More so than any other issue facing us we must all start to reduce our ecological footprint

Yes, we must start to reduce our ecological footprint as developement of the world over the past 20 years has proven to be unsustainable. Meaning that we are actually living beyond our means e. g. A quarter of all fish stocks are overharvested, Humans now use between 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running off the land and deforestation increase risks of various deadly diseases such as malaria and cholera. Our way of life is placing an increasing burden on the planet and this can certainly not be sustained. To be sustainable, nature's resources must only be used at a rate which they can be replenished naturally. Scientific evidence shows now that humanity is living in n unsustainable way. Humans are consuming the Earth's limited natural resources more rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Now a human effort to keep human use of natural resources within the sustainable development aspect of the Earth's finite resource limits is now an issue of huge importance to the present and future of humanity. â€Å"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. † As our world population increases rapidly our use of natural resources cannot go on forever and unless we start to make progress with reconciling these contradictions everybody, where ever they are will face a much less certain and secure lifestyle to the lifestyle we live in today. No, we don't have to reduce our ecological footprint as the world we live in right now is suffering from much worse issues presently and so in dealing with the issue of the footprint brings alot of limitations. The term ecological foot print also lacks a temporal dimension. For example, safe custody, monitoring and storage of high level nuclear waste will tie up people, corporations and land for over 100,000 years. For it to be successful will require political will, social stability and unwavering purpose through those millennia. This, too, will impose its load on the planet, both directly and in terms of the opportunity cost. The â€Å"given population† in the definition above needs to be specified: is it the human population? The population of all animals? The population of all life? In my personal opinion, I agree with the concept of reducing our ecological footprint as it is seriously harmful to the world both presently and for future generations. Although I realise that there is a for and against argument for this cause, I find myself leaning more towards the Yes side of the argument because I believe we should respect this Earth not destroy it, as it is the only one we've got. The earth cannot be replaced and neither can all the natural resources we use up or destroy so rapidly without a moments thought to both the consequences and meaning.