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
Recent findings indicate that wildlife, particularly deer, geese, and raccoons, is a significant source of bacterial pollution in Maryland and Virginia's waterways, challenging previous assumptions about pollution primarily stemming from human activity. This raises critical questions about environmental standards and how to address wildlife contributions to pollution. Proposed solutions, such as culling animals or restoring natural predators, face political and practical challenges, while some suggest ignoring wildlife impacts in favor of addressing human pollution sources. The discussion reflects a broader concern about the balance between human activity and natural ecosystems, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to environmental policy. Ultimately, the complexity of pollution sources necessitates a reevaluation of existing environmental regulations.
  • #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

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K