DHF30

Natural resources. These things do not seem spectacular. Firstly because they are too common (except in places where they are not and / or where they are too expensive). And secondly because we understand quite a lot about them. Now, these natural resources are not "simple", considering the level of knowledge researchers have garnered about them over time. But if we look at them with the layman's eyes; the understanding with which the early men saw them, which is their basic needs; needs such as cooking, bathing, washing, breathing, cracking, building and so on, and depending on the type of person you are...then you may find us quite lucky. You know...we are born with the table already set for us. A lot is known about a lot of natural resources. And that's not bad. No qualms with that. (Why would there be?). But that just pronounces how heavily dependent we are on these lifeless things and lower animals. And more shamelessly, the management of these natural resources ...

Being terrally poor, to me basically means not living as comfortable as possible relative to the blessings of nature. All other living organisms have the natural instinct of balance; i.e, living within the scope of their needs and actively or passively taking part in continuation of species and sustainability. (except when external forces- asteroids, comets and the likes, come into play). And even then, with time, things balance out. This was so for the primitive man until he evolved. (Nature's probably most costly mistake). Man was ok, like All other organisms until their eyes opened. They became wiser and crowned themselves controllers rather than guardians (which was probably nature's idea for protection against these external forces) of the world. They did and undid, and now are shadows of the world. Plants and animals have no worries and they adapt well to negative phenomena- floods, droughts, earthquakes, competition, volcanic eruptions and so on - thanks to the ...

Tech can do and undo stuff - it is only a matter of time. (It's what I believe). I believe also that any problem that exists now, does so because we don't yet have the tech-know-how to deal with it. Physical earth problems like flooding, landslides, tsunamis, erosion, and so on, and human problems like conflict, excess liquidity, insecurity, transportation problems, and so on, and even health problems like cancer, AIDS, even headaches and injuries and so on (you name every little or big discomfort you can think of) all require a threshold of tech (that would surely come with some level of knowledge) to be beat, before we can (probably) completely quell these problems from the world such that after a while, they'd seem out of place; I am referring to an earth that his run by clean technology, and the earth, still as natural as we met it. Though I also believe that for other kinds or level of problems such as conflict and bad governance, a level of mental maturity has to be ...

     If the current world population was at about 900 million or less, we would still have developed , we might (a strong "might") still have caused climate change. But then it would not be at this rate. And that might still make us still a little complacent, but it would be under control. Plus it won't be at this time, the effect of which would be more time to develop sustainable energy sources.      Now population did not get the world this far in its growth and development. Surely everything is related to everything, so one way or the other it had its effect. One is that it intensified competition. I mean, a company's product being popular in a highly populated region is great gain to the organization. But the world's present level of growth and development, are results of drive and competition not population.      Population has always been means to an end not the end in itself- except in dumb regions that pursue the "glory" of attaining ...

First of all, an ideal environment would be an environment which has both natural and artificial features in balancing degrees, and the effects of one is not harmful to the other. I also believe that any "ideal environment" would have both natural and artificial structures working as a system; that is they complement each other in one way or a lot.      Take a country like Nigeria for example. Every state should be demarcated by well-cared for thick covers of vegetation. Except the coasts, so that the trees do not act to prevent sea breeze, and the excess heat from the land can smoothly flow into the sea which has more capacity for heat.      Every state should have economic, social, administrative and residential areas, all interspersed with social and cultural buildings.      These types of areas would be in different numbers (i.e, there can't be one specific type of area in a state due to transportation cost) and scattered fairly well. ...

     Writing about CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases does not at all feel repetitive and boring yet - I mean, climate change though began quite a long time ago, it is still just starting to really hit us. But talks about the causes and sources of greenhouse gas emissions would just be stating already established facts (except new, completely new information come up). Not that it's unimportant; it's just mundane.      That said, sources of CO2 emissions (i.e, smokes from exhaust pipes of vehicles and generators , burning large amounts of garbage, mining etc… ) in Africa is not the subject here; I mean, all of Africa combined don't emit up to half of Asia,  or according to some stat (e.g, Union of Concerned Scientists) only China.      Emission of greenhouse gases has been a global norm for centuries now. We only are just starting to experience its effects. Talks relating to the "bastard" now hinge on how to reduce its abundance and...

     The earth from a distance (space) is still majorly blue and green, because the earth is still at the beginning of it's deterioration. The deterioration some people still have the guts and / or carelessness to ignore - they must make the best possible use of their resources, having no qualms with the damage done to their environment.      The world is working out middle grounds for us to coexist sustainably with the environment. The middle grounds that are deliberated on at lengths by diplomats, are not drastic enough such that the environment is very little affected and surely has easy loop holes for boycotting, and finally are unpronounced in Africa.      Africa seems to be "benefiting" leniency from international organizations by reason of their poor state of finance and low level of development in terms of international dues and contributions; like the effect of climate change would be lenient on Africa.      The more d...