Counterargument Essay on the Four Laws of Ecology by Barry Commoner
The first argument of Commoner is that poverty led to overpopulation, and industrialized countries could only determine the origin of the problem by profoundly reallocating the world’s wealth (Commoner, 344). Another argument according to Garrett Hardin is that the world’s wealth should not be redistributed to poorer nations that are overpopulated. Commoner also believed that surviving on the earth is possible when human beings live in a stable and constantly suitable environment. Also, Commoner argued that human beings should biologically participate in the ecological system as sub-elements of the whole. However, he went ahead and reasoned that, people are naturally created …show more content…
The objection to this argument is that the overpopulated nations that are poorer should be supported to eliminate poverty. Also, there a weak point in the argument that nature knows best. The naturally existing environment can be improved through actions such as advancement in technology and research and development. Technology can improve what human beings do and thus should act as an augmentation to nature. Additionally, there are chances of improvement in nature and it does not necessarily mean that any introduction of man-made development can be detrimental to the ecosystem. The argument about the replacement of the resources used from the environment to be replaced is also weak. Not all the resources available in the environment have to be replaced when they are utilized. Thus, this argument may not be practical in various aspects due to the consequences. When, for example, human beings are enforced to replace all that they extract from the environment like minerals, they can be stressed up with such philosophy. The enforcement may mean that, on has to pay whatever he or she uses from the environment and the incapacity to do so, may lead to confusion and stressful lives for people. The objection to this argument is that human beings should use the resources freely with an aim to improve the …show more content…
The balance should be enhanced when industrialized nations provide necessary support to poorer nations that have a high population. The balance can be created by redistributing the wealth of the developed nations to create balance in the ecosystem. A balanced ecosystem can be one way of promoting a stable and a continuously sustainable environment where everyone can survive in. Also, the law of ecology that nature knows best can also be improved by supporting the field of research and development. People should embrace science and technology, and governments of various nations should provide the needed support to nurture and expand the field. Nature cannot provide all the satisfaction that human beings need the way it is. Thus, nature can be improved when technology is developed. In effect, besides maintaining a stable environment, technology should be embraced to support the
The first argument of Commoner is that poverty led to overpopulation, and industrialized countries could only determine the origin of the problem by profoundly reallocating the world’s wealth (Commoner, 344). Another argument according to Garrett Hardin is that the world’s wealth should not be redistributed to poorer nations that are overpopulated. Commoner also believed that surviving on the earth is possible when human beings live in a stable and constantly suitable environment. Also, Commoner argued that human beings should biologically participate in the ecological system as sub-elements of the whole. However, he went ahead and reasoned that, people are naturally created …show more content…
The objection to this argument is that the overpopulated nations that are poorer should be supported to eliminate poverty. Also, there a weak point in the argument that nature knows best. The naturally existing environment can be improved through actions such as advancement in technology and research and development. Technology can improve what human beings do and thus should act as an augmentation to nature. Additionally, there are chances of improvement in nature and it does not necessarily mean that any introduction of man-made development can be detrimental to the ecosystem. The argument about the replacement of the resources used from the environment to be replaced is also weak. Not all the resources available in the environment have to be replaced when they are utilized. Thus, this argument may not be practical in various aspects due to the consequences. When, for example, human beings are enforced to replace all that they extract from the environment like minerals, they can be stressed up with such philosophy. The enforcement may mean that, on has to pay whatever he or she uses from the environment and the incapacity to do so, may lead to confusion and stressful lives for people. The objection to this argument is that human beings should use the resources freely with an aim to improve the …show more content…
The balance should be enhanced when industrialized nations provide necessary support to poorer nations that have a high population. The balance can be created by redistributing the wealth of the developed nations to create balance in the ecosystem. A balanced ecosystem can be one way of promoting a stable and a continuously sustainable environment where everyone can survive in. Also, the law of ecology that nature knows best can also be improved by supporting the field of research and development. People should embrace science and technology, and governments of various nations should provide the needed support to nurture and expand the field. Nature cannot provide all the satisfaction that human beings need the way it is. Thus, nature can be improved when technology is developed. In effect, besides maintaining a stable environment, technology should be embraced to support the