It is believed that our planet’s weather have been changing recently, although the amount of pollution and consumerism have a great deal of effect on global warming which cannot be controlled because each personal life styles are affecting. There are many things that cause the pollution such as, population or the increase of private cars in streets. I agree to some extent, it’s a team work between Succeed (titled Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive for the British edition) is a 2005 book by academic and popular science author Jared Diamond, in which Diamond first defines collapse: “a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.” He then reviews the causes of historical and pre-historical instances of societal collapse — particularly those involving significant influences from environmental changes, the effects of climate change, hostile neighbors, trade partners, and the society’s response to the foregoing four challenges— and considers the success or failure different societies have had in coping with such threats.
Diamond also argues that humanity collectively faces, on a much larger scale, many of the same issues, with possibly catastrophic near-future consequences to many of the world’s populations.
.” He added: “Some of us are inclined to dismiss the importance of a healthy environment, or at least to suggest that it’s just one of many problems facing us—an ‘issue.’
Things to remember while reading the excerpt from “The Last Americans: Environmental Collapse and the End of Civilization”:
Diamond’s essay, first published in 2003, formed the basis of his full-length book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (2004). The book’s subtitle is a key to Diamond’s argument: societies have the ability to confront troubles, and they fail when they choose to ignore the problems facing them.
Diamond cites three examples of trends in the United States that reflect the choice of ignoring trouble: 1) the belief “that we must balance the environment against human needs”; 2) “that we can trust in technology to solve our problems”; and 3) “that environmentalists are fear-mongering, overreacting extremists whose predictions of impending disaster have been proved wrong before and will be proved wrong again.”
Because peak population, wealth, resource consumption, and waste production are accompanied by peak environmental impact—approaching the limit at which impact outstrips exceeds resources—we can now understand why declines of societies tend to follow swiftly on their peaks.
These combinations of undermining factors were compounded by cultural attitudes preventing those in power from perceiving or resolving the crisis. That’s a familiar problem today. Some of us are inclined to dismiss the importance of a healthy environment, or at least to suggest that it’s just one of many problems facing us—an “issue.” That dismissal is based on three dangerous misconceptions false beliefs.
Foremost among these misconceptions is that we must balance the environment against human needs. That reasoning is exactly upside-down. Human needs and a healthy environment are not opposing claims that must be balanced; instead, they are inexorably linked by chains of cause and effect. We need a healthy environment because we need clean water, clean air, wood, and food from the ocean, plus soil and sunlight to grow crops.
2-Another popular misconception is that we can trust in technology to solve our problems. Whatever environmental problem you name, you can also name some hoped-for technological solution under discussion. Some of us have faith that we shall solve our dependence on fossil fuels by developing new technologies for hydrogen engines, wind energy, or solar energy.
Some of us have faith that we shall solve our food problems with new or soon-to-be-developed genetically modified crops. Some of us have faith that new technologies will succeed in cleaning up the toxic materials in our air, water, soil, and foods without the horrendous cleanup expenses that we now incur.
Those with such faith assume that the new technologies will ultimately succeed, but in fact some of them may succeed and others may not. They assume that the new technologies will succeed quickly enough to make a big difference soon, but all of these major technological changes will actually take five to thirty years to develop and implement—if they catch on at all. Most of all, those with faith assume that new technology won’t cause any new problems. In fact, technology merely constitutes increased power, which produces changes that can be either for the better or for the worse. All of our current environmental problems are unanticipated harmful consequences of our existing technology. There is no basis for believing that technology will miraculously stop causing new and unanticipated problems while it is solving the problems that it previously produced.
3-The final misconception holds that environmentalists are fear-mongering, overreacting extremists whose predictions of impending disaster have been proved wrong before and will be proved wrong again. Behold, say the optimists: water still flows from our faucets, the grass is still green, and the supermarkets are full of food. We are more prosperous than ever before, and that’s the final proof that our system work
Even so, Hassan said, more development aid is required to address the threat of climate change. Warnings are important, and so are the building of new cyclone shelters and the strengthening of embankments. But the real work of preparing for climate change, he said, lies in population control, increasing access to education, and raising income levels.
overwhelmed by pollution and the loss of natural resources as a means for helping understand and overcome problems that may lead to modern-day societal
Few people, however, least of all our politicians, realize that a primary cause of the collapse of those societies has been the destruction of the environmental resources on which they depended. Fewer still appreciate that many of those civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society’s demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth, and power.