Is Nature Polluting Itself? A Look at Water Contamination Sources

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kenneth Mann
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pollution Water
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of wildlife contributions to water pollution, particularly in the Maryland and Virginia areas. Participants explore the idea that natural sources, such as animal waste, may be significant contributors to water contamination, challenging traditional views on pollution sources. The conversation touches on environmental standards, the role of human activity, and the complexities of managing wildlife populations in relation to water quality.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that wildlife, including deer and raccoons, may be significant contributors to water pollution, potentially undermining previous assumptions about pollution sources.
  • Questions are raised about how to address wildlife pollution if it exceeds environmental standards, with suggestions including culling animals, cleaning up after them, or reintroducing natural predators.
  • Others argue that while wildlife contributes to pollution, it does not absolve humans of responsibility for environmental degradation and pollution.
  • Concerns are expressed about the implications of redefining pollution to include natural sources, with some participants arguing that this could lead to a misunderstanding of the severity of human-caused pollution.
  • There is a call for clarity regarding the intentions behind the original post, with some participants interpreting it as a critique of environmental regulations.
  • Some participants emphasize the need to consider the indirect effects of human actions on wildlife populations and the resulting environmental consequences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of wildlife contributions to pollution. There are competing views on the significance of these contributions relative to human pollution, as well as differing opinions on how to address the issue.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the validity of the water testing results and the motivations behind them. There is also a recognition that the discussion involves complex interactions between human activity and wildlife populations, which may not be fully understood.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
Well, what we end up with is that, whatever we do it's because we choose to do it. If we want to act to preserve species, it is because we have chosen to take repsonsibility for their survival. This is not the same as "leaving them and their natural habitat alone."

What we end up with is known as stewardship.
I agree with this

No. That is one, scenario. Other natural systems wipe out whole species or ecologies. THAT is natural.
The natural method usually take centuries or millenia or longer. We are so efficient, we can wipe out a species in a few decades. In the long run it is the same, true.
Fix is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.
unpleasant results is a completely arbitrary, human-invented concept.
I have seen some amazingly horrible environmental disasters in my travels. I choose to call them unpleasant, and that's an understatement. I choose to not like them. I choose to do what I can to have them "fixed." It's my conceit, my concept if you will, and my choice. More often than not it has been little more than spitting into the wind, hence my current view of "living with our own messes." Nevertheless, I am in favor of maintaining most of our environmental laws. Don't care about right or wrong, it's what I want.

All things that we enjoy or dislike are arbitrary, human-invented concepts, aren't they?
Bottom line: There is no objective Right or Wrong in natural ecosystems, even disasters. The only thing we can do to nature is arrange it the way we like it.
I like my nature wild, but without the black panthers, please.
Right and wrong are of course the ultimate human concepts. Right and wrong is left up to society as a whole to decide. Too bad society as a whole is stupid. But I'm glad we got rid of the panthers. dangerous things.

"very well then, I contradict myself. I am full of multitudes."
.
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Agreed. We still want to preserve as many species and as many ecologies as possible. It is the right thing to do.

I just wanted to ensure that we not attempting to invoke some misguided "balance of nature" principle to try to justify it.
 
  • #33
i need an interview

Hello, I'm working on a senior paper about the causes and effects of water pollution and I was wondering if there is anyone here, who is familiar with this topic, who would be willing to allow me to interview them for my paper. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

42% of Sea Level rise due to human water use?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Admissions Exploring the Universe: Pursuing a PhD in High Energy Physics
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
News Polluting, Greedyrich Sierra Clubbers
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Undergrad Clean energy and more drinking water.
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Humanure and the Human Nutrient Cycle
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
Iron-Eating Bacteria Clean Up Contaminated Environments - By Cathy Holding
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
How many 0.3 micron particles in 0.1L volume of room air?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Vast New Energy Source Almost Here
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Solaculture: A novel biological approach for low cost energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Is my fictional Solar System stable and realistic?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K