The article “The Challenges We Face” takes a more moderate approach to what we conventionally think of as environmentalism, especially when discussing the ability of the human race to destroy the Earth. It cites Earth’s general longevity and natural cycles of destruction and renewal as impossible to supersede, even by the technology of mankind. What the world community must do, as a whole, is limit our use of the resources supplied by the world. If not, just as millions of other species, humans will become nothing but artifacts on the geologic record. The article states, quite simply, “in the end, then, it’s us we’re trying to save – and while the job is doable, it won’t be easy.” In the process of saving the Earth, we are just trying to save ourselves, which is an idea the article stresses throughout; that a compromise is needed between people and the environment we depend on for survival.
The major categories of hazards discussed are population and health, food, energy and climate, and biodiversity. I believe that one incredibly helpful method to begin improving any of these problems, perhaps with the exception of population and health, is to offer “financial incentives,” citing the fact that 81% of the world’s natural resources are being used, and even exploited, by the few developed nations of the world. Especially to eliminate the threat to biodiversity, I believe that widespread education about the harmful effects of human population on animal and plant life, concentrated in areas where the threat is most prevalent, would be a way to continue fighting against “vanishing species,” ecosystems, and habitats. Another way to combat the degradation and depletion of many of Earth’s habitants is to tighten and uphold legislative measures concerning actions harmful to animal and plant species. For example, the article discusses a program in Fiji where marine fisheries are being restored.
There are many measures each person on Earth could take to reduce their impact on the environment. In my opinion, getting involved in one’s community by learning about local environmental concerns and what you can do to alleviate them is a great way to begin to fight against human depletion of natural resources. Working at an environmental camp this summer, I saw how teaching children about the delicate elements of Florida’s ecosystem left a great impression on them. Lastly, more dramatic measures such as becoming a vegetarian or becoming politically active about environmental concerns in my community, such as sea turtles being disconcerted by lights on the beach during hatching, or oil drilling off the coast threatening the coral reefs, are all things I could do to reduce my impact on the environment and assuage the threats to biodiversity, particularly in my own community.

--Isabella

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because humans are not capable of physically eliminating the entire earth. What humans can do is destroy and change the environment so that it cannot support life. I agree with what the article is implying because the earth is a large piece of matter that is not likely to be destroyed by anything man can do. However, man can effect the environment in a way that can alter his ability to survive on the planet. For instance, many other species have become extinct or nearly extinct because of environmental changes (i.e. dinosaurs).

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are:
1. Population and health
2. Food
3. Energy and climate
4. Biodiversity
5. Water

3.There are some ways in which we can solve or at least elevate the severity of Population and Health problems. First, there needs to be more economic-development to enable people to escape poverty and to allow governments the financial resources to help people help themselves. Second, family planning programs in the poorest parts of the world will help slow the population growth. Third, there needs to be better public heath education. Efforts need to be made to educate people on how to minimize communicable diseases and also programs need to be developed to insure that people receive appropriate immunizations.

4.My ability to change my lifestyle in a way that will alleviate global population and health problems is limited. I live in a privileged environment and have access to good health education, and health care. In the future I can limit the number of my offspring to help reduce global population growth. I also can lend financial support to programs that improve the health of people in poor countries.


--Adam

1.The magazine article is correct when it states that humans can not completely destroy the earth. While we are unable to destroy the physical earth, it is very possible for humans to exploit the planet to the point where we can not survive and grow successfully. At this point, as the article explains, humans will simply become extinct like species before us. When considering this question I have to consider a theory from economist Ester Boserup, which states that humans will create technologies to deal with any major problems facing the world. Just as we decided to ban CFC’s to protect the atmosphere, I feel that humans will create new technologies and laws to protect the earth.
2.The major hazards discussed in the article include: Human population growth, food supply problems, fresh water retrieval, climate and energy, and loss of biodiversity.
3.With regard to climate change, I feel that humans are completely capable of slowing down global warming. The first way humans can limit the production of greenhouse gasses is by limiting electrical usage at home. This can be easily done by using energy efficient appliances or by simply changing to energy efficient bulbs. The second way humans can slow down global warming is by reforesting the earth. Trees remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and could slow down the rate at which these gasses build up in our atmosphere. The third way humans can curb global warming is by reverting to renewable energies like solar and wind power which do not release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
4.I could do my part to curb global warming by using less gasoline in my car (not using the air conditioning system, accelerating slowly, and driving on the highway can all increase fuel economy) and by using energy saving bulbs in my house which use less than half the electricity of regular bulbs and by urging my family to purchase more Energy Star appliances which use less power when compared to other appliances.

--Alex B

The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because it says that the earth can destroy us like it has to many species before us humans. I agree with this statement. We are not supporting the earth; the earth does not need us. We are the ones who need the earth. We need it to live; we need the earth?s atmosphere, water, food, energy? etc. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and bio diversity. I think the issue of food would be the easier problem to solve. It?s not like the whole world is starving, the United States as well as other countries has a large abundance of food. We have too much food, which is why so many Americans have become obese. It doesn't make sense that many people in American are obese while people in Africa are starving. I think every state in the US should give a portion of their food income to the starving countries. If we did that it would kill two problems, lower the obesity rate and feed the hungry. Also, America is a very rich nation. It would not hurt us to donate money to the rich and homeless. Another suggestion which many of the rich countries can participate in is that we can build little restaurants and supermarkets, one in each town. We can supply the food so it will be clean and sanitary and make the costs at a price that the poor will be able to afford. Doing this will not take anything away from us, its only helping the starving people. The only way I can change my lifestyle that will help the problem is to conserve the food and water that we have. We should use it more wisely and not abuse it. We throw tons of food out each day; the amount we throw out could feed all the starving people.
--Brittany

1. The article is describing how we can?t officially destroy the entire earth, but in a way destroy the way we are used to the earth being or the way we like it. Maybe the climate might be getting hotter due to global warming, but according to the writers Jeffrey Kluger and Andrea Dorfman, this won?t ruin the earth, but will eventually make us endangered species like many animals before us. I don?t entirely agree because I feel that we are the cause of many of these environmental issues, thus we are basically killing off are own species and the environment around us.

2. The first hazard deals with how are population is not growing as much as it used to only due to the increase of disease, making are population sicker for the future. Statistics says that at least 68 million people are supposed to die from AIDS by 2020, thus this depressing fact is not a way to decrease a population healthily. Another issue is that 2 billion people lack healthy food to eat, causing many children to be malnourished and adults as well. Another issue is that there is only 2.5% of fresh water to use in the world, but 2.4 billon people lack proper sanitation. There are 2.5 billion people in the world who have no modern energy, but the way of making energy with burning fossil fuels, causes more carbon dioxide to get in the air, leading to global warming. According to Edward O. Wilson, he thinks that if we continue the way we are treating the environment, he believes that half of all species could disappear by the end of this century.
3. The issue of a decreasing population is beneficial to the environment, but the manner that it is done in through diseases in developing and developed countries is unreasonable. Thus, programs should spread to developing countries like family programs to teach mothers not to use their children for a means of survival. Mothers could also have programs that will give them an education, allowing them to receive more jobs, rather than having children. Also, people could reduce birth rates by helping developing countries with contraceptives and more birth control, due to the countries not being as technologically advanced as developed countries. Another idea would be to help the future of the world, and teach teenagers in developing countries about safe sex and showing them they have opportunities to receive jobs.

4. There could be a program at school to help educate people who live in underprivileged neighborhoods by teaching them family planning and economic development programs.


--Samantha

1.The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it explicitly states it in the first paragraph. It says, “The globe doesn't need to be saved by us, and we couldn't kill it if we tried.” (Time The Challenges we Face 1) Also, it discusses how even if we destroy the resources that exist on earth, we could not destroy earth itself. It says that maybe humans would not be able to survive in a world without abundant natural resources. But, maybe another animal or plant life could adapt to these new circumstances and survive. I agree with this concept. I believe that one day humans will, in fact, destroy all of the resources that they rely on to have a functioning, civilized society. I don’t think that environmentalists will be able to stop this from happening. But, I believe that adaptation is certainly a possibility. However, I disagree with the author of the article on one point. I will not rule out the potential for human adaptation as well as other animals or plant adaptation to the new environment. I think that it could be possible for humans to undergo drastic evolutionary changes in order to survive.
2.The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are Population and Health, Food, Water, Energy and Climate, and Biodiversity. The article organizes these hazards into easily identifiable sections and then specifically discusses each hazard in depth.

3.Biodiversity problems are causing species to become extinct at a rapidly increasing rate. More and more species are being hunted and collected, or just simply destroyed, by humans as we realize each species potential for medicine, food, and aesthetic value. For example, the article uses an example of coral reefs. According to the article, a third of all coral reefs will vanish in the next thirty years. Some more statistics include more than 11,000 species being threatened with extinction and 36 million acres of forest being destroyed every year. These numbers are astonishing and a balance through an efficient solution must be found. I propose a global awareness project that will alert people of this horrible problem. In order to truly alert people and have them feel threatened and afraid for out progeny, I believe that we should show the people these shocking statistics. This project will pervade the entertainment industry through advertisements in movies, television, radio, and newspapers. The message must first get out to everybody of this problem, and then we can start deciding on how to decrease hunting and pollution. The way to decrease hunting and pollution is to create extremely strict laws for hunting certain animals at a certain time so that each species can mate and allow its population to grow. The result will be more and more species being removed from the endangered list until eventually, in a long time, we will have no species on that list.

4.I could change my lifestyle in a variety of ways to alleviate the problem. I can mandate that all of the goods and resources that I obtain are from a company that does not pollute the earth, causing biodiversity problems. Although this would be a difficult task, I think that if not just me, but everybody participated in this type of action then we could eliminate biodiversity problems and maybe even all environmental problems in the future. Another way that I could help alleviate the biodiversity problem is by recycling and reusing more goods. By recycling and reusing I will decrease the amount of garbage that is simply dumped into the atmosphere or ocean which pollu
--Steven

The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth, because the Earth will kill off humans before that happens. The article goes on to say that we our selves are in need of saving, rather than the Earth. It states, if we corrupt the Earth to a certain degree, it will simply kill us off – as it has done to several other species – to maintain the ecosystem. I do not agree with this, because if people corrupt the planet it to that extent, they will naturally adapt to the shortage of water, food, etc.
There are five major categories discussed in this article: population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity. There is a growing concern of over-population on the planet. Scientists fear that the Earth will not be able to support a continually growing population. Lack of food is also a concern, because of the already two billion people that are unable to get access to food, as well as the limited fresh water supply of which 1.1 billion people do not have access to. With the burning of fossil fuels, more carbon dioxide is going into the atmosphere, causing rising seas, droughts, and other disruptions in the weather. With all of this, loss of biodiversity can cause dramatic changes to the ecosystem if even only one species is killed off.
To alleviate some of the energy problems, we may do exactly what the article says. Alternative forms of energy such as hydroelectricity, wind power, and solo power should be used to their full advantage. Some of these options are not available everywhere, however, they should be implemented wherever they can be used. For example, the “Windy City” of Chicago, should take advantage of the name that was given to it by installing several wind farms, not necessarily to power the city, but at the least to power public or federal buildings such as police stations, hospitals, parks. Another example would be the already hydroelectrically powered city of Las Vegas. If hydroelectricity can power the entire city of Las Vegas, it should, at the very least, be able to power on a smaller scale. To help alleviate some of the energy problems, I myself could probably purchase solar powered wall lights, rather than turning on the house light.

--Alex Kliger

1.As the article says, it is not saving the Earth from destruction that people have been trying accomplish. The Earth, no matter how polluted or damaged, will not simply self-destruct; this is impossible. It will only correct itself by “shaking off” humans or any other species corrupting its health. But I disagree with the statement “It is impossible to destroy the Earth.” The Earth is our home, and if we can no longer live prosperously and healthily in our home, then we have destroyed it.

2. - Population and health
- Food
- Water
- Energy and Climate
- Biodiversity

3. The solution to the health issue worldwide is simple. Money must be distributed evenly and must not fall completely into the hands of the minority while the majority suffers. In my opinion, if everyone lived in at least a little bit of modesty and gave away money that was not necessary to this lifestyle, many health issues regarding the poor could be solved.

4. I have already made a conscious decision that, as an adult with control of my own financial means, I will live modestly, but comfortably and try to contribute my share of money to the appropriate charities.

--Annie

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because if humans were to mess with the Earth, changing the air or climate for example, the Earth would eliminate us before we can eliminate it.

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are humans exceeding resources by 20%, too many people are forced to live in horrible conditions in which infectious diseases are spread, one third of the world is starving, only 2.5% of the world is fresh water and we require 50 quarts a day, global warming caused by the release of carbon dioxide because of energy demands, and species extinction.

3. To elevate the severity of global warming, smaller cars should be manufactured in order to not use as much gas and to not release as much pollutants into the air. Also, people should be fined for not recycling just like people are fined for parking in the wrong spot. Lastly, we can use different forms of energy such as wind power or solar power, which is already our leading source of energy.

4. There are millions of ways I can change my lifestyles to help alleviate the problem. Some examples are, I can buy more energy efficient objects such as fluorescent bulbs, fuel efficient cars. Also, I can take shorter showers.

--Eunice

1. I agree with that statement the Earth as a piece of matter can not be destroyed it can only be altered and made unsuitable for human inhabitation. When we disturb earth to the extent that it will no longer support human life we will all die off and another species will adapt and learn to live with the conditions caused by humans.
2. The hazards mentioned include limited food supplies, fresh water usage, the loss of biodiversity, and an increase in human population.
3. Limited food supplies- as Boserup suggested, technology will make up for the increase in population through the use of better machinery that can produces more food quicker. Better allocation of food to spread the wealth around the world rather then it remaining concentrated in the hands of the few. Make a super food that can provide the necessary nutrients in one compact form to be dispersed to the impoverished of the world.
4. Drive a hybrid car and also stop wasting food when I eat. Start a compost pile in my backyard to replenish the nutrients in the soil which has been degraded over time.

--Spencer

1. I agree with the article that humans cant kill the "earth" but we humans can kill all of us off and the organisms that make up the world/ "earth" in which we live in. Pollution, over explotation, and wasting valuable natural resources is what causes the earth to erode.

2. The major catagories of hazards discussed in the articles:
1. pollution and health
2.food
3. biodiversity
4.water
5.energy and climate

3. One area that we might be able to elevate is the wasting of water. The world is seventy percent of water but, "each of us require 50 quarts " which is not leading us at all towards the right direction. As a society, we should come together to spread awareness about the importance and usage of water as well as form rules and regulations. Yet, we haven't neglected the over-usage of water. For example, my neighborhood and surrounding communities have strict laws on how you can not use your sprinkler system after a certain time.

4. I could change my lifestyle in many ways from starting as soon as the sun sets. My day begins by brushing my teeth while allowing the water to run. Secondly, when I take a shower instead of turning it on and walking away I will jump in as soon as the water becomes warm.In addition, instead of taking two hour showers I will begin by limiting it to 45 min. If I start now I am sure my friends will follow as well as future generations.

--Alexandra Kaplan

1. The article states that humans cannot destroy the Earth. What the author of the article is trying to say is that the Earth has been in the universe much before humans even existed, and will remain in the universe long after humans become extinct. According to the author of the article, humans do have the ability to alter the surface or climate of the Earth, but never completely “destroy” it. I do agree with this article. I say that humans can destroy the atmosphere, the climate, the surface, etc… but can never fully destroy the planet itself; a solid chuck of rock named “Earth” will remain in space long after humans are gone.

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are the amount of crop, animal, and other bio-matter extraction from the earth exceeds the planet’s ability to replenish its soil, population growth, health care, agricultural policies, spreading disease, depleting water sources, energy and climate, biodiversity.

3. The amount of crop, animal and other bio-matter extraction from the earth exceeds the planet’s ability to replenish itself by almost 20%. This means that it takes about 14 and half months to replenish what humans use in 12 months. Possible suggestions to solving or elevating this problem include cutting back the amount of crops grown on specific patches of land (scatter the crops in different parts of an area), synthetically growing crops in greenhouses or other specified places, and increasing the soil’s “health” by decreasing the amount of harmful runoff flowing into the soil from landfills, gasoline tanks, fertilized lawns, etc.

4. Personally, I could be more careful when it comes to recycling. Instead of my crushed soda cans and newspapers being dumped into the city’s landfills, it could be used to produce products. In other words, my trash could be reused rather than pollute the earth and contribute to the problem.

--Billy Parks

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth but rather deplete and diminish the necessary resources that are so valuable to our survival, such as the climate, air, water, and biomass. I agree, we as humans cannot completely wipe out this planet. Before reading this article I felt that it was very promising. However, after finishing the reading I had better understanding. I now realize that it is impossible to demolish the earth knowing that it has survived billions of years through the toughest conditions. But before you believe that we can destroy the earth we would first have to destroy the many assets in which the earth provides for us and in the process we as humans would be killed off before the earth is.
2. There are five major categories of hazards discussed in the article they include population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity.
3. Food is the category of hazard that I feel should be most taken into concern considering the fact that every person could help out. People throw away ridiculous amounts of food everyday. It is very sad to see how the people all across the world go to sleep hungry each and every night. Three suggestions on how to solve this problem are one, Have wealthy countries build more farms and areas for agriculture to provide for the poorer countries that do not have the money nor land to provide them. Two, start new organizations to help raise money to provide food. And third, slightly cut back on the amount of food processed and produced in countries that can easy deal without it.
4. To alleviate the problem there are a few things I can do although they may not make a big difference in the big picture it will help the situation. One way I must change my lifestyle is by only taking what I am going to eat. I have a habit of ordering to much food at restaurants and taking much more food then I can possibly eat and eventually throwing it out. After reading the article and seeing how many people go starving I will think twice before taking any extra food.

--Jordan G

The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because the world is capable of helping itself, it doesn’t need us to save it; it supports us, we don’t support it. Just as the Earth has shaken off species before us, it can simply shake us off too. I disagree with the statement that humans cannot destroy the Earth. We may not be able to kill it, but we definitely aid in the killing process. The world wouldn’t be half as polluted as it is if it weren’t for us. We don’t realize how much we waste and this adds to the destruction of Earth. Soon we’ll probably be living on landfills because there is so much that is being wasted and thrown away. Landfills add to the destruction of Earths beauty.
Major categories of hazards discussed in the article are population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity. Energy and climate has become a difficult issue that affects both people and the environment. When we burn fossil fuels, gases rise to the atmosphere and damage the ozone layer. These gases are known for causing global warming and heavy air pollution. Pollution in the air can lead to many deaths from respiratory diseases.
One way to alleviate this problem is by developing machines that use alternate energy sources instead of burning coal and gas. Some alternates are wind power and micro-hydroelectric plants. We also can help with the world’s climate by recycling as much as possible. Throwing away recyclable items leads to more and more unnecessary waste. By changing my lifestyle, I can help alleviate the energy and climate problem. It’s better to take control of things yourself instead of assuming someone else will take care of it. By keeping the worlds health in mind and by recycling whenever I can, I’ll be helping to improve one of Earths many hazards.

--Libby Finer

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth, because we have only changed the planet to a form that we can not use. This has been done in the past, and the planet has fixed itself.

2. Some of the major categories of hazards discussed in the article are: population and health, food, water, energy and climate and biodiversity.

3. Water is a very important category of hazards. While oil is the most crucial resource for the development for the United States, water is the same for the developing world. Recently, a water source the size of Lake Erie was discovered in the Horn of Africa, mostly in the Darfur region of Sudan; however, there is no way for the poor farmers of the region to get to the water. The first thing we can do to solve the water crisis is to develop better and cheaper ways to harvest water. In Sudan, not only could this water help the native farmers and the nomadic herders, but could end the genocide of the region, which is caused by scarcity of water. A second way to solve the problem is to develop new irrigation techniques. This would allow water to reach its source in a safe manor and in a way that allows farmers to have the right amount that they need. Finally, a third was is to develop refining methods to harvest water from previously non-drinkable sources. Since only 2.5% of water is fresh, it’s important to be able to tap into other water sources.

4. I could change my lifestyle to help alleviate the problem. I could conserve water in a better way. Showers use less water than baths do. One should turn the sink of when putting soap on, and then turn the water back on. Little thinks like these, enacted on a large-scale basis, could help solve the world’s water crisis.


--Max Solomon

The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because we cannot actually obliterate the planet. This article has convinced me to agree with this implication. Our littering and harming of the planet itself is only destroying the conditions we live in on this day. Humans can only live in a specific climate and surrounding. We as humans are the ones that cannot survive when the conditions change, the planet itself will continue to orbit the sun.
The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity. The hazard discussed related to population and health is the comparison between the incline and decline of humans. Although the number of humans being born each year has lessened, the birth rate greatly outnumbers the death rate. On the same hand, humans are not simply having fewer children; humans are dying from various contagious diseases that can wipe out entire cities. The poverty around the world allows for disease to spread through these towns of people who cannot provide themselves with pure foods and protect themselves from disease spreading insects.
The hazard we face attributed to food is planting and replanting the same crop. When the same crop is replanted over and over on the same lands the soil loses its quality and raises its chances of pest infestation. Another negative factor of replanting the same crop is malnutrition. If only three farms are available to a large town and all three of the farms are planting rice, the people will not be healthy. Lastly, it is extremely difficult and expensive to find a crop that was not genetically engineered. Humans would be healthier if the foods we ate were pure.
The third major hazard discussed in this article is water. The issue is that there is a limited amount of fresh water and only so much we can get access to. Not only are humans lacking water but the land is as well. The only way to ease the problem is to use the water more efficiently and to not waist a drop.
Energy and climate is an environmental hazard because the more places in the world that gain access to modern energy services the more global warming occurs. When global warming occurs all natural disasters become more intense. The best way to fix the problem is to find a cleaner way to provide the world with the energy it needs. It is not as easy as it sounds.
The major issue with biodiversity is extinction. It is a vicious circle. Humans destroy the homes of animals which in turn diminish their source of food and remedies.
The major category that I have chosen is pollution and health. Three ways to alleviate the severity of this issue is to truthfully and fully stop human littering, be aware of our actions, and walk. First off, every human in this world has littered in their lifetime. If littering as a whole was put to a halt that would make a HUGE difference. Secondly, humans need to turn off lights when they leave rooms and turn the air conditioning off when they leave their houses. Small actions such as those save energy and in turn slow pollution. Lastly humans should walk. Not only does walking alleviate pollution but walking is a much needed cure for many humans around the world.
To help alleviate the problem I would pay attention to my actions. Simply carpooling to school or picking up after myself can make the difference. If everyone does their part, our world can remain containing the conditions necessary for our survival.

--Sabrina Beyda

1) The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because the only thing were destroying is the earth how we like it. We are not destroying the earth, but our biosphere. What were destroying is our climate, air, water and biomass, which supports life, as we know it. In the end, once we destroy our biosphere, we will disappear just like many other species that have existed on this planet. I agree with this concept, because in the end the earth is still going to be here whether were on it or not or if the biosphere has done a complete transformation to one that is completely different from the one that exists now.

2) One of the major categories of hazards is the large population of humans only growing larger. Although the growth rate is slowing down it is still high in poor areas such Africa and Asia. The hazard with this is the spread of disease or development of disease in highly populated areas. People in these third world countries lack health, education and job training. The second major category of hazard is lack of reliable safe, nutritious food that about a third of the world doesn’t have access to. The third major category of hazard is the small supply of fresh water that the world has access to. There is a large portion of people that lack access to sanitary drinking water and lack adequate sanitation as a whole. If the world continues, in the next couple of decades the majority of the world’s population will have to face serious water shortages. The fourth category of hazard is the lack of energy to rural areas. Around a third of people in rural areas haven’t had access to modern energy services, this is compensated for the burning of fossil fuels, which will make carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere. This will further damage and promote global warming. The fifth and final category of hazard is the earth’s biodiversity. More that 11,000 species of plants and animals are threatened by extinction, a third of all coral reefs are expected to disappear and thirty to forty million acres of forest are being destroyed annually. If we don’t change or ways, half of species could disappear thus further disrupting our biosphere.

3) Water is important to all aspects of life. In order for a human to live, he or she needs fresh water. Today, one point one billion people lack access to clean drinking water and two point four billion people lack adequate sanitation. This problem could be solved by donation of water purifiers, donation of bottled water, and education on simple ways of water purification. Donating water purifiers to rural areas will allow for poverty struck people to have access to clean drinking water. Once a water purifier is donated, people can start bottling water and preserve it for months at a time. With all the wealth that exist in the U.S. and Europe, organizations should be created to raise money in order to pay for these water purifiers in these rural areas. In addition to that, in areas that cannot support water purifiers these organizations should supply bottled water to these areas that lack these resources. These organizations or the Red Cross can simply start educating people on simple ways to purify water, such as boiling.

4) In order to help alleviate the problem, I would need to change certain aspects of my lifestyle. For one, I would set a certain donation aside every week for these organizations. I would help supply bottled water to these organizations so it could be sent to the third world countries were there is inadequate water. I would be less wasteful with water keeping in mind that although I have a
--Joe Rego

1.This article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because it is not the Earth that we are destroying, but it is ourselves and how the Earth exists presently that are being affected. I agree with this opinion because as a species, we are not going to destroy the planet through pollution and other destructive actions we take; however we are capable of creating a dangerous Earth. By neglecting the needs of the planet and tampering with our water and air supply as well as the climate through pollution, we are creating an unsafe environment for ourselves, the current Earth, and other organisms that exist with us on the planet. Instead of worrying about saving Earth, we need to focus on how to save the present Earth and ourselves from the damage we have caused over the years.
2.The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are biodiversity depletion, extinction of species, global warming, wasting energy, population growth, health of people in poor countries, malnutrition, unsanitary water, and lack of water.
3. Energy overuse and climatic changes are some reasons for global warming. Global warming will create more violent storms, higher bodies of water, climatic disturbances, and harsh droughts. There are ways to prevent global warming and the chance of these environmental changes by reducing the amount of energy we use. One way to decrease global warming is by reducing the amount of fossil fuels being burned. This way there will be less carbon dioxide from the burning oil, gas, and coal to rise into the atmosphere. Also, limiting the amount of factories and places that burn wood and the fossil fuels previously mentioned would help decrease the amount of pollution floating around in the air. Finally, finding new and cheaper sources of energy would assist in restricting global warming. Transferring from coal and oil based power to wind and solar power would reduce the amount of pollution being produced.
4. To help alleviate global warming, I could switch to a hybrid car or a car that uses water power. By switching to a cleaner source of energy and driving less, I would reduce the amount of pollution I personally create for the environment. Also, I could recycle more to aid in limiting the amount of pollution I create. As a family, we can use less heat, air conditioning, and electricity in the house. By doing this, my family and I will decrease the amount of energy we use on a daily basis. Taking these small measures will aid in alleviating global warming.

--Lainie Berman

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because no matter how much humans use of a particular resource, the earth will always replenish resources. Even though the earth takes about 14.4 months to replenish what we consume in 12 months, it is still virtually impossible to consume so much in one year that the earth will be unable to replace that particular resource.

2. The major hazards discussed in the article are population and health, food, water, energy, climate, and biodiversity. All of these things have put a threat on earth?s ecosystem and need to be taken care of.

3. The issue of the availability of fresh water is becoming more and more prevalent every year. In order to solve this disappearing source of fresh water, the governments of the world need to spend more money on desalinization. Also, as a temporary solution, governments need to create more water restrictions like those that were implemented in Florida this year. Finally, I believe that one solution to this global problem would be to implement the creation of aquifers in backyards and areas where rainfall is prevalent.

4. In order to alleviate the shortage of fresh water, I would take steps to use less water. Including not washing the cars, taking quicker showers, and making sure all water nozzles are completely tight. These measures would not completely alleviate the problem of global water shortage, but it would be a step towards a solution.


--Matt Walker

1) The article states that humans cannot possibly destroy the earth because we are not powerful enough to destroy the masses of land. What the article states that we can save, however, is ourselves, and not the actual earth. We have to save the climate and surroundings because if we do not, then humans will become another endangered species. I agree with this statement because the earth will always be in the universe, but humans need to do everything we can to make sure that we are, too. We can recycle, stop pollution, use less gas, etc. in order to preserve the earth as livable as it is now.

2. Some of the hazardous categories that are discussed in the article are population growth and health, the economy, world hunger, water shortage and energy demands, climate control, biodiversity, and extinction.

3. Population growth and health is a large problem in the world today. While the article states that the growth rate is slowing down, the number of people on earth is still rising. To help this problem, people could continue to see family planning doctors. Also, if more people were checked for HIV and AIDS, fewer couples would have children because of the risk of passing down this disease. Thirdly, because research shows that educated mothers have less children, schools should be open to more women in poorer countries.

4. I would change my lifestyle by recycling a lot more. I find myself throwing away loads of paper, and I think that our entire school should have recycling bins instead of garbage cans. It doesn’t take up any more time, and it can do a world of difference.

Resources:
Challenges We Face, Time 2002 found at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003114,00.html


--Morgan Hammel

1) The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because what we as humans do is make the Earth less clean. We change the climate, the quality of the air and we take more resources then we give back. However, if all humans were to be removed then the Earth would be able to correct these problems we create on its own. I agree with this. I think that if humans did not exist on Earth then the planet would be fine. I don’t believe that we can kill the planet however. We might deplete the natural resources of the planet but we won’t completely destroy the planet.
2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are population and heath, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity.
3. One way to solve the problem of biodiversity is slow the cutting down of trees. We cut down huge numbers of trees that provide us with oxygen. Those trees provide large numbers of animals shelter and food. If we take away their home we kill them, which throws off the ecosystems and food chain. Also, we should stop destroying coral reefs that are usually teeming with life. If we continue to devastate these reefs we can eventually kill under sea wildlife which would throw off that ecosystem.
4. One way to alleviate the problem of biodiversity is to recycle. If we recycle the items we’ve used, such as bottles, cans, and paper, we can slow the cutting down of trees by a lot. If we cut down fewer trees we help the animals that live there survive and eventually we can save an ecosystem.


--Sami Polenberg

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because there are so many alternative ways to create natural resources, and provide the necessities that we need in our daily life. It also implies that humans cannot destroy the earth, only the natural resources it supplies, but that these supplies can be reimbursed and reused through natural and man-made resources. I do not agree with this assumption because the rate we are using resources is much faster than the rate these resources are being reproduced. We can destroy the earth, especially if we do not do anything about our actions now. Even if we do not see the destruction of the earth within our lifetime, it will be within the lifetime of our children.

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in this article are population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity. These hazards are affecting our everyday life, our health, and ultimately our existence.

3. The area I choose to discuss is food. Hunger is a problem that is affecting many parts of the developing world, and there are many ways that we (the developed world) can help out.
• It only takes 13 billion dollars a year to ensure food for ALL the developing nations. Our country should figure out its priorities and spend money on curing hunger rather than finding longer lasting lipsticks and mascaras.
• Places such as Zimbabwe are receiving foreign aid; however, this aid never goes to the people who need it. The ruler of Zimbabwe takes all of the food, money, water, and clothing for himself and sells it in stores for the people who can afford it. The people who are suffering from hunger cannot afford it. The US should find out new ways to ensure that this aid reaches the people rather than the corrupt leaders.
• Nationally hunger is a problem as well. We can reduce or eliminate this problem entirely by providing food for the people who need it. We do have soup kitchens and other homeless shelters, but these are not enough. We need to create a method that ensures everyone suffering from hunger in the United States is getting some source of food.

4. I can change my lifestyle and help alleviate the problem of hunger by volunteering at places where starving people are being served. I can also make a point of helping out the homeless people I see on the streets, for example buying McDonald’s and giving it to them to eat. I can also start a program that sends food and aid to countries that are in need of resources, but in a way that ensures the countries are actually getting this food.


--Jerri Bamberger

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because the Earth can never be destroyed. Kluger and Dorfman clarify and say that we can only destroy Earth “as we like it”. Humans can only destroy thing such as the waters, soil, and air. After we do alter these things, the Earth will just wipe us out just like it did with other species. I agree that we are not trying to save the Earth but we are trying to save ourselves by changing the way we treat Earth. I think that humans need to learn to conserve and realize that we’re using more resources than we can replace.

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article relate to population and health, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity. Population numbers are rising around the world, however growth rates are slowing down, especially the rates in Africa. Also, there are many programs that educate women and today’s youth about sanitation and other health related subjects. Since there is such a great need for crops, the soil quality is deteriorating. Many techniques have been tested, such as the slash-and-burn, but this just worsens the soil quality. Even though Earth’s surface is 70%, and 2.5% of it is freshwater. There are many third world countries that do not have access to freshwater, therefore many people dehydrate or living in unsanitary conditions. The need for energy grows and an increasing amount of fossil fuels are being burned everyday. Scientists predict that burning fossil fuels will bring about global warming which will then cause stronger storms and severe droughts.

3. I think that we can significantly reduce the severity of the problems that relate to energy and climate. Tasks as simple as turning off electrical appliances or unplugging them when not in use can greatly save a lot of energy. For example, even on the weekends, when there are no classes, the whole school keeps the light on in the hallways, which is unnecessary. Instead of burning fossil fuels, we should find alternative ways to produce energy. The wind and natural waters are other ways where we could develop energy. Also, using solar power in more rural areas is a good way to reduce burning fossil fuels.

4. I could change my lifestyle to help alleviate wasting energy. Many nights, I fall asleep with the TV on, and I don’t turn it off until the morning. This is extremely wasteful. Also, whatever appliances that I’m not using, I should unplug them, because even if the appliance isn’t on, the plug is continuously using energy.

--Vivian S

1. The article implies that the humans cannot destroy the earth is because that the earth has shaken off species before that have tried to destroy it. I disagree with this because we are destroying the world everyday with pollution and contamination and the birth rate of humans is very high which aide the pollution and the destruction of the earth.
2. Some major categories are population, health, food, water, energy, climate, and biodiversity.
3. In the food category, not planting the same crops on the same field every harvest will keep the soil filled with nutrients for other crops to grow. Better crop rotation and irrigation can help protect fields from exhaustion and erosion as well.
4. I could use less energy by turning off the light in a room when I’m not in it or conserving water by shortening a shower. Also by not wasting food and eating correct portions so none is wasted.

--Aaron Gusky

1. I think Steven's comment that human's can undergo a radical evolutionary change in order to preserve themselves is very interesting.
2. Well, everyone did this one correctly.
3. Not many other people tackled the issue of biodiversity, but those who did spoke about killing off coral reefs and deforestation as well, which I would have added to my paper.
4. Vivian makes a good point that is within everyone's general capacity: to turn off lights and unplug unused appliances to save energy. I also like Alex's discussion of the use of hydroelectricity in various cities.

--Izzy
<mailto:izzy2k@hotmail.com>

1.As Jerri said, we are destroying the earth's resources at such a fast rate that the earth will eventually be beyond repair. So, i agree that the authors assertions are false.

2. As mostly everyone said, there are major components that are included in the hazards of the earth. Some of which included, rapid population growth, and a lack of unsanitary water which can bring disease, also a lack of water in general.
3. Vivian's idea of using solar energy is a good idea. We should use what is avalible to us for our advantage. The sun provides us with more than just warmth, it provides energy as well.
4. I agree with Brittany, in that we waste alot of food each day. If we were more careful with our resources, then maybe we wouldnt have so many of the enviromental problems that we have today.Alex mentioned the idea of conserving electricity which will definetly help our enviroment. Also, contributing to organizations that educate people about the birth rate, and prevention techniques againt disease can also help to alleviate some of the problems in the enviroment.

--Alex R

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because the earth has made many other species in the past become extinct and the earth is still functioning. I agree with this because we need the earth, the earth does not need us. We need the earth natural resources it makes to survive. If anything, the earth would benefit without us because we are the ones who cause all the pollution.
2. The major categories are population, health, food, water, energy, climate, and biodiversity.
3. I feel food is one of the easier issues to solve. We just need to take the amount of food we get since we have such a large abundance and give the extra to the countries who are starving. Also food donations should take place weekly in each county to be send to the poor countries in need.
4. There are many ways to alleviate these problems such as conserving electricity, food, and water. By not leaving the TV on when not being watched and only using the lights when we need it will save our electricity. There are tons of food we throw out each day that is just being wasted when there are people with no food.
--brittany serfaty

I disagree with Matt. He says that we can not use up all of the natural resources on the planet; this simply is not the case. Elements are pure substances that can not be created from anything else. We can use our supply of elements, with them never being replaced. I think that it is also crucial to acknowledge the fact that while a resource is renewable, the time that it takes to regenerate is an important factor. Oil is actually a renewable resource created from fossils and ancient plants. I believe that oil can regenerate after a few million years, a time that humans can not sit around and wait.
--Max S

1. I think generally every one understood this question because it came straight from the article. "By neglecting the needs of the planet and tampering with our water and air supply as well as the climate through pollution, we are creating an unsafe environment for ourselves"--I agree with this statement.
2. For this one, it also came from the article but I think it's important to expand on each category.
3. I think that preserving water is really crucial especially in Florida. Also, this answer should include the percentages of water and freshwater on Earth.
4. I like the ideas of not wasting food, having the community work together, and stop cutting down the trees.
-vivian

I think that all the people who interepreted the first question pertaining to "it is impossible to 'destroy' the earth" as meaning that the earth cannot be physically annihilated need to look at the question in a less 2-dimensional way. Destroy can connote explosion and debris and annihilation, but it can also have other meanings. In this case, to destroy the earth would be to just render it impossible to inhabit. In respect to the human race and all other species on this world, when the Earth can no longer be our home, we have destroyed it.
~Annie

Yes, i agree with Annies comment. When the article says 'destroy' Earth, it doesnt mean to annihalate it completley. It means doing little things such as polluting and wasting that affect the way we live. It means harming Earths natural cycles and its beauty. "When the Earth can no longer be our home, we have destroyed it." AGREED.
-Libby

1. I think Vivian is correct in saying that we are not destorying the earth, but we are destroying ourselves. By slowly eliminating our natural resources, the human population will eventually be "wiped out" as many other species have been.
2. Everyone seemed to name all of the correct hazardous problems.
3. Jerri has very positive and smart ways to feed those who suffer from hunger. Her ideas to lead the U.S.'s money in the right direction is a bold and neccessary task. She also had other ideas to cure world hunger by helping at soup kitchen, or providing for the needy which is definitely something that everyone would act on at one time or another.
4. Everyone seemed to have the right ideas to recycle, use a hybrid car if possible, take shorter showers, and not waste as much food.
--Morgan Hammel

1. I think annie was right in thinking that many people took the first question very literally. I think that it was saying that humans cannot destroy the different species on the earth and the rest of the environment, not the earth as a whole.
2. Mostly everyone answered this question correctly, considering it was straight from the text, but some people didn't really give any examples. for instance, instead of writing "Climate Issues," you can quote from the article a specific instance of this issue, to give the reader a better idea of what you mean.
3. I really liked what Alex B. said about solving climate problems. He said to stop global warming, we should use less electrical usage at home.
4. I agree with morgan. I liked the ideas of recycling, using more education with developing countries, taking shorter showers, and using less energy with household products and cars.
--Samantha Lang

1. The article implies that the humans cannot destroy the earth is because that the earth has shaken off species before that have tried to destroy it. I disagree with this because we are destroying the world everyday with pollution and contamination and the birth rate of humans is very high which aide the pollution and the destruction of the earth.
2. Some major categories are population, health, food, water, energy, climate, and biodiversity.
3. In the food category, not planting the same crops on the same field every harvest will keep the soil filled with nutrients for other crops to grow. Better crop rotation and irrigation can help protect fields from exhaustion and erosion as well.
4. I could use less energy by turning off the light in a room when I’m not in it or conserving water by shortening a shower. Also by not wasting food and eating correct portions so none is wasted.
--Aaron G

1. I agree with Steven that we are simply going to deplete our recources and kill our environment. But that we are simply going not going to be able to adapt to the new environments created. We and other species of plants and animals are definetly going to have to undergo a drastic evolutionary change in order to adapt to new enivornments and sustain a new society. Simply, they will have to learn from our mistakes.
--Joe Rego

1.I agree with Samantha that we are not killing the earth, but killing ourselves. It is not the environment or global warming that will kill us off, but we ourselves will one day make our own species as well as many others endangered.
2.all the general categories of hazards were mentioned.
3.I agree with Adam on ways to alleviate population and health problems. Educating poor countries could significantly help the problem.
4.I think Joe's point of setting aside money each week for organizations is a great idea. It is an easy way to help.
--Lainie Berman

1. Morgan and Annie were completely right about their comments. Eventhough we can't literally destroy the Earth we can deplete the resources it has. By doing so we are making it difficult for animlals to inhabit and survive on Earth. As Morgan says we will eventually be "wiped out" because of ourselves.
2. This answer came directly out of the article so everyone answered it correctly.
3. I agree with Sam Lang becuase Alex B's idea about using less electricity to try and lessen the problem of global warming is something everyone can do. Turning off teh lights when you leave your house, and not falling asleep with the tv or any other lights on are easy things for everyone to do. Also, if people just turned off their fossets while they brushed their teeth much less water would be wasted every day.
4. Most people's ideas were really great such as recylcling in school AND at home, wasting less food, and distributing money better.
--Jerri

1. The article implies that humans cannot destroy the Earth because what we as humans do is make the Earth less clean. We change the climate, the quality of the air and we take more resources then we give back. However, if all humans were to be removed then the Earth would be able to correct these problems we create on its own. I agree with this. I think that if humans did not exist on Earth then the planet would be fine. I don’t believe that we can kill the planet however. We might deplete the natural resources of the planet but we won’t completely destroy the planet.
2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are population and heath, food, water, energy and climate, and biodiversity.
3.One way to solve the problem of biodiversity is slow the cutting down of trees. We cut down huge numbers of trees that provide us with oxygen. Those trees provide large numbers of animals shelter and food. If we take away their home we kill them, which throws off the ecosystems and food chain. Also, we should stop destroying coral reefs that are usually teeming with life. If we continue to devastate these reefs we can eventually kill under sea wildlife which would throw off that ecosystem.
4. One way to alleviate the problem of biodiversity is to recycle. If we recycle the items we’ve used, such as bottles, cans, and paper, we can slow the cutting down of trees by a lot. If we cut down fewer trees we help the animals that live there survive and eventually we can save an ecosystem.
--Sami P.

I disagree with max in that we cannot use up all our natural resources. I think that at the rate we are going we will use all the resources eventually. Soon enough we will deplete even the renewable resources faster than they can grow back and we wont allow them to grow back because we will continually be taking them.

Sorry guys I accidentally forgot to write my name on the previous comment its from Sami P.

This article is a good starting point for narrowing down the problems facing our environment today. What interests me the most is the focus on energy problems. I feel that humans are fully capable of solving our over dependence on non-renewable energy and by simple changes in our daily lives, we can all make a difference. It is our responsibility, not our government's, to make these changes as fast as possible.
I dont think we can completely deplete our resources. Humans are pretty smart and we are often capable of finding alternatives to many of our problems. Many of these alternatives exist today, but we are lethargic in making such changes.
--Alex Beker.

The problems we are currently faced with encompass many fields of science and require a global effort to curb their spread. Annie's point is well taken in that many of us, myself included take for granted the resources we have access to. Fresh water is a commididty in many places and by overusing it through extented showers as mentioned by Alex K and others we are depleting resources necessary to sustain life on Earth. As the human population increases we must adapt and preserve out earth to prevent it from becoming "uninhabitable"
--Spencer

1. The magazine article is correct when it states that humans can not completely destroy the earth. While we are unable to destroy the physical earth, it is very possible for humans to exploit the planet to the point where we can not survive and grow successfully. At this point, as the article explains, humans will simply become extinct like species before us. When considering this question I have to consider a theory from economist Ester Boserup, which states that humans will create technologies to deal with any major problems facing the world. Just as we decided to ban CFC’s to protect the atmosphere, I feel that humans will create new technologies and laws to protect the earth.
2. The major hazards discussed in the article include: Human population growth, food supply problems, fresh water retrieval, climate and energy, and loss of biodiversity.
3. With regard to climate change, I feel that humans are completely capable of slowing down global warming. The first way humans can limit the production of greenhouse gasses is by limiting electrical usage at home. This can be easily done by using energy efficient appliances or by simply changing to energy efficient bulbs. The second way humans can slow down global warming is by reforesting the earth. Trees remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere and could slow down the rate at which these gasses build up in our atmosphere. The third way humans can curb global warming is by reverting to renewable energies like solar and wind power which do not release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
4. I could do my part to curb global warming by using less gasoline in my car (not using the air conditioning system, accelerating slowly, and driving on the highway can all increase fuel economy) and by using energy saving bulbs in my house which use less than half the electricity of regular bulbs and by urging my family to purchase more Energy Star appliances which use less power when compared to other appliances.

--Alex Beker

1. Why does the article imply that humans cannot destroy the Earth? Do you agree or disagree and why? The article implies that humans cannot destroy the earth because no matter how much humans use of a particular resource, the earth will always replenish resources. Even though the earth takes about 14.4 months to replenish what we consume in 12 months, it is still virtually impossible to consume so much in one year that the earth will be unable to replace that particular resource.

2. What are the major categories of hazards discussed in the article? The major hazards discussed in the article are population and health, food, water, energy, climate, and biodiversity. All of these things have put a threat on earth’s ecosystem and need to be taken care of.

3. Choose one of these areas and give 3 suggestions on how we might solve or at least elevate the severity of the problem. The issue of the availability of fresh water is becoming more and more prevalent every year. In order to solve this disappearing source of fresh water, the governments of the world need to spend more money on desalinization. Also, as a temporary solution, governments need to create more water restrictions like those that were implemented in Florida this year. Finally, I believe that one solution to this global problem would be to implement the creation of aquifers in backyards and areas where rainfall is prevalent.

4. How could you change your lifestyle to help alleviate the problem? In order to alleviate the shortage of fresh water, I would take steps to use less water. Including not washing the cars, taking quicker showers, and making sure all water nozzles are completely tight. These measures would not completely alleviate the problem of global water shortage, but it would be a step towards a solution.
--Matt W.

I disagree with Annie because I think that the question is refering to the destruction of the entire earth. However, this is obviously a matter of opinion. There is no right or wrong answer because one person may interpret the question differently from another person. Also, i disagree with Morgan because I think that humans do have the capability to destroy the earth. On October 30, 1961, a bomb named Tsar Bomba was dropped by the Soviet Union. It had a yield of 50 megatons. It is the largest bomb to ever be released. It destroyed an area of close to 1,000 square kilometers. And this was over 40 years ago. Therefore, I believe that governments do possess the technology to destroy the earth.
--Steven Miller

1. I feel that before reading the article most of the students felt that the idea of destorying the earth was possible. Especially because topics in the news often bring up the topic "destroying the earth" or something to that effect. But after reading the artile and understanding that destroying and depleting are two completely different things, the students had a better understanding and for the most part answered the question correctly.

2. I agree with adam and his ideas for "solving or at least elevate the severity of Population and Health problems." His ideas including governmental support and education for disease and family planning are what we need to do in order to help keep population level and disease to a minimum.

3. I like Alex Kaplan's point on conserving water. She points out that one reason why people abuse water is because they arent aware of the consecquences. If they were they would be more careful. She explains that people use excessive amounts of water and the way to help stop this problem is to set rules and regulations.
--- Jordan G

1. I think mostly everyone had the same idea about the first question. The bottom line is humans are not capable of destroying the entire earth. What humans can do is chnage the environment.
2. I agree with jordan's ideas for solving or at least elevating the severity of food. His ideas including having wealthy contries help support and provide for poorer countries. Also to start new organizations to help raise money to provide food, and finally cutting back on the amount of food wasted everyday.
3. I like the idea sabrina had about helping out with pollution. She pointed out that people need to put an end to pollution and start being aware of their actions.
--adam s

1.I think it is a good thing that everyone really agreed on the first question. Humans cannot actually destroy the planet but they can destroy the conditions we live in today.
2. This question was straight from the article.
3.4. I think that for both questions 3 and 4 everyone had the right mind set and everyone really knows what we have to do to alleviate the stress on our planet. The simple problem is that we cannot only say what we have to do, we actually have to do it.
--Sabrina B

I dont really agree with everyones comments on the first question becauseI believe that humans can destroy the earth because we are destroying it everyday by polluting it. The last two questions I think everyone has come up with great ways to help save our planet.
-brittany s

1. The article was correct in saying that humans can not destroy the earth because if we tamper with the Earth too much it will probably destroy us first... leading to our extinction.
3+4.The previous comments show there are thousands of ways in which we can alleviate the problem, but the problem is it is a free country and laws can not be passed telling people they can only buy hybrid cars for example. People have to care. Humans only care when it is affecting themselves, but fail to see the problem if it is not theirs. This is why we have millions of kids starving around the world but everyone turns their back on them.
-Eunice R

1. Why does the article imply that humans cannot destroy the Earth? Do
you agree or disagree and why? The TIME article, “The Challenges We
Face,” proves false the popular idea that the earth needs to be saved.
Instead, the author implies that the earth itself is not in danger;
humanity and its particular environmental niche is in fact in danger
and needs to be saved. I agree with this idea because as the
environment is gradually destroyed, different species will evolve in
order to survive in their particular niches. However, humanity will
not evolve due to the fact that they have stopped their process of
evolution by changing the environment to meet their needs.

2. What are the major categories of hazards discussed in the article?
In this article there are five different hazards discussed:
biodiversity, water, energy and climate, population and health, and
food.

3. Choose one of these areas and give 3 suggestions on how we might
solve or at least elevate the severity of the problem. The earth’s
climate is gradually changing as a result of greenhouse gasses that
are produced by fossil fuels used to produce energy. In order to slow
the production of greenhouse gasses, energy sources must be moved away
from a reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, people, governments, and
societies must spend resources to develop alternative energy sources
such as hydrogen-powered cars, hydroelectric power, and solar energy.

4. How could you change your lifestyle to help alleviate the problem?
In order to help alleviate the environmental problems being caused by
energy consumption, I could personally buy a hybrid car, decreasing
the amount of gas I consume annually.
--michael shawn

1. The article says that we cant destroy Earth, we can only destroy the atmosphere.
Personally, I agree with that statement. We cant physically destroy the earth, we can
only destroy the water, land, air and biomass. I think we will never come to the point of
actually destroying earth ourselves because when there are no resources left, our species
will die out and we will no longer be able harm the earth anymore. When our species is
gone from lack of resources, the earth will once again be able to restore all of what it
has lost.

2. The major categories of hazards discussed in the article are Food, water, energy and
climate, and biodiversity.

3. Our energy sources clearly affect our environment. The use of fossil fuels does
produce us with a lot of energy but it also gives us a great amount of air pollution. I
suggest we use different energy resources, such as algae or solar power. There is also a
rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I propose we make all car
manufacturing companies to test each vehicles emission and to limit their pollution to
the atmosphere. We should all also worry about polluting our water and air because that
has a lot to do with our climate. The government should make sure that no one excessively
pollutes already-polluted rivers and lakes, as this can change the land and therefore
messing up the ecological balance.

4. To alleviate the problem, it has to be our nation as a whole to make a difference,
but in my lifestyle I can get my car checked for its carbon emission. Another thing I can
do to alleviate the situation is to cut down on the water usage in my home. To fix the
situation at hand, our whole community has to make changes to their lifestyles.

--Tatiana Gurina

Author:Anonymous
This article is a good starting point for narrowing down the problems facing our environment today. What interests me the most is the focus on energy problems. I feel that humans are fully capable of solving our over dependence on non-renewable energy and by simple changes in our daily lives, we can all make a difference. It is our responsibility, not our government's, to make these changes as fast as possible.
--Alex Beker
2007-09-02 23:28:31 GMT

Author:Anonymous
I agree with Alex. I think that we are responsible for what is happening with our resources too it's not just the government. I believe that we can all make a little difference and if everyone makes a little difference it will add up.
--Sami Polenberg
2007-09-02 23:58:47 GMT

1. I find it ironic that most of the post say humans can not destroy the world taking into acount the amount of nuclear weapons us humans have armed and ready to explode in a matter of seconds, aswell as the even greater numeber we have ready to be activated. That is almost 1000 nuclear war heds just between Russia and the USA.
2. The ecologic problems most people discused are the most eminent for the population and in my opinin the ones that need the most care.
3. I agree with Tatianas point that it has to be the whole nation that changes but that natinal change is triggered by the few.

Grades for Initial (10 points possible) and follow-up (5 points possible) posts
Beluga – 10, 5
Pisces - 9, 5
TinyBopper – 10, 5
Green12 – 10, 5
Rilokiley – 8, 5
Cake - 8, 5
$ - 9, 5
hibleaker - 9, 5
benfolds – 8, 5
Viv321 - 8, 5
Pie – 9, 0 (not submitted)
Hershey - 7, 5
CaptainPlanet – 8, 0 (not submitted)
Steve123 - 10, 5
Bluedog16 – 8, 5
Pink - 8, 5
GoldenGopher – 10, 5
Starfruit117 – 9, 5
Tim - 9, 5
Red – 8, 5
Snoopy - 9, 5
Doc – 8, 5
Savetheplanet - 9, 5