Paul Hata, the author of the Solar Energy Center article “Deforestation – Effects on Environment and Society” (31 October 2010), has many strong opinions regarding the degradation of forests around the world. In the article, Hata makes many statements and claims that are geared towards how the human effect on forests is having a negative impact on both the environment and society. Though his claims may have ethical value, Hata does not provide any evidence for his arguments to validate that deforestation is truly harmful.
By reading the article it is clear that Hata has a strong passion for the forests being exploited. It is clear how thankful he is for the resources forests provide for us and their significance in the world today. Hata relates how these resources have brought upon an irresistible dependence for forests, shared by nearly every human being on this planet. By the rate of mass deforestation, Hata is confident that a negative aftermath will be the result of logging actions. From this, it is easy to tell how Hata’s emotions greatly influences the claims he makes. Therefore, his statements and claims are ignoring true facts and are, rather, based entirely on ethical beliefs.
Although with out evidence, Hata makes numerous claims regarding the effects of deforestation that he believes are personally valuable. Some of his main claims include that if deforestation continues at its current rate biodiversity will seize to exist; forests will never be able to regenerate back into the “perfect” form they are in now; and how the protection of forest species will benefit future generations in both medicine and technology. Other claims or statements include how deforestation turns the forest into a useless barren land; how it eliminates the possibility of exploring new alternatives; and that the indigenous people living in the forests will be left homeless and lost. The key point Hata tries to emphasise is that nature should be adored, not destroyed; as he states:
“Overall, the terrible effects of deforestation cannot be compensated by the plans of further world development. No matter what great importance industrialization may bring, we must also consider that nature serves us in far better ways than buildings and other facilities you can see in urbanized areas.” (Hata 2010)
After reading his arguments anyone with strong environmental morals would most likely agree with Hata. However, what he has proposed is unrealistic in the industrial dependant world we live in. Accordingly, the evidence is just not there to support the irrational claims he makes. As a very influential species, human beings are focused on their personal welfare more than the environment that surrounds them. And with a growing need for forest products, it is hard to imagine a total abolishment of all logging practices. On top of human dependence and irrationality, some of the claims Hata makes are unclear to what he is trying to propose. Therefore, Hata’s claims can be separated into two groups, the economical and social aspect, and the irrational argument aspect.
As long as human beings “dominate” the Earth, we will continue to use any resources available to us to sustain our standard way of life. Forests are mandatory resources required to maintain suitable economical and social environments around the world. Hata’s claims show no relevance to how the economy of numerous countries will be affected by the reduction, or elimination, of logging practices. We depend on this resource, and the principle of scarcity works to regulate our consumption. Humans benefit from the things trees provide for us and, as a result, our consumption is controlled by the trees available. Therefore as a benefit to the economy and human welfare, forests are needed to be logged. Though deforestation may be seen as degrading to nature, the overall cost is more beneficial to humans and, therefore, will be continued. This increase in welfare also increases our total utility. It is an economical and social obligation to keep utility high within populations and, as a result, we need many resources to do so. In some cases this utility is reached by involving the miniride principle. By relating to one of Hata’s arguments, since deforestation will benefit humans in many ways but in turn will remove small groups of indigenous people from their homes, it is necessary for us to use forest resources at our desired need. This is because both indigenous and modern humans rely on the forest to survive; however, the larger population and utility gained for the modern people outweighs the rights and utility of small indigenous groups. It is the main goal of economical and social groups of a country to increase and maintain the welfare of their people. Such an example can be seen in Brazil’s plan to sell logging rights for the Amazon Rainforest. Their goal is to abolish illegal logging as well as increase the economy and produce jobs for locals, all strong initiatives to increase the welfare of the country.
Hata’s claims not only ignore social and economical needs, but some are just completely irrational. Numerous arguments seem to not act on fact, but merely emotion. Firstly, Hata states that deforestation will eliminate all biodiversity. This is a far stretch argument to make considering not all species live in, or rely, on forests. The same is true for his other claim, stating deforestation will turn these “perfect” forests into permanent barren land. This argument, though, goes even further to say these forests are perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect as this meaning can greatly differ from person to person. This is especially true for forests since destructive insects, wildfires, and pollution is inevitable. Also, it is hard to state something as being permanent. It may remain in the same state for a single lifetime, but what about the many generations down the road? In time, everything is bound to change, no matter what way we look at it. In Hata’s case, his arguments are not justified and do not provide any true evidence to how the outcome of deforestation will negatively effect the environment and society. His claims are based on opinion, not true facts as they should be.
In conclusion, a first time read of Hata’s article allows the reader to agree with his proposed claims, if they are an environmentally conscious individual. Based on an ethical point of view, I for one agree with the arguments Hata describes as an overall degradation to nature. However, it is one thing to agree with a point of view, and another to evaluate if it is realistic or evident. The economical and social wellbeing of society benefits from the resources trees provide and, therefore, will continue to be explored. Also, a statement or claim that is missing evidence is not completely supported and, therefore, cannot truly be considered. Although claims such as these go without evidence, I believe it is important that we share and understand these opinions to instil a proper respect and commitment towards the environment for our own sake and for the many generations to come.
By: Tyler Blauel
References
Effects Of Deforestation - Deforestation – Effects on Environment and Society. (n.d.). Solar Energy Center. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.petererickson.net/article/deforestation-effects-on-environment-and-society
Pyne, S. (n.d.). Logging Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. International News Global News from Around the World.. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/brazil/101019/logging-amazon-rainforest
Words: 1172
No comments:
Post a Comment