THE DESTRUCTION OF MAN KIND Essays - Forest Conservation

THE DESTRUCTION OF MAN KIND "We know there will be problems in environmental terms, many serious problems, but it is a matter of economics. There won't be any complete disaster, and what we cannot solve, well, that's the price we have to pay." - Eduardo Albuquerque Barbosa There is a constant war that is being fought in the rainforests of South America. The death toll is one that far surpasses any other war in history. Vietnam and World War II had minimal loss of life compared to this never ending battle. It is predicted that by the year 2020, the casualties will reach 150 per day. This total does not even include the loss of human life due to the lack of oxygen and the unsuitable living conditions. This horrible scenario would be the result of mankind's failure to cooperate and live in harmony with the environment, especially the rainforest of South America. In the end, the destruction of the rainforests will mean the destruction of mankind. The devastation of the rainforest may be compared to playing a game of Russian Roulette. One-forth of existing medicines are derived from tropical plants whose homes are in the rainforests of South America. For every acre that is lost in the burning season, there is one acre less that we have for possible life saving medicines. About 70 percent of plants used in anti-cancer drugs come from the rain forest. We are slowly destroying ourselves and the environment. Whether we realize it or not, the world could quickly come to an ecological halt. Every day 144,000 acres of the rainforests are cut down, slashed and/or put up in flames. In 1974, Brazil started a forest fire of 20.6 million square feet (3,900 square miles). The fire ragged out of control and was later marked the largest forest fire in Brazilian history. This 1974 fire is now considered small to others in the past recent years. On average the burning season lasts up to four months out of the whole year. During this period of time, it is not uncommon for the majority of South America to be covered in a thick blanket of smoke. The bulk of these fires, when combined, are equivalent to the great inferno of 1988 at Yellow Stone National Park. Emitted from these devastating fires every year are billions of carcinogens and poisonous gases that end up in the atmosphere. The gases and pollution have been building for many years, and scientists believe that the atmosphere is due to reach its saturation point very soon. The greed for money and lust for land are just two flames at the heart of the fire. At the expense of innocent lives of rainforest dwelling animals and local environmentalists, large corporations can some how justify there murderous means. Rainforests cover only a mere seven percent of the earth's land surface, yet they contain 50 percent of the world's species. Along with the thousands of animals in these century old forests, there are many tribes of Indians who are subjected to torment and usually death from the large companies. Heartless Corporations such as Endesa, Arboriente and PICOP ignore the blockades of the FPA, "Forest Peoples' Alliance", and the perpetual pleas of the Scientist's who predict, "tropical species are disappearing at a rate that could conceivably reach as high as 150 species a day by the year 2020" Landry, (5). Unfortunately this battle comes down to economics versus environment, and so far the environment is losing the war. Chico Mendes' death finally brought the much needed world wide attention to the rainforests. Until 1988 the astonishing figures produced by environmentalist and scientists never had much weight on the conscience of countries outside of the Amazon Rain Forest. The death of Mendes was the second death of a NCRT, National Council of Rubber Tappers, member in recent times. The fight, " at first, was only about ecology, and defending the fishes, the animals, the forest, and the river. They didn't realize that humans were also in the forest" Rodrigues, Revkin (1). Though Chico was a rubber tapper in the town of Xapuri, he spent most of the year traveling around the world trying to gain support in his fight against the destruction of the rainforest . Chico's non-violent approach won him much favor from the United States and all of the other rubber tappers. Chico Mendes once said, "If a messenger came down from heaven and guaranteed that my death would strengthen our struggle, it would even be worth it. But experience teaches us the opposite. Public rallies and lots of

Free Essays on Euthyphro and Socrates

Socrates’ Opposition of Euthyphro’s First and Third Suggestion Euthyphro’s first and third suggestion on the form of piety poses a problem for Socrates. A form is something that distinguishes one thing from another; piousness just like anything else has a form. In Socrates’ debate with Euthyphro, he looks for the form of piety, something that can separate pious from impious actions. Socrates is a Natural Law Theorist, laws regarding what is and what is ought to be; he wants some feature of piety that will allow him to pick out pious acts, that is not shared by impious acts, and that makes the action in question pious. Euthyphro has difficulty defining what is pious and what is not because, as it becomes clear from the whole discussion with Socrates, he does not have a clear idea of what it is himself, although he claims to do so. In his first suggestion on the nature of piety, he presents the case of a certain group of individuals, particularly lawmen, to which he also belongs. For them, Euthyphro claims, it would be pious, or holy, to prosecute â€Å"wrongdoers or those guilty of any other offense†¦be they one’s father or mother or anyone else whatever† (Ethics 7-8). On the other hand, it would be impious, or unholy, to hold back because of reservations brought on by ties of relations or friendship. Socrates does not dispute Euthyphro’s duty to do so, but points out to the latter that his suggestion is no more than an example of a pious action, and not very clear one as well. Euthyphro’s example of what is pious does not give a basis for future interpretation of what piousness is. It deviates from the form of this term, and doesn’t explain how to distinguish it for the future. For example if someone asks you what is ice cream, and as a response you say it is some thing that is liked by many people, you are not defining ice cream. Many people like many things, for example many people like pizza. How ... Free Essays on Euthyphro and Socrates Free Essays on Euthyphro and Socrates Socrates’ Opposition of Euthyphro’s First and Third Suggestion Euthyphro’s first and third suggestion on the form of piety poses a problem for Socrates. A form is something that distinguishes one thing from another; piousness just like anything else has a form. In Socrates’ debate with Euthyphro, he looks for the form of piety, something that can separate pious from impious actions. Socrates is a Natural Law Theorist, laws regarding what is and what is ought to be; he wants some feature of piety that will allow him to pick out pious acts, that is not shared by impious acts, and that makes the action in question pious. Euthyphro has difficulty defining what is pious and what is not because, as it becomes clear from the whole discussion with Socrates, he does not have a clear idea of what it is himself, although he claims to do so. In his first suggestion on the nature of piety, he presents the case of a certain group of individuals, particularly lawmen, to which he also belongs. For them, Euthyphro claims, it would be pious, or holy, to prosecute â€Å"wrongdoers or those guilty of any other offense†¦be they one’s father or mother or anyone else whatever† (Ethics 7-8). On the other hand, it would be impious, or unholy, to hold back because of reservations brought on by ties of relations or friendship. Socrates does not dispute Euthyphro’s duty to do so, but points out to the latter that his suggestion is no more than an example of a pious action, and not very clear one as well. Euthyphro’s example of what is pious does not give a basis for future interpretation of what piousness is. It deviates from the form of this term, and doesn’t explain how to distinguish it for the future. For example if someone asks you what is ice cream, and as a response you say it is some thing that is liked by many people, you are not defining ice cream. Many people like many things, for example many people like pizza. How ...

Global Usage of a Language Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Global Usage of a Language - Assignment Example It is evidently clear from the discussion that language is a uniquely human experience. The need to communicate and its method (language) are based in the human psyche and passed on from one generation to the next. Language is closely bound up with the forms of human thought. It serves a vast range of communicative needs, from getting the neighbor to keep the music down, to telling jokes, making declarations of love or hate, or praying etc. It also functions in the middle of complex civilizations, not just as a way of communication, but as an indicator of social identity, a sign of association to a social class, ethnic group, or country.  Every word in a language is a term. Every term has both meaning an assumption, and this is why language barriers are more than measly communication barriers, why something is always lost in translation. A language portrays society and emotion in its very essence. It develops as a people develop. Hence to understand a particular language is to live within it and its culture. This is where swear words get their power from, for example damn, shit all have different textual meanings but are conversationally used as swear words. Linguistics is the study of language and concerns itself with all aspects of how people utilize language and what they have to know in order to do so.  All languages change, they have histories, and they live and die along with the societies they belong to. Human languages are typically referred to as natural languages. A common progression for natural languages is that they are considered to be first spoken, and then written, and then an understanding and explanation of their grammar is attempted. Any language that is in a constant state of change is known as a living language or modern language.  A language that ceases to change or develop is classified as a dead language. The most universal process leading to language death is one in which a society of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in an additional language, and gradually shifts loyalty to the second language until they stop to use their original (or heritage) language. This is a process of incorporation which may be voluntary or may be forced upon a people.