Will the western world ultimately be responsible for the destruction of Earth and most of humanity?

Question

State your thoughts and opinions of this issue by contributing with intelligent answers. I am doing this study in college involving environmental, social and political science and after attending a debate last Friday about western world practices, changed my perspectives about our culture and believes as Americans.

Best answer may be quoted on the Dartmouth College news paper depending on quality and content.

Dad no offense but you don't have the slightest clue on what you are talking about and your ideology is unquestionably idiotic.

Answer 1

Excluding factors such as global warming (for which awareness is quickly spreading and habits are changing, so I feel it is excludable) No, I don't believe that the western world will be responsible for such thing. I do, however, believe that there is a destruction of culture going on. As western culture spreads, the younger generation of many once culturally-rich countries are donning blue jeans, listening to American and British music, munching McDonalds, and no longer showing an interest in their heritage. I don't believe that this could bring about the destruction of the earth and humanity. If someone is to be responsible for bringing about the end of the world, I would say that nearly the whole world has played apart. Not just westerners, but people from every country on earth hold prejudice against others who do not share their values- or, that is, do not place the same priority on certain values as compared to other ones. This does not mean that I'm saying the western world is innocent- we just play an equal role as all the others in the world- albeit in a more subtle way. We are carefully spreading our culture through the expansion of brands (McDonalds, Starbucks, brands of Jeans, music). While in some countries, people are activly trying to eliminate those who are not like them (think Darfur, and perhaps the well-known acts of terrorism that have been happening throughout the last ten years). And this has been going on for thousands of years- just not in the same way. It's arguably an evolutionary survival tactic. But I won't get into that.

If the destruction of the Earth and humanity has to be caused by someone, it will be the human race that is responsible- not just one part of it. I'm not saying that humans are inherently evil, but we really cause alot of problems with our prejudices.

Answer 2

All of us are responsible in our own [little] ways.

Paradoxically, humankind's quest for the betterment of our own lives results, in the long run, to the destruction of the very place where we live--the Earth. In fact, as far as my knowledge is concerned, the Earth is the only living planet where we can LIVE. So, its deterioration concerns each and every warm human body.

The Western world is blamed to be responsible for the destruction of the environment. Why is this so? Because historically, most of the technological developments and modernization started from the West... and the rest oftentimes, simply follow the trend. The rise of industries and plants, and mega-businesses that spring from it started from the West. With this economic undertakings, social and political implications have also been inevitable. Developments that have made human lives "better" are now taking its toll. Environmental-wise, the effects are more than visible. Climate changes are becoming drastic and with this come disasters which have taken thousands of lives. In terms of the social and political aspects of the issue, we can take a look at the conflicts between countries. Maybe it may serve as a starting point to ask why the Bush administration waged and is still waging wars? What are the possible reasons that may be connected with the allocation of resources? Is oil the issue? Why is the clamor for power evident in the quest of countries to develop and monopolize the developments of weapons such as nuclear bombs? Why are first-world countries investing on setting up in third-world countries factories and plants whose emissions are hazardous to public health and safety? Why are ships from first-world countries dumping their garbages on the seas of underdeveloped countries? These, and many others will serve as points to start with.

My opinion is, we all have a share in this responsibility over the destruction of Earth. The ultimate question is, who has the GREATER share?

Answer 3

The western world has set a bad example.

But the non-western world seems bent on following down the same path.

At this point blaming things on the western world, as opposed to humans in general, is a very dubious proposition.

So your proposition is better stated as "Will mankind ultimately be responsible for the destruction of Earth and most of humanity?

The answer to that, by the way, is clearly no. We're not about to destroy the Earth, although we may beat it up some. We won't destroy "most" of humanity, although we may make life more difficult for most everyone.

I am a very strong environmentalist (who has earned his living at it for many years). I have spent a very large amount of time studying the issues. The exaggerated stuff, and blaming certain groups for almost universal human tendencies, is totally counterproductive to the results you want to achieve.

I hope that viewpoint has some place in your study.

Answer 4

On balance, I would say that, if we destroy our civilization by continuing to behave in an environmentally irresponsible way (or some other destructive behaviour; e.g. overpopulation, war, etc.) it will not be the "fault" of any one art of the world. Certainly, the western nations bear much of the responsibility. Currently the United States, as an example, puts more greenhouse gasses into the admosphere than any other nation.

But--at the same time, there is growing support for change in the West, not only political, but in terms of what technology is being developed, how it is being developed, attitudes of the genral population, and so on.

That is not true to any great extent in China. Their government appears to be following a policy of "economic development at any cost," including heaby reliance o n coal. But--I don't want to fall into the rhetorical pattern we see of excusing western actions by point the finger at others. And it's not a balanced view, in any case. Some developing nations-notably India, are making a real effort to address the environmental issues that go with building their economies.

So--my opinion, in a nutshell--is that, if we manage to "do ourselves in," there will be more than enough blame to go around. We all live on th esame planet. And the current environmental isses of global warming and climate change are teaching us (well, some of us!) that we really are all "one world." We will stand--or fall--together.

Answer 5

Yes, only evil Western countries (like the one that invented the computer you're using) are responsible for global warming and the destruction of the earth. In China the air is pure, in Africa, they live in harmony with the world, and even here in the USA the Native Americans live as "one with nature", just go visit any Rez and see what great stewards of the land they trully are.

The only places in this country (USA) that aren't part of the problem are places like Dartmouth, Harvard, Yale and Berkeley. They are all "right thinking" people who've never been wrong about anything regarding politics, environment, and law. I wish I wasn't a Red Stater, and a true moron. Life would be so much easier if I could live in a cave and never put a "carbon footprint" on this earth.

Now I have to sit here at this airport and wait for Algore's jet to depart, before they let me take off in my evil piston driven, gas guzzling engine. He's burning more fuel than me, but then he "thinks right" and I don't, it makes ALL the difference.

Answer 6

Sure and let's just forget about China, India, many other Asian
and other countries who have literally no pollution controls in place, and wouldn't be able to enforce them if they did do to massive corruption and incompetence. China is now the biggest polluter in the world, but it's the west that's going to destroy the world, right?. At least the west realizes the problem and have been taking steps to address it, although maybe not as aggressively as they should have, and their populations are now taking things into their own hands and making changes in their own lives that I believe are going to make a considerable difference in the years to come as
more people make those changes and more products aimed at conserving energy and water come online. As an example,
I read a statistic a few weeks age that really caught my attention, New York City has reduced it's water use by 23% ( which is a huge number when you realize how much water NYC uses ), simply because they passed legislation to require low flow toilets and shower heads and other plumbing fixtures, to seek out and repair leaks and just generally make the effort to reduce water use and make people aware of how they could save water as well. We have a long way to go, not just the west but everyone on this planet; I just hope we have enough time to make enough of a difference, but if we all get our heads out of our butts and start acting like responsible stewards of this planet rather than spoiled children pointing fingers at each other when someone broke moms favorite vase than maybe we have a chance.

Answer 7

Not necessarily. Global lack of education and non-conforming international laws will be responsible. Many large corporations are internationally owned---from East to West. Also consider deforestation in Nepal, toxic material use and waste disposal in China. The disaster in Chernobyl, Saddam's Kuwaiti oil fires, devastating environmental issues in Iran*. Polluted ground water in the Middle East and Africa due to cross contamination to sewage and water lines. Some measures are being taken by special interest groups and to a smaller degree, world leaders, however are they enough? Unless more is done to educate people about their effects on the environment; unless world-wide environmental organizations and corporations come to terms that are equitably efficient in furthering the strength of world economies and protecting the planet; and unless world-wide corporations agree to global environmental regulations concerning manufacturing and commerce, the destruction of the Earth and most of humanity is guaranteed by the world-wide arena.

Answer 8

No.

The very term "destruction of Earth" is hyperbole used all too often by people talking about environmental problems with the specific intention of making them sound more serious than they are. It implies physical destruction of the Earth, which is ludicrous. Actual destruction, as opposed to mere severe damage, would kill all life, not just most of humanity.

The idea that western civilization is bad and the cause of most of the world's problems is just an overly critical form of self immolation that liberals especially are fond of. It shows a lack of understanding of the full scope of eastern (or at least non-western) civilization's foibles, and a lack of appreciation of the benefits we enjoy in the west. It is just a kind of "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" attitude.

Answer 9

As issues are going now, if no longer something is finished to alter the trails that societies are taking, the western international would be in charge for the effects of international warming (Earth) and the jap international would be in charge for the effects of religious fanaticism (humanity). The western international has the components and the political clout to decrease or maybe halt human contributions to international warming, and the jap international has the inhabitants skill to decrease or maybe halt terrorism interior the call of religion. interior the western international, that's the governments which could take affirmative action against the persons who insist on exacerbating international warming, and interior the the jap international, that's the persons who could take affirmative action against the governments which insist on permitting terrorism to flourish interior their borders.

Answer 10

Personally, from what I have observed of history of the past century, people in the U.S. have gotten to be very comfortable with their seat at the top of the world. It seems that after Europe had willing handed over the torch of global influence to America after so many devastating world wars, it was happy to maintain a more secondary role. However, I wonder whether Americans will do the same.

As has been evidenced by actions in the past, e.g. the Vietnam War and now the Iraq war, America tends to go leaps and bounds beyond what may be immediately necessary. Even though this is generally done with good intentions, it can be seen in the state of Iraq today that adequate planning doesn't really happen when it needs to. Lack of planning, understanding, and overall apathy towards a situation is also evident in the state of the U.S.' environmental policy and the opinion on this issue of the general public.

Many American citizens neither really have an idea of how to fix the world's environmental issues, nor do they understand the gravity of the situation. Of course almost everyone knows that global warming is an issue (for which the credit goes to Al Gore), but not everyone is willing to make a change to solve it. This fact can be seen in the general American consensus on nuclear power as a solution to CO2 emissions, even in the short term. Many simply do not see it as a viable option because of accidents in the past. So many cite Chernoybl and Three Mile Island as their reasons for not supporting nuclear power, although almost no one seems to know that Chernobyl occured because of a flaw in the basic design of the reactor (a design that is no longer in use anywhere outside of Lithuania), and that only one person is thought to have died from the Three Mile Island incident, without conclusive evidence to support that the accident was the cause of death. This overeagerness to help change things and the lack of knowledge or unwillingness to accept alternatives when affecting a change is a failure common to both much of the American public and the American government.

Many see China as the logical successor to America as a global superpower. In terms of effects on the environment, China has already surpassed the U.S. in its CO2 production, even though peak energy production has likely not yet been reached. However, pressure on China to clean up its act, so to speak, is ever-increasing as China becomes the new center of attention. China realizes this, and so, many nuclear power plants are already in construction, as well as other alternative energy sources. In terms of foreign relations, China is being a bit careless, but at least it hasn't so far invaded another country without any solid grounds to do so.

In short, I believe that whether it is left to the Western world to lead the rest of the world is a potential change that the West must allow to happen if it does. The way in which this possible evolution is handled will likely be a reflection upon whether the West will allow the world to continue to advance, or whether it is too stubborn to relinquish its control, and is willing to bring the whole world down with it in order to maintain that control.