IntroductionWe can find many things about environmental problems in greater libraries, the media, or on the Internet. Those works are generally created by professional environmentalists who know much, so we can usually get to know many facts from them, usually with references. In contrast, I, the author, base on our present knowledge instead, remind, popularize, and most importantly, search for solutions to the problems. Firstly, we should understand that the solution should be searched for in society instead of the sciences or technology, as until now, mankind lacked not the power, but the willingness, will, unity and cooperation to solve the environmental problems. The essence can be understood by all healthy people: human activities changed the planet Earth so much that it has become less and less fit for supporting life. If it continues this way, it could cause the extinction of many plant and animal species, and perhaps even of humankind, and the possible survivor people will have to live in an unpleasant environment for a long time. The opinions are different about the degree of danger and the extent of problems, so to understand these things, the works of professional environmentalists are handy.
When we understand what problems are facing us, it is worth solving them together. Science and technology could not and cannot provide solutions for all problems. They only give tools, but the tools in themselves are not sufficient to solve the environmental problems, if the will for it is not present. Could a newer technology save Earth from the usage of the weapons of mass destruction? Could a newer technology itself save us from a mad scientist? Or could technology save the endangered species from extinction in the time of great famines? Something more is needed here. It is necessary that most of the people do what is good for both the living creatures and the whole of humankind. Education about worldview and ethics can help, but the modification of the economic and political system can help even more, as most people care for environmentalism little until other ways seem to be more competitive. The environmental movement is connected to politics closely, and is trying to influence and decision-makers by votes, ideas, facts, and expert help.
There are areas where conservation and the cause of human survival help each other and there are areas where they inhibit each other. If there were no humankind, the world would probably be more natural and predictable than it is now. Humankind, however, might be able to save Earthly life from a threat from space, and they might be able to transport a part of the living world to another planet. Thus we do not know if humankind does good or wrong to the living world in the long term. We know, however, that the natural living world does good to humankind, as it provides food, knowledge and energy. Thus a part of Nature is worth saving anyway. It is sad that the natural living world lost more and more areas in the beginning of the 21st century due to human irresponsibility, and the state of the lifeless environment also differs more and more from what proved to be sustainable through millions of years. Afterwards, the survival of humankind might be at stake. People should sometimes cooperate with and sometimes compete against each other in order to survive. Environmental agreements are examples of cooperation. There are times when it is difficult to find the form of good cooperation. In these times it may be helpful to share some environmentalist ideas that can cause evolutionary success to their implementors and are compulsive thereby.
Further readings(these were not necessarily read by the author):
Central Intelligence Agency - The World Factbook (Washington DC, 2013, annual publication) ... official referencing form: The World Factbook 2013-14. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 2013
Worldwatch Institute - State of the World (2013, annual publication)
Worldwatch Institute - Vital Signs (2013, annual publication)
United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP Year Book 2013 (annual publication)
United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP 2013 Annual Report (annual publication)
Eco-friendly sentencesIt is not important to teach fictional literature, but it is important to teach skills, ethics and laws instead.
Rhetoric in (medieval) Trivium was still more useful than the education of fictional literature in 20th-century Hungary.
I fear that technological development will make things worse on Earth: social development should catch up.
If birth rates are high in Africa, poverty seems inevitable, they are responsible. In towns and cities, birth rates could be lower.
Financial services cost money anyway. If just a small part of that money comes from the poor, won't that make them poorer?
Cheap labour is like a magnet to poor economies. Will the development of humanoid robots help the developed countries more?
In a great economic crisis in the future, self-sufficiency plus some surplus may prevail, dependence on trade is risky.
What is cheaper: building a conventional state-wide infrastructure for Myanmar, or making cities, towns and villages self-sufficient?
The State can provide quality jobs if it takes care of teaching the right skills (and not only knowledge) in advance.
Quality work is needed to develop the economy, and if there is high unemployment, the state should take care of providing jobs.
There are two factors in reaching readers: the quality of the book (weight), and the quality of the campaign (acceleration). Is there a third? It might be fame (velocity)
As David Hilbert's speech about a list of mathematical problems shaped mathematics for a century, a collection of environmentally friendly research tasks could shape environmentalism for a century, too.
The rich would be able to change the world much. However, they are not always those who have the good ideas to change the world. One of the reasons of that is that they are not those who suffer the most because of the world.
Many times it has been said that a better recycling of waste is not profitable. If it's not profitable in the private sector, it may still be profitable as public work.
The need for our work is greater if our creation doesn't only mean a blessing for the community as a whole, but it can mean a direct joy to the customers, or it can improve their lives directly, and to enjoy the results of our work they should not need to make any more sacrifices.
Celebrities, journalists and religious leaders could bring up the theme of environmentalism from time to time, and it is worth doing it in a better quality.
Teachers could share the news about all (national or international) environmental contests and competitions with pupils and students, to encourage them to enter in these competitions instead of others.
Architects could focus on security and efficiency for not just the present time, but for the entire planned lifetime of the building, too.
Can environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and satisfaction be reconciled?
Human overpopulation will cause a great
pressure to the environment, and it's probable that it can only be limited by
some counter-pressures like buying more and more land for Nature, until the
great crisis happens.