Human Progress and Nature
Human progress is essentially dependent on the products provided by nature. We require water, food, clean air, medicines, and timber, all of which can only be obtained from healthy ecosystems. Weather and climate change are influenced by how humans interact with the environment. Nature provides us with not just fundamental necessities, but also recreational opportunities. As a result, humans, like any other creature on the planet, are considered to be part of nature.
The Impact of Technical Advancement on the Environment
People get preoccupied with technical advancement as a result of societal progress, and they end up harming the environment. For example, some waste from our industries seems to be poisonous and have destructive consequences to life. Nature is extremely fragile, and therefore human beings should understand their interdependencies with ecosystems in order to sustain it. It is a matter of urgent to change our behavior following the effects of our practices to make nature safe (Schröter et al., 2014).
Our Dependence on Nature
In summary, human beings are nature and nature is human beings. From the basic needs such as shelter, food, and medical care to recreational facilities, we depend on nature. We can only continue enjoying such privileges that we got from nature if we are conscious of our daily activities that are nature related. The continuous commercialization of human activities which is characterized by the industrial revolution seems to be dangerous to the environment. The effects can be seen and measured by climate change resulting in negative outcomes such as drought and other environmental disasters related. We know very well that this is a wrong direction and something should be done to correct the activities that would prevent nature from being friendly to us since we depend so much.
Reference
Schröter, M., Zanden, E. H., Oudenhoven, A. P., Remme, R. P., Serna‐Chavez, H. M., Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter‐arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514-523.
