September 17, 2019 at 11:10 pm #195878rmwilliams7Participant
Sustainability to me, means maintaining the current species we have. It is different when you are talking about sustaining non-living natural resources like oil or minerals, that have the potential to be replaced by technological advances in the future. For instance, Oil and natural gas could be replaced by solar power, wind turbines, hydroelectric power and other forms of energy that are renewable. But, unique species of animals ,especially wild fish, if driven into extinction, can never be replaced. Sustaining our current populations and resources is about guaranteeing future availability for harvest. Because even if the resources become obsolete in the future because of advances, it’s better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it. I agree with some of the points made by Solow, but he describes a part that mentions if humans use up all of one resource, then the sustainable thing to do is to replace it with something of equal value for future generations. I disagree with this. Sustainability isn’t just about leaving economic value behind for future generations, and most of Solow’s opinions revolve around this. We need to think about the invaluable resources that we have currently that need to be sustained. You can’t replace truly wild fish, or whole communities that solely thrive on the wild salmon populations. No farmed fish will ever come close to creating/supplying the same value that wild fish have created all over the world, especially in Alaska. In conclusion, I believe that sustainability is mainly about protecting the populations and resources that are not human created. It’s about maintaining a safe and healthy environment for all species on the planet currently, because we are not certain of the future, but we can take steps in our time period to build a good basis for the next generation to succeed no matter the outcome.September 18, 2019 at 9:04 pm #195910peeppleParticipant
I slightly disagree with this, if only in the sense that farmed salmon can be a good substitute over the wild salmon so that they are eased of the pressure of feeding the world. I do believe that resources, both natural and non-natural, need to be kept in a balance so that they are still available for the next generation, however we must also keep in mind the potential of finding alternatives to spread the pressure more than choke it into one commodity.September 18, 2019 at 9:50 pm #195918imatsuiParticipant
I also disagree with Solow’s idea that things can be sustainable if there are substitute. It just doesn’t sound moralistic. We have advanced technology that can provide alternative and that helps protect wild but original never be exactly same with alternative. If we lose them, we lose something valuable. So, I don’t think having substitute means we can spend or consume everything we have now.September 18, 2019 at 10:41 pm #195920jdkelly6Participant
I agree with your perspective on sustainability. I don’t think it is good enough to give our future substitutes and completely deplete populations of wild animals. I agree that it is our obligation to give the future options like we have in what species are on earth and can be harvested.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.