Depleting Natural Resources In Wendell Berry's Home Economies

Did you know that being immortal isn’t actually as fun as it sounds and could endanger our planet by overpopulating it? Well now you do, overpopulation is an extremely dangerous problem that can affect future generations greatly. One of them obviously being running out of space. Reproducing and death are both the biggest factors of the human cycle, immortality would become a difficult challenge to overcome because it would interfere with the life cycle. We should not live forever because we would crowd our environment and it would be very costly.

Also, even if they tried to renew their resources, the demand rate was increasing so much, they would have never been able to save the ecosystem. “While the hauhau tree did not become extinct in Polynesian times, its numbers declined drastically until there weren’t enough left to make ropes from” as stated in Easter’s End. Another similarity was that most of the species in these environments had depended on these trees and plants for survival and shelter. Since the resources were being used at such an alarming rate the animals would become extinct over time because the loss of all their sources of food and shelter. Easter’s End states “The destruction of the island’s animals was as extreme as that of the forest: without exception, every species of native land bird became extinct.” The final similarity I found was that both places were very rich,fertile and filled with abundance amounts of resources.

People were afraid and concerned since they had a major insufficiency of jobs, supplies and shelter. Many companies began to enforce wage cutbacks and increased workload. Relief was not being offered to all the unfortunate Canadians who did not have a job. Many people were laid off from factories which meant that supplies were scarce as not many people could afford to provide for their family’s, people turned to the government to find a solution. I believe that their expectations were much too high as the government was struggling too.

“The image came up again and again: barriers separating people from previously public resources” (Klein 195) Corporations have taken it up themselves to limit our resources from the people that need it the most. The harmful memes have been spread more so throughout people than the harmless ones. Thus giving us, the tycoons that run these expensive corporations making natural resources like food and water, a hassle to get. “On the more modern ‘genes eye view’, evolution may appear to proceed in the interest of the individual, or for the good of the species, but in fact it is all driven by the competition between genes.” (Blackmore 35) All of these corporations that compete to exploit people for their money are only interested in profit. They do not care about the needs of others but only the needs of the company and themselves.

It is hard to imagine, but most of these people would rather work in substandard conditions for a couple cents per hour than to have no employment at all. We have a case of a Catch-22—consumerism traps them in a destitute life, anti-consumerism strips their only means of feeding their family. When weighing the pros and cons of each ideology, ethical consumption seems like the better option. However, is it the best option? Will there be detriments in the global society if consumerism was eradicated?

These farms provide high quality food and produce, challenge and compete between other small farms to create this high quality market, and don’t use up our natural resources. However, with the rise of corporate farms, food quality has been compromised, they kill off smaller farms and lessen the competition, and they are depleting the natural resources we have. On the flip side of each, though, sustainable farms cannot produce in mass quantities, it is much more labor intensive and harder to manage and take care of, and it there is much more to pay attention to. While corporate farms, on the other hand, can produce mass quantities because the whole system is geared to their crops, tractors make everything much easier and less labor extensive, and they create a number of jobs supporting

It is a misspend of human skill, materials and funds. The people who find the need for ornament are holding the modern world back. It is resulting in hardship for humankind, on their health and economic state. This gives an understandable reason behin the rejection of ornament. Another reason of this rejection would be the fact that it takes up a far longer time when applying to a product than a modern design with no ornament.

Plant based diets are unable to provide essential nutrients necessary for human growth and reproduction. Growing these crops to sustain the human’s needs leads to tons of life loss through poisoning and fertilisers along with rendering environments completely destroyed. In order to minimise animal cruelty, and provide a healthy,beneficial diet for humans, a omnivore diet is the definite path to follow. With resources ever lessening in the world today, people must work together and protect the resources with their knowledge and technology in order for the future to be able to survive in the most efficient and healthy way

I 'm actually torn on this issue. The current price tag to support the homeless, or possibly even the underemployed, is enormous, and what we 've been doing clearly isn 't working. Changes to how we live, and technology have rendered many jobs obsolete, or soon to be obsolete so can 't expect people to work in unskilled jobs when those jobs don 't exist anymore. There will always be people who cannot support themselves due to mental or physical challenges, and society should ensure that they are provided for. There will also always be those who, due to an event or situation, find themselves without a home or means to provide for themselves; these people need assistance for a relatively short period of time.

That’s why expressions such as “I do not know what I would do without the washing machine” or “I could not live without my cell phone” are heard more frequently. They imply that life would be hard to live with the lack of new technologies, however, it becomes ironic because life is already at risk due to technology. Making technological advances and preserving the environment and human health will not be possible because of the pollution resulting of the waste output, the depletion of natural resources and the global warming resulting of the emission of carbon dioxide. To begin with, the waste output of the new technologies pollutes the lands, the water and the air of the earth. An average computer screen contains up to 8 pounds of lead and 2 to 5 percent of the trash in American landfills belong to electronics waste.