Does nature need to be saved or do we?



  1. 0 Votes

    think of the environmental problem in a more wholistic, plantetary, natural sense. In this way, the planet has changed countless times in much more drastic ways. The planet continues, nature will return, people might not. In that sense we are trying to sustain ourselves and our resources for as long as we possibly can.

  2. 0 Votes

    Great point – I’ve always felt that environmentalism was at heart a human interest – despite losses and damages, life on Earth will recover from our impact – we however are dependent on the current scenarios in place, and rely on them for our livelihoods. So essentially, in my view, “Nature” as you put it, will be okay; the systems of ecosystems that we are a part of and dependent on are fragile, and as a result – it is humanity that we’re all really focused on saving.

  3. 0 Votes

    Some things in nature need to be saved in the immediate, like many species of flora and fauna alike. But we both will need saving in the midterm; we’ll still be threatening lifeforms and the things that are threatening us – like climate change, ocean acidification, sea-levels rising – will also effect many other living things. Then, short of being saved, nature will be fine having purged much of its greatest threat.
    In short, we will – as a single species – need saving before the whole of nature does. We can not yet kill everything on the planet and even if we could it would indeed eventually recover and move on.

  4. 0 Votes

    I’m going to say that nature needs to be saved, not humans. It could be very likely that humans may find a way to outlive nature. There’s nothing to disprove that thus far, as the human population continues to multiply, and nature and wildlife diminishes at alarming rates. I think a more important question revolves around being saved from what? From who? From us, and ourselves.

  5. 0 Votes

    I use to say “does the earth need humans”. Which is usually taken in the wrong context, but I believe humans have really messed up the planet. Since civilization is moving forward, I would say that nature needs to be saved. As population increases and the demand for products increases, nature is going to continue being harmed at a high rate.

  6. 0 Votes

    Neither nature nor humans needs to be saved. What is needed is for the two to find a balance to co-exist.

  7. 0 Votes

    From my perspective, the Earth is still going to be here, even if humans are not. Yes, humans may damage the planet until it is unrecognizable by today’s standards, but it will still be around when we are gone.  Therefore, when it comes down to, humans are the ones that need to be saved.  Unless we find a way to live on a different planet, the Earth will undoubtedly outlive us.

  8. 0 Votes

    I think nature definitely needs to be saved. It is scary to hear about global warming across the world. It is also sad to hear about such a long list of endangered animals, and animals that have become extinct. I think it is important that everyone plays their own role in saving nature, whether it be big or small. I think in the process of saving nature, we would be saving ourselves too. It would benefit the world and the human population.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!