Can you think of any? I'm supposed to be helping my daughter with her assignment - "Man's impact on the Environment".
Thinking up examples of *negative* impact is easy - but finding *positive* examples ...
Yeah, I know - a homework question - at my age!!
2006-06-20 22:16:18 · 8 answers · asked by Amar 4 in Environment
ethnobotany studies of less "developed" human societies show many work with local eco-systems - distributing seeds, lsmall scale clearance/burning, creating habitats for game, finding water supplies...
eg the San (bushmen) team up with birds & badgers to raid bees nests for honey.
Would you count providing road-kill for scavangers a positive impact? Or providing fields of mono-crop so plagues of insects can thrive? or fast-food debries for rats?
Generaly the environment is not judgemental as to what is +ve or -ve. Life and Gaia in some form will survive humans.
However, in the short term modern civilisation tends to destroy habitats and diversity. See thinking like a mountain for a good explanation of how a non-anthropocentic jugement may be made.
I would not count mitigating a few of the negative effects of the great greed of human species as a positive.
2006-06-21 03:54:15 · answer #1 · answered by fred 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When we get together and provide some effective wildlife conservation, like providing corridors between remnant patches of vegetation which allows for greater habitat area (some species die out in small patches ie not enough resources for a viable population) or captive breeding endangered species for later release.
Recycling is a good one, you know it limits the resources people use, so indirectly reduces habitat clearing (less trees cut down) pollution.
Maybe the problem will keep your brain younger at least.
2006-06-20 22:29:51 · answer #2 · answered by gnypetoscincus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
individuals are animals and must be considered as such, in this remember. no remember if monkeys or zebras were in our position, the global became sure through the route that is on now, so all issues considered i might want to imagine impartial. I recommend if we were going to bypass down this route besides there is not any effective or detrimental contained in the experience of your question, using the actuality we've purely adapted to our global, even although we are now killing it. yet different planets have died before besides so it really is only a elementary prevalence. i am hoping that solutions your question!
2016-10-20 11:04:15 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i know this is going to sound really crazy but in this day and age WAR can have a positive impact on the environment, less people to house and feed. i know that sounds awefull but war does reduce the population of the world allowing more resources for the surviving populations, before you all start on me, i do not wish to trivialize WAR in any way.
2006-06-21 00:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no positive impact. Conservation etc. are just mankind's feeble attempts to fix the problems that we have created.
2006-06-24 18:55:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1
2017-02-19 23:05:07 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When we die, we put a little back to the Earth, though no way enough.
2006-06-20 22:28:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
saving endangered species.
2006-06-20 22:19:15 · answer #8 · answered by MM 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋