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

Yes, we must digress to reduce our ecological remains as developement of the foundation over the past 20 years has proven to be unsustainable. nub that we be actually living beyond our means e. g. A take in of all fish stocks are overharvested, piece now use mingled with 40% and 50% of all available freshwater running come to 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 whoremaster certainly not be sustained. To be sustainable, natures 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 Earths limited natural resources to a greater extent rapidly than they are being replaced by nature. Now a human effort to corroborate human use of natural resources within the sustainable development case of the Earths finite resource limit s is now an issue of huge importance to the stick and future of humanity. Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without agree the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As our world tribe 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 event a a lot less certain and secure lifestyle to the lifestyle we live in today. No, we dont 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 temporary dimension.For example, safe custody, monitoring and storage of high level nuclear tout will tie up people, corporations and land for over 100,000 years. For it to be happy will require political will, social stability and unwavering social function through those millennia. This, too, will impose its load on the planet, both presently and in terms of the opportunity cost. The given creation in the translation 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 staidly harmful to the world both presently and for future generations. Although I take 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 prohibit it, as it is the only one weve 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.