Apart from the odd meteorite and cosmic ray, there's nothing on this planet that hasn't already been here since its existence. Hence, everything is 100% nature.
2007-03-01 02:38:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by oracle128au 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Cease ALL human and animal activity, make sure dust particulates do not enter the atmosphere, and make sure every volcano on earth no longer erupts as just one volcanic eruption spews more carbon dioxide than man can. Instead of asking how to make it 100 percent pollution free, why not ask how to make industry and transportation, the two areas of most concern to the Greenies, more efficient while still viable. There must be a middle ground. Remember, thirty years ago scientists were concerned about a New Ice Age, not Global Warming.
2007-03-01 01:05:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by mklee05091953 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even if we could we might not want to.Just looking at only man for a moment. Man has thrived on this planet because he has adapted to what you are calling "pollution", We have many systems within us to protect us from so called pollution. We have mucous in our nasal cavaties, and breathing tubes to "collect"dust /pollution, an immune system that works best if not left dormant too long. Like a muscle it works best with regular use. We have many internal systems like kidneys, white blood cells, intestines,spleen, lymph system, skin etc. which all or in part deal with unwanted or unneeded material. Were we to be able to stop pollution these system unused would soon become ineffective and cease to work.
I agree with controlling excessive man made pollution. But the idea of pollution free sounds excessive and unhealthy. Man rarely has physical monsters to threaten his life anymore, so he creates mental monsters which are far more aggrevating.
2007-03-01 01:34:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by stedyedy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The green movement is pretty powerful, but not ultimately efficacious over every state. Nonetheless, one see how you can introduce incentive to reduce pollution: for one, you attribute harmful side-effects to the products that higher-class clientele purchase, not just ecologically harmful, but potentially carcinogenic, potentially harmful TO the consumer. This kind of scare tactic pushes everyone into buying "sustainable" foods, clothing, and housing materials. Lifestyle also is effected by the atmosphere, so people are ready to push better air quality in some places-- in others... people are lucky to get a bowl of food once a day. So... on the fringes of capitalism, it happens by necessity (for sure corporations cannot proceed in any economic way if global warming is true and is effected by poor methods of manufacturing...) but that doesn't prevent people from designing new ways to make ecology important, economically or otherwise.
Truly, killing off billions of humans would reduce pollution, but we would lose our momentum towards a more efficient utopia. Buckminster Fuller shows in his work "Utopia or Oblivion" how the minerals drawn from earth are in finite supply, and it would seem that we are depleting all our resoures, but we find new efficiencies, new ways of recycling, and methods of distribution to allocate these resources as decades pass, so the linear sequence to our doom is not a justifiable projection.
We may, to become 100% natural, have to pollute more in order to make a future of 0% pollution possible.
2007-03-01 01:28:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Can't be done, unless you are very careful how you define pollution.
Lead, arsenic, radon gas, asbestos... all natural.
Lots of other things that are natural but poisonous and dangerous to life in a variety of locations. Killer eruptions of CO2...
Reduce human-induced pollution, certainly. Fewer humans would help. but 100%, no, not on this planet.
2007-03-01 01:06:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pedestal 42 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you go with the popular definitions of "nature" and "natural" as being exclusive of human contibution, then the only way to achieve your 100% goal is to arrange for all humans to die. Good luck because I'll be the last holdout after you've talked everyone else into killing themselves.
2007-03-01 01:48:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Like, Uh, Ya Know? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
100%? nature(pollution Free)?
Simple simple very simple remove cities like pimple.
If human being start living again like his starting point on the planet (the jungle life).
2007-03-01 01:13:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by vishw_paramaatmaa_parivaar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
when human becomes normal and not SUPER ANIMAL.
When human become not selffish.
Above two are not possible. Hence 100% polution free nature is not possible
2007-03-01 02:03:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
we have learn to live along the natural way of life. we have to go back earlier civilzation belongs to Paleolithic age. ie, we have to through away all modern practices of travels, IT, Learnig, and all. because at that man lives in harmony with nature. in this man works within the tolerance limit of nature. all his pollting activity will be recyled by nature's own activity itself. unless otherwise, we go for this wasy it is impossible to attain 100 % natural way of life.
but this fact is impossible so we can go for all other remedial measures such as stabilizing population, decreasing pollution by improving efficiency mechanisms, increasing forest covers, increaasing usage of renewable sources of energy for meeting future energy needs.
mani,
dept of soil,
TNAU, Covai
2007-03-01 14:21:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by malarmaniyan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
killing the humans. To make nature pollution free u need to reduce the cause and the main cause are humans
2007-03-01 01:09:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by sajeev_840 1
·
0⤊
0⤋