalance in the Earth.

So maybe, Mother Nature has reached Her limits. The obvious reactions from the atmosphere, bodies of water (oceans, seas, rivers, etc.), and lands reflect one thing: Nature had been coping but seems fed up with some man-made technologies: she has drawn the line with mankind and stopped fooling around with us.

Unfortunately for us, the more our technology and activities continue to disrupt the Earth’s natural balance, the more likely Mother Nature will overturn any imbalance by turning against mankind in order to bring back balance. She may do it, even if life becomes inhospitable for us.

If we are not careful enough to heed the advice of researchers and scientists, our planet may well become inhospitable to human life, and all life—as we have known it—may, unfortunately, come to an end.

Currently, we can still make some unselfish efforts to stop increasing emissions, even though we’re adapting to the harsh climate that the emissions have eventually created. But how much longer will the world continue to be a bit hospitable or comfortable if we don’t change our ways?

Do we have to keep going like this until we experience a disaster so great that it would be virtually impossible to adapt to any level of hospitality? No, we don’t. It’s not essential and also not necessary!

If we don’t change now when the environment is still degrading, environmental conditions could become so tough that we—mankind—would either have to struggle to adapt, leave the Earth, or perish in any self-inflicted conditions that arise as a result of using our technology without caring about the quality of our world.

Notwithstanding, there is hope because of our rich history. If there is only one lesson we can learn from our history, it’s the undisputable truth that when mankind is faced with life-threatening or global crises, somewhere, somehow, they always rise to the challenge and achieve even far greater goals.

The GOD-given spirit of soul-searching and exploration is in our genes; it is hardwired deep into our souls and will once again find its way out. We have to give up or adequately modify our technologies in order to brace up for the great challenge of saving the planet.

If we don’t give up or adequately modify our technologies, then sooner or later we will face an even greater global crisis that can threaten our very existence. Our life is too precious to be left at the mercy and in the shaky hands of man-made inventions which are usually guided by selfishness and personal gain.