What is the environmental impact of people from exposure to animals?

What is the environmental impact of people from exposure to animals? Like all of us – both people and fauna – inhabitants of one planet, all its resources are consumed, but are there differences in the degree of influence on the environment? A very interesting question, and the answer is ambiguous, despite the apparent evidence. So, let’s start in order.

The content of the article

What was at the beginning?

The man at the dawn of its history was little different from the animal, and its impact on nature was minimal – no more than in other animals living nearby. This situation is called homeostasis, or natural balance, when living beings consume no more that nature can recover. But one becomes full (in our sense) is a reasonable – appearing Homo sapiens, the first representatives of which are recorded in the French cave of CRO-magnon (the remains date from the age of 30-40 million years), so I called CRO-magnons. The appearance of the CRO-magnon was the starting point of the development of modern human civilization.

The great American scientist of the 19th century, Morgan Lewis suggested the original periodization of the history of direct relevance to human impact on nature. According to the theory of Morgan, the story of a man should be divided into three major periods: savagery, barbarism and civilization. At the stage of savagery in society dominated by subsistence economy – hunting, gathering, fishing; at the stage of barbarism begins producing economy – agriculture, cattle breeding, there is a private property; the stage of civilization is the appearance of the first States. It is easy to guess that only at the stage of savagery man’s impact on nature is minimal and does not exceed the impact of the animal – that is, savages live in balance with nature.

The difference of impact on the environment people from exposure to animals is that animals do not bring any harm to the wildlife. But a person is not so simple. The beginning stage of barbarism was marked by the intensive exploitation of the land, except that in the absence of agronomic knowledge this treatment has often been injurious – even in the early stages of human development. This is not surprising: one land, then, received much less than today, so people were forced to explore new lands, was exhausted when former arable land. And at the old place biocenosis in its present form was not restored almost never – there appeared a new ecosystem, often very different from those that were before.

to table of contents ↑the difference between the impact on nature of humans and animals

A particularly intense impact of humans on nature has become in modern times (16th-17th centuries), when mankind thanks to the discovery of new lands was vigorously spread throughout the Land. For negative examples illiterate and destructive intervention in nature are not far to seek: take America. In pursuit of arable land, the people almost completely exterminated the Buffalo, the former the most important part of the ecosystem of the American Prairie. And the destruction of existing for thousands of years the landscape has led to frequent appearance in the former prairies (which have now become fields) tornadoes that strike the United States economy great damage. This is only one example, and they can cite many: the man has changed nature, and, unfortunately, to restore the lost too little is being done.

The question is: well, animals that have the potential to adversely affect nature? Answer: Yes, of course!However, this requires external stimulus, because in normal conditions the animals occupy their ecological niche, which they leave just makes no sense. And that push usually (alas!) is human intervention. A classic example is the importation into Australia of rabbits in the late 18th century.

It would seem that the cute furry animals with tender meat diet – well so what? However, the conditions for rabbits in Australia, it was perfect, and no tricks to reduce the rabbit population to dramatic result has not resulted. Funny ushastik not only eat the shoots of garden plants or tree seedlings, but due to the intense digging of holes have led to the development of soil erosion. According to the environmentalists, their fault disappeared some Australian animals.

to content ↑Comparative table

To summarize, what is the difference between exposure at human nature and the influence of animals. Animals living in balance with nature, ourselves actually is nature, or part of it. The man by performing economic activities interfere with the natural development of nature, and often, too often this intervention is unsustainable, ruining the habitats of both animals and man himself.

Animals
Human impact

Direct intervention
The impact of animals on nature is minimal, as they occupy their ecological niche and consume not more than what nature can replenish in a natural way
In the initial stages of development of society has only a minimal impact on the growth of human population impact is growing over time, reaching a critical level, when the restoration of the biocenosis or impossible, or a very long time

Indirect intervention
When forced relocation of animals in an alien community, they can sometimes have a detrimental impact on the ecological system, to stop that is either very difficult or impossible
Sometimes a man acting on nature, does not involve the consequences of such exposure or presumptuously believes that able to prevent them. The result is an unexpected disturbance, the fight against which requires additional resources

Filed in: Tip

Post Comment