People today are much more aware of the environment than they used to be. We all realise that our planet is fragile and at risk. We also realise that human actions - like using fossil fuels and cutting down the rain forests - may well be causing global warming.
We seem to have a big dilemma - either we keep nature just as it is and don't make any more changes, or we use science and technology to make oursleves richer.
Many people are delighted and impressed by how much progress we have made over the last 150 years - we have discovered how to fly, how to send machines to Mars, how to cure many diseases, how to feed billions of people, how to communicate at the speed of light. Many people say that these fantastic achievements would not have happened if we had been concerned to protect a few ancient cultures and landscapes. They say we should continue to change nature, for the good of everyone.
On the other hand, people like Greenpeace and other environmental campaigners say that we have gone too far. It is time to respect nature, not to change it any more, even if we would make more money and live in more luxury by changing nature further. They also say it is time to give better respect to indigenous cultures, which have been badly damaged by 'progress'.
What do you think? On balance (weighing up both sides of the argument) do you agree that we should continue to change nature in the name of progress, or not?
Read More
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/It is proposed that on balance, we should continue to change nature to help human progress