Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox
The article has credited the uncharacteristic increase of the human well-being as opposed to the increased degrading ecosystem to technology and social innovation having decoupled human well-being from ecosystem degradation. Science has developed other forms of alternatives other than that by Mother Nature. This is observed with the increase in the alternative reliance of the ecosystem services on which we are dependent, in literal aspect include: clean water and air, forests, through different conditions prevent extreme weather conditions, provide ample conditions for plant growth, and all other things that we rely on nature for survival (Raudsepp-Hearne Et al. 2010). More of the ecosystem services have been used to create new interactions such as in the fields of trade, logistics and also assist persons in benefiting and maintaining the ecosystem. This third hypothesis has been backed up by living examples of Israel and Egypt which despite being desert countries have come up with modern day science and technology of practicing agriculture to a point that they are even imported first-class quality products. The demand for these services is on the increase mostly in fossil fuels which is also leading to degradation in the ozone layer cause drastic weather conditions.
Improved healthcare and water sources have looked into the issue of poor quality of water. Fossil fuel accumulated over time from dead matter has enhanced in fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture making an increase in production (Raudsepp-Hearne Et al. 2010). It is costly to replace ecosystem services though, in the long run, it is worth the expenses. This hypothesis, the author tries to show that there is a future even in the loss of the ecosystem services.
I tend to agree with the third hypothesis of technology and innovation is indeed decoupled human well being from the ecosystem condition. This is because as the ecosystem services degrade, then the humans think of ways of overcoming and preventing these disasters and thus the increase in the human well being.
In my opinion, a depreciating ecosystem should be treated as a global calamity as the `poor, irrational weather conditions do not affect only one country but the whole world. It is the same humans who are destroying it and coming up with substitutes but the main question would be paused with the vision of the coming generations, and whether it would be right to expose them to such. In as much as there is technology, we should use the same to maintain the ecosystem and restore it to its once great features. Life, in any case, would be simpler with a combination of both God-given and man-induced. We should work on improving the ecosystem which otherwise would mean an end of the beauty of nature and environment. It is upon every earthling to ensure that they are at their best in enhancing continued existence of the ecosystem.