Introduction:
The primary source of energy for all the life forms here on earth is the sunlight. Plants (primary producers) use photosynthesis to convert this sunlight into biomass. Biomass produced by plants is used by herbivores (plant-eating species), and decomposers as an energy source. The biomass of the herbivores serves as an energy source for carnivores (flesh-eating species). Humans are said to be omnivores (feeding on both plants and flesh) (“Humanity in the Food Web”). Historically, some people refuse to follow an omnivorous diet; instead they adopt a plant-based diet as their herbivore counterparts in the nature do. These people are called vegetarians. Vegetarians base their decisions on various reasons, such as religious reasons, ethical reasons, health reasons, economical reasons, ecological reasons, and so on. Some of these reasons, in my opinion, also form a strong foundation for the ideology that wide acceptance of vegetarianism would solve many of the ecological, ethical and health related problems that we are currently encountering.
In today’s world, many people who choose to become vegetarians do so mostly because of ethical reasons. There are several different ethical aspects of adopting a vegetarian diet. One of these is the ethical obligation toward others. People who raise this argument believe that world hunger would be eliminated if everybody would follow a vegetarian diet. Another one of the ethical aspects is the ethical obligation toward the environment. The supporters of this argument believe that raising livestock is one of the main consumers of water, soil, natural resources, and one of the main producers of CO2. Yet another ethical aspect is the ethical obligation toward animals; this argument is one of the most controversial of all, yet it has the most supporters who think that animals should not be killed for any reason. . The last of the ethical aspects is the ethical obligation toward ourselves which deals with one’s health. Most vegetarians think that a vegetarian diet reduces the chance of cancer, reduces fat and cholesterol intake, and eliminates many other diseases caused by eating animal flesh. Throughout this paper, all of these four ethical aspects and their foundations will be elaborated upon.
Ethical Obligation toward Others:
World hunger is one of the most important of the problems that humanity is facing today. Each year, approximately 60 million people die either because of malnutrition or undernutrition (Esterhazy). The major portion of these deaths is occurring among children who are much more fragile and prone to starvation than the adults. According to the studies, a child starves to death every two seconds (Robbins). I think that these people who face starvation every day of their lives should not be deprived of their most basic right of continuing their lives, whereas people in the industrialized countries take this right for granted and continue to live in a consumption based society where massive and unacceptable wasting of resources has become a way of life. Today, with the help of our advanced science and technology, we are very efficient in growing crops. As a result, the world’s crop yield, today, is greater than anytime in the history. One would think that since we have a very large amount of crop production, we should not have any problems related to lack of food resources for every person in the world. However, the hunger problem is not a result of insufficient resources but a result of unequal distribution of resources among the individuals. Somehow this could be taken as a fortunate recognition because it would mean that the resources in the world are adequate for every people to nourish themselves if the distribution problem is solved. The major portion of the distribution problem comes into the scene with our preference for using the crops in a very inefficient conversion process to produce a more expensive food: meat. Instead, we can use the crops to feed people directly and prevent a massive waste in the conversion process. When people are starving in one part of the world, a massive amount of food is consumed by livestock in other parts of the world to produce meat in a ridiculously inefficient ratio; for every pound of beef, for instance, approximately 16 pounds of grains and soybeans needed (Robbins). In a more focused example, the United States of America is one of the major producers of corn, wheat, oat, soybeans and potatoes. However, the statistics show that only a small portion of the US production is consumed by people (approximately 10-20%) because the US is also one of the major producers of livestock, and the major portion of the US grain and soybeans production is eaten by livestock. Some researchers argue that if only the people in the US reduced their intake of meat by 10%, with the grain saved from the reduced feeding of livestock, all the people who face starvation each year in the world would be adequately fed (Esterhazy).
I think that it is morally wrong to let people die because of starvation when we could eliminate our waste of resources and let everyone nourish himself or herself. I also think that every member of the earth community should have an equal right to the sharing of resources, and she or he should not wave this right to the others who think their shares should be bigger because they are better than the rest. Under the light of these facts, it is clear, in my opinion, that people have an ethical obligation toward others not only to reduce but also to eliminate the meat consumption completely so that hunger would disappear from the face of the earth forever.
Ethical Obligation toward the Environment:
In the earlier stages of human history, individuals who ate meat did so at their own expenses, that is, whatever an individual could hunt or raise for himself or herself was whatever she or he could eat. However, especially after the industrial revolution, humanity found itself in a comfort-driven society. People in such a society do not like to be bound by their own performances and limitations but want more of everything that they consider good for them. This has been a driving force behind the fact that meat production has become a huge industry in recent decades. As it is the case for most major industries, capital-driven enterprising of the meat industry has created major problems in the environment.
First, livestock growers realized the fact that in order to obtain maximum efficiency, they have to take the animals under their total control; this meant that the animals of commercial value should be removed from their natural habitats and put in well-defended places. This separationist attitude created several problems. By doing this, growers removed a valuable item from the food chain of the nature; this was a major cause of disruption for carnivore species that heavily depend on these animals. Not only did some weaker carnivore animals die because they could not find food readily available, but also they were killed by people who were defending the livestock under their supervision. This resulted in the decreasing of some carnivore species’ numbers and in some cases even led to extinction.
Another problem occurred. When under the supervision and protection of humans, these captivated animals increased their population dramatically to an extent that they could never reach in their original natural habitat. With the increasing population of the livestock, land and food problems have been raised. In order to keep the animals alive and well, the meat industry needed a lot of land for animals and for more crop land to feed the animals. To meet the increasing demand, each year a lot of forest land is cleared for crop land to feed livestock and produce more meat. Because of this mass clearing of forest lands, many species face extinction; a lot of wild animals die because they lose their homes in the woods. For most forest species, the forest is the major source of food and protection. With the forest destroyed, many species cannot resist the difficulties presented and die either because of starvation or because of weather conditions. The destruction of forests not only presents a problem for forest species but also creates problems for the earth’s ecology. It is widely known that forests are the major source of oxygen and oxygen is needed for life on earth. By destroying the forests, the meat industry is actually destroying the earth’s major source of oxygen (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”). Destroying these forest lands is also a major contributor to floods and top soil erosion, as well (Pultar). Trees help the soil hold together by absorbing the water, cutting these trees and planting crops with short roots would weaken the soil against winds and water and the top soil would be eroded by these external forces. With the rich and fertile soil eroded, we would not even be able to grow crops for ourselves, let alone for the livestock.
Another major environmental problem related to raising livestock is that the energy needed to produce meat is much greater. According to the scientists, the energy needed to produce meat is fifty times more than the energy needed to produce same amount of crop (Robbins). This would mean that for every pound of meat fifty times more fossil fuels needed to be burnt, and the ecological problems associated with fossil fuel burning are so widely known that there is no need to discuss it here in detail other than mentioning its disease causing effect on mine workers such as black lung disease, its contribution to increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, its contribution to acid rain and its alleged contribution to global warming..
Researches also show that in order to produce a pound of meat, 2500 gallons of fresh water are needed as opposed to 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat (Robbins). Because fresh water consumption is so much greater in raising livestock, the livestock growers are said to be one of the main contributors of fresh water pollution. Although the major portion of the earth’s surface is covered with water, most of the water is water with sea salt; that is, it is not usable for agricultural and household purposes unless it is treated. Only a small portion of the water is fresh and readily usable water. Water pollution in the industrialized nations is a big problem because fresh water is a precious and essential source for life, and we are rapidly polluting our resources. Although treatment techniques for sea water and some polluted water are scientifically available, they are neither practical nor economical solutions to the pollution problem. In some cases of polluted water, it is not even possible to clean up the pollution. Because of its cost-increasing effect, most industries are inattentive to take precautionary steps to decrease the amount of their water polluting waste unless they are forced by governmental regulations. One of the main industries that contribute to the pollution of the fresh water is the meat industry because as it is stated in Mr. Robbins’ book, the meat industry in the US, for example, uses more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US (Robbins). As I stated before; fresh water conservation is so important for all the present and future life forms on earth, and we should minimize the pollution that we pour into this precious source of life.
I think that we should respect the wildlife in forests as well as the animals under captivity and let them live their lives in their natural habitats. I also think that we should be more concerned about the future of this planet and act accordingly to eliminate fossil fuel burning, deforestation, polluting of fresh water and our contribution to the extinction of species. I not only think that we should be concerned more about the future generations, animals, the environment and the earth’s well-being than what it is on our plates, but also I strongly believe that we are ethically obligated to do so. Keeping these facts in mind, I conclude by repeating that we must fulfill our ethical obligation toward the environment by eliminating our meat consumption so that this world would be a better place to live for us, for all the other species and for the future generations.
Ethical Obligation toward Animals:
Another important issue related to the meat consumption is dealing with animal rights. It is very simple that, in order to eat meat, animals should be killed. However, the necessity of killing another living being is highly controversial. Must we really kill in order to live? My answer for this question is a simple answer: no. I think that we can sustain our well-being without killing other living creatures. We can very well nourish our bodies with a plant-based diet, and in today’s way of living, we do not have to kill the animals to protect ourselves or eliminate the competition for other food resources either. I think that we have no right to kill the animals or treat them badly for only pleasure; as James Rachels explained, “since we can nourish ourselves very well without eating them, our only reason for doing all this to the animals is our enjoyment of the way they taste. And this will not even come close to justifying the cruelty” (Rachels).
Today, most of us do not live in wild habitats; we do not even see most kinds of animals anywhere other than zoos. Our encountering with animals is minimized in today’s comfort-driven society; therefore, it is much more impersonalized. Today, we do not have to kill the animals for ourselves either because others in the meat industry are killing them for us. I think that this impersonalization and the disassociation of meat from the animals are the major human perceptions that are contributing the growth of the meat industry. Whenever a person goes shopping, she or he sees these little packages of meat in the cooler. There is nothing to associate the meat in the cooler with a living-breathing animal. For the shopper, this is only another food item to be bought. I truly believe that if everybody were reminded of the fact that these little, clean-looking packages are products of careless, malicious handling followed by violent, bloody and terrorful slaughtering, the meat consumption would promptly drop. This theory is also backed by the fact that of all occupations in the US, slaughterhouse workers have the highest turnover rate because most people cannot deal with the daily experience of screams of terror and the anger of the animals (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).
Some opposers think that if the animals were living in their natural habitat, they would be eaten by carnivore species anyway; therefore, there is nothing wrong with our eating them. However, they overlook the fact that, for example, whereas cows have a lifespan of 25 years under natural living conditions, they are only allowed to live 3 to 5 years on animal farms (Esterhazy). They also overlook the fact that the treatment that the animals receive before they are killed is very different from how nature treats them in their original habitat (Pultar).
I think that it is morally wrong to treat other living creatures badly and kill them for only pleasure. Since we are the only moral creatures on this planet, I think that we have an ethical obligation toward the animals, as well. I also tend to believe that, as Leonardo da Vinci wrote once, “the time will come when men will look upon the murder of the animals as they now look upon the murder of men” (Dasa).
Ethical Obligation toward Ourselves:
Finally, of course, we always have an ethical obligation toward ourselves. We have to nurture our bodies and minds because whatever everybody else thinks, in my opinion, the only asset that we truly have is our own bodies and minds. I am convinced that adopting a vegetarian diet could be very nurturing for our bodies and minds.
Nowadays, heart disease is one of the leading causes of death in industrialized nations. One of the major causes of heart disease is the excess intake of fat and cholesterol, and meat is the main provider of fat and cholesterol. Since a balanced vegetarian diet greatly eliminates the fat and cholesterol intake, the risk of having heart disease for a vegetarian is very small. In fact, as early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported, “90% to 97% of heart disease can be prevented by a vegetarian diet” (Dasa).
Cancer is another disease that can be prevented by following a vegetarian diet. Researches strongly suggest that eating a meat-based diet puts us greatly at risk in terms of cancer. For instance, the studies published by the Himalayan Academy show; the risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week, and for men who consume meat daily, the risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).
Another great concern is the chemicals that meat contains. These chemicals could be very harmful to people who obtain them through eating meat. One class of these chemicals is the antibiotics. Large amounts of antibiotics are fed to livestock to control certain diseases among the animals. Since the bacteria causing these diseases are becoming immune to the drugs very quickly, the meat industry is increasing the amount of the antibiotics given to livestock every year. It is not healthy for humans to consume the meat that contains high levels of antibiotics because by the gradual increase of antibiotics in the human body, disease causing bacteria which affect humans build a resistance against these antibiotics, and this causes a rapid decline in effectiveness of all “wonder-drug” antibiotics (Robbins).
Another group of chemicals that the meat contains includes pesticides and herbicides. These chemicals are commonly used to increase crop efficiency. Even in a vegetarian diet, people receive these chemicals. However, since livestock is feeding on this crop, as well, they are biologically magnifying the chemicals in their bodies and passing these chemicals at a much greater rate to the humans who consume their meat. For example, a research published by the Himalayan Academy clearly indicated that contamination of breast milk due to pesticides found in meat-eating mothers versus non meat-eating mothers is 35 times higher (“Discussing Vegetarianism...”).
I also truly believe that adopting a vegetarian diet would also provide us more internal peace. As Tolstoy asked once, “while our bodies are the living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions on earth?” (Dasa). In my opinion, violence creates more violence. When we treat other creatures violently, I do not think that we can find internal peace of our own.
The Vision:
I hope that everybody understands the effects of our treatment to the others on our ownselves and everybody embraces the fact that we are not superior to nature but just a part of it. I also hope that everybody realizes that every single creature on this earth has the most basic right to live and to produce. I truly hope that everybody believes the fact that we are moral creatures and we are obligated to apply our moral values not only to each other but also to everything that constitutes our environment. I also believe that we would find true happiness in our own lives if we accept our true and equal place in the environment and treat the other entities of nature accordingly and fulfill our ethical obligations toward each other, toward the environment, toward the animals and toward ourselves.
References
Burshtein, Lyn. “Why I Stopped Eating Meat.” Horizons. Vol. 10. Issue 4. p22.
Dasa, Adiraja. “Vegetarianism: A Means to a Higher End.” Hare Krishna Vegetarian Society, Australia National University. "Discussing Vegetarianism With a Meat-Eater: a Hindu View." Himalayan Academy.
Esterhazy, Jonathan. “A Beginner’s Guide to Vegetarianism.” Manitoba Animal Rights Coalition. George, Alexander. “Ruminations of a Vegetarian.” Massachusetts Review. Vol. 33. Issue 3. p447.
“Getting the Roots of a Vegetarian Diet.” International Food Information Council (IFIC).
“Humanity in the Food Web.” University of Illinois.
Inge, Karen. “Vegetarianism.” Nutridate. Vol. 7. Issue 2. p1.
Pultar, Edward. “Vegetarianism.”
Rachels, James. “Vegetarianism and ‘The Other Weight Problem.’” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994: 301-308.
Robbins, John. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Publishing, Walpole, NH 1987.
Witherell, Thomas D. “Notes from the Vegetarian Underground.” America. Vol. 170. Issue 14. p16.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Clean Air Act
The recent controversy over new strict clean air standards highlights the complicated interdisciplinary nature of environmental ethics.
In 1972, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first clean air standards under the name of Clean Air Act (CAA). Since then, the emission of major air pollutants in the U.S. has decreased by about 30%. Now, EPA is set to issue its new and improved CAA which is said to be stricter than the previous one.
As it is the case for almost every environmental related issues, the issue of CAA has created a lot of controversy among environmentalists, politicians and businessmen. Some think that stricter standards are needed because nothing could be more important than the health of the people. Yet others think that health benefits are uncertain and the cost of meeting these new standards would be really high and they also think that these high costs would lead some major problems in economies of many business enterprises.
Supporters of CAA think that these new standards could prevent 15,000 premature deaths every year and it could allow millions of people who have respiratory problems to breathe easier. As the Clinton said in his endorsement speech, children could greatly benefit from clean air as well. Besides the health benefits aspect of CAA, EPA argues that CAA could be economically helpful too. According to EPA, the cleaner air would mean fewer sick days for workers, lower health-care costs, less asthma, more kids in schools, and fewer kids in hospitals.
On the other hand, the opponents argue that EPA is exaggerating the benefits of clean air. They claim that no where in the medical literature, it is explicitly proven that air pollution causes any deaths. They also claim that the proposed standards are not more protective of public health than the current standards. Although they clearly express their doubts on health benefits of CAA, their main argument is related to the economical burden that CAA would bring onto the businesses. According to the businessmen, implementing these new standards is too expensive and it could result some businesses to bankrupt and that would cause loss of many jobs.
Again, as I discussed in my previous writing, here lies a conflict between money and things that have no monetary value. At first, it seems that we are trying to compare oranges and apples -- as my first arithmetic teacher told me not to, however since we cannot attach a monetary value to everything (because money is an artificial measurement unit and it is not sufficient to measure the nature), comparison of two different categories seems essential. On one side our obligations toward the environment and on the other side the great economic loss of the businesses, I think that this is where the precautionary principle should come into the scene.
In my opinion, we should set aside any worries related to the economic loss, because however big the economic loss is, it is still a worry that humans created for themselves (money is a human invention and it has no meaning in the nature) and they can overcome any difficulties related to this artificial source of disrupt for themselves too. Nonetheless, any footprint (for better or worse) we are leaving in the environment will be greatly inherent. I truly believe that we are ethically obligated to minimize our interference to the nature. Although it is not very clear that the dirty air is causing many problems for the organic life on the earth, as the precautionary principle suggests, even a slight possibility of harm should be taken seriously and precautionary measures should be taken accordingly.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Editorials. Seattle Times. “Healthy skepticism for new clean-air rules.”
Editorials. Seattle Times. “Cloud of doubts over EPA’s clean-air rules. ”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Trucking Group Plans Lawsuit Against Air Plan.”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Opponents organizing to fight new pollution limits.”
Muro, Mark. Earth Times. “Clinton and clean air: What’s next for the environment?”
In 1972, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its first clean air standards under the name of Clean Air Act (CAA). Since then, the emission of major air pollutants in the U.S. has decreased by about 30%. Now, EPA is set to issue its new and improved CAA which is said to be stricter than the previous one.
As it is the case for almost every environmental related issues, the issue of CAA has created a lot of controversy among environmentalists, politicians and businessmen. Some think that stricter standards are needed because nothing could be more important than the health of the people. Yet others think that health benefits are uncertain and the cost of meeting these new standards would be really high and they also think that these high costs would lead some major problems in economies of many business enterprises.
Supporters of CAA think that these new standards could prevent 15,000 premature deaths every year and it could allow millions of people who have respiratory problems to breathe easier. As the Clinton said in his endorsement speech, children could greatly benefit from clean air as well. Besides the health benefits aspect of CAA, EPA argues that CAA could be economically helpful too. According to EPA, the cleaner air would mean fewer sick days for workers, lower health-care costs, less asthma, more kids in schools, and fewer kids in hospitals.
On the other hand, the opponents argue that EPA is exaggerating the benefits of clean air. They claim that no where in the medical literature, it is explicitly proven that air pollution causes any deaths. They also claim that the proposed standards are not more protective of public health than the current standards. Although they clearly express their doubts on health benefits of CAA, their main argument is related to the economical burden that CAA would bring onto the businesses. According to the businessmen, implementing these new standards is too expensive and it could result some businesses to bankrupt and that would cause loss of many jobs.
Again, as I discussed in my previous writing, here lies a conflict between money and things that have no monetary value. At first, it seems that we are trying to compare oranges and apples -- as my first arithmetic teacher told me not to, however since we cannot attach a monetary value to everything (because money is an artificial measurement unit and it is not sufficient to measure the nature), comparison of two different categories seems essential. On one side our obligations toward the environment and on the other side the great economic loss of the businesses, I think that this is where the precautionary principle should come into the scene.
In my opinion, we should set aside any worries related to the economic loss, because however big the economic loss is, it is still a worry that humans created for themselves (money is a human invention and it has no meaning in the nature) and they can overcome any difficulties related to this artificial source of disrupt for themselves too. Nonetheless, any footprint (for better or worse) we are leaving in the environment will be greatly inherent. I truly believe that we are ethically obligated to minimize our interference to the nature. Although it is not very clear that the dirty air is causing many problems for the organic life on the earth, as the precautionary principle suggests, even a slight possibility of harm should be taken seriously and precautionary measures should be taken accordingly.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Editorials. Seattle Times. “Healthy skepticism for new clean-air rules.”
Editorials. Seattle Times. “Cloud of doubts over EPA’s clean-air rules. ”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Trucking Group Plans Lawsuit Against Air Plan.”
Editorials. FoxNews. “Opponents organizing to fight new pollution limits.”
Muro, Mark. Earth Times. “Clinton and clean air: What’s next for the environment?”
Science, Public Policy and Nature
Precautionary principle is the idea that action should be taken to avoid problems even the possibility of the problems occurring is really remote. Coming up with robust scientific proofs verifying that the current practices would lead highly problematic consequences could be time consuming and costly, in some cases, it would even be impossible.
The lack of indisputable scientific evidence to back up the theories in some highly controversial cases has always been a big problem. Because of the lack of evidence or previous experience, the probability of an outcome cannot be known with high certainty. This is called scientific uncertainty. Because of its complicated and unpredictable nature, environmental issues inherit scientific uncertainty.
For instance, in the case of global warming, the terms “Global warming” or “Greenhouse Effect” are recent terms which are created by scientists relying upon the scientific data that they have been collecting. These terms would have meant nothing to the people who had lived couple of centuries ago. However today, almost everybody is familiar with these phenomena and their latent adverse effects on the environment. Nevertheless we do not seem to agree on what the data we have would mean and how we should act according to each interpretation.
One would think that since it is clear that carbondioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature have been gradually increasing (One Earth One Future, pg. 28, 36), we should do something about it. However it is not that simple. Although the data we have thus far suggest that we are presented with a problem of increasing carbondioxide level and heat, the statistical data we have is too recent comparing to the age of the earth. Basically, we do not know how the behavior of earth was in the earlier stages. Relying on this fact, some scientist argue that the nature has its ups and downs and in the long term using its great ability of compensation, it will eventually correct the carbondioxide and heat levels; therefore, we do not have to do anything about it. Yet some other scientists think that we have to act now, otherwise it will be too late to reverse the damage that is already being done.
Nevertheless, according to the precautionary principle, however remote the risk is, environmental policies should stay one step ahead of the anticipated problems. Back to the issue of global warming, the precautionary principle suggests in this case that we should immediately stop burning fossil fuels and, in turn, it would eliminate the excess carbondioxide emission and it would also disrupt all economies. This does not sound like a rational solution for most people. For the policy makers, making such a decision takes a lot of courage. Because we are living in a money oriented society, the order and welfare of a society, in this economical framework, are thought to rely on its monetary wealth. In their decision-making-process, the policy makers see every parameter involved as an entry in their cost and benefit analysis charts, and since a “possible” ecological problem does not have a monetary value attached to itself, it cannot be appraised in their cost and benefit analysis.
Although I identify the major problem in the decision making as the lack of economical value of the environment, I still do not think that the solution of this problem is measuring the environment’s value as a quantifiable value to humans. Most sources I came across suggest that under the ideals of the precautionary principle, potential victims should be empowered to make the necessary decisions for themselves. Even though I completely agree with this idea, I still have a question mark regarding to the word “victims.” Whereas it is not explicitly stated, “victims” in this statement are usually thought of humans. I think that even a remote risk toward “insignificant” species should be evaluated as though it is a call for doomsday.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Costanza, Robert and Laura Cornwell. Environment. “The 4P approach to Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty.” November, 1992.
Lundmark, Thomas. Journal of Environmental Law & Practice. “Principles and Instruments of German Environmental Law.” January, 01, 1997.
The lack of indisputable scientific evidence to back up the theories in some highly controversial cases has always been a big problem. Because of the lack of evidence or previous experience, the probability of an outcome cannot be known with high certainty. This is called scientific uncertainty. Because of its complicated and unpredictable nature, environmental issues inherit scientific uncertainty.
For instance, in the case of global warming, the terms “Global warming” or “Greenhouse Effect” are recent terms which are created by scientists relying upon the scientific data that they have been collecting. These terms would have meant nothing to the people who had lived couple of centuries ago. However today, almost everybody is familiar with these phenomena and their latent adverse effects on the environment. Nevertheless we do not seem to agree on what the data we have would mean and how we should act according to each interpretation.
One would think that since it is clear that carbondioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature have been gradually increasing (One Earth One Future, pg. 28, 36), we should do something about it. However it is not that simple. Although the data we have thus far suggest that we are presented with a problem of increasing carbondioxide level and heat, the statistical data we have is too recent comparing to the age of the earth. Basically, we do not know how the behavior of earth was in the earlier stages. Relying on this fact, some scientist argue that the nature has its ups and downs and in the long term using its great ability of compensation, it will eventually correct the carbondioxide and heat levels; therefore, we do not have to do anything about it. Yet some other scientists think that we have to act now, otherwise it will be too late to reverse the damage that is already being done.
Nevertheless, according to the precautionary principle, however remote the risk is, environmental policies should stay one step ahead of the anticipated problems. Back to the issue of global warming, the precautionary principle suggests in this case that we should immediately stop burning fossil fuels and, in turn, it would eliminate the excess carbondioxide emission and it would also disrupt all economies. This does not sound like a rational solution for most people. For the policy makers, making such a decision takes a lot of courage. Because we are living in a money oriented society, the order and welfare of a society, in this economical framework, are thought to rely on its monetary wealth. In their decision-making-process, the policy makers see every parameter involved as an entry in their cost and benefit analysis charts, and since a “possible” ecological problem does not have a monetary value attached to itself, it cannot be appraised in their cost and benefit analysis.
Although I identify the major problem in the decision making as the lack of economical value of the environment, I still do not think that the solution of this problem is measuring the environment’s value as a quantifiable value to humans. Most sources I came across suggest that under the ideals of the precautionary principle, potential victims should be empowered to make the necessary decisions for themselves. Even though I completely agree with this idea, I still have a question mark regarding to the word “victims.” Whereas it is not explicitly stated, “victims” in this statement are usually thought of humans. I think that even a remote risk toward “insignificant” species should be evaluated as though it is a call for doomsday.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Costanza, Robert and Laura Cornwell. Environment. “The 4P approach to Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty.” November, 1992.
Lundmark, Thomas. Journal of Environmental Law & Practice. “Principles and Instruments of German Environmental Law.” January, 01, 1997.
Western Culture and the Environment
Lynn White, Jr. maintains that occidental science and technology, in spite of all the rhetoric to the contrary, stem from Christian axioms and that this is, in many ways, responsible for the contemporary ecological crisis.
According to White, it is unquestionably obvious that the modern science and technology are Occidental. I agree the fact that, in today’s world, all the technology we have everywhere on earth is distinctively western oriented, and all the branches of science we have is mostly based on the findings of Western scientists.
Furthermore, White claims that not only our science and technology have been undeniably affected by Judeo-Christian teachings, but also Judeo-Christian teachings have served as a foundation to our science and technology. According to White, Science, in Western societies in the past, has been seen as “to think God’s thoughts after him.” This has been a real good motivation for scientists in those days. In his essay, White also explicitly states that humans’ place in Christianity is not being a part of the nature but being over the nature and being an exploiter of the nature. White states that in Christianity, humans are created in the image of God and the nature is created to serve the humans. Christian teachings also state that humans are not equal to the other creations in the nature but superior to them. This duality, from the beginning, sets a milestone in the long journey of humans’ struggle to control and exploit the nature.
According to the Christian beliefs, as White stated, the earth that we are living in now is a temporary place and we will eventually go to a better place; therefore, this place has no importance and does not need to be protected. In Christianity, the earth is given to us to use it as a big resource, we have no obligations toward the earth and the earth can be exploited and altered in any ways we wish.
Of course all these beliefs played a major role on development of the humans’ attitudes toward the nature. Humans, using science and technology together, have taken in charge to control and exploit the nature relying on their “God-given” rights. They believed that since God created everything on earth for the use of humans then humans have every right to exploit the earth with every tool they have, and the tools, they have now, are enormously powerful all because of the advancements in technology.
I think that we will not be able to find solutions to our environmental problems within the framework of our current science and technology. Because I agree with White that most of the problems that we have are created in the first place by our science and technology whose attitudes have been formed by Christian attitudes. I do not see a way to solve our problems “by just applying more science and more technology” without changing the attitudes behind our science and technology.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Barlow, D., Chuck. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. “Why the Christian Right Must Protect the Environment: Theocentricity in Political Workplace.”
According to White, it is unquestionably obvious that the modern science and technology are Occidental. I agree the fact that, in today’s world, all the technology we have everywhere on earth is distinctively western oriented, and all the branches of science we have is mostly based on the findings of Western scientists.
Furthermore, White claims that not only our science and technology have been undeniably affected by Judeo-Christian teachings, but also Judeo-Christian teachings have served as a foundation to our science and technology. According to White, Science, in Western societies in the past, has been seen as “to think God’s thoughts after him.” This has been a real good motivation for scientists in those days. In his essay, White also explicitly states that humans’ place in Christianity is not being a part of the nature but being over the nature and being an exploiter of the nature. White states that in Christianity, humans are created in the image of God and the nature is created to serve the humans. Christian teachings also state that humans are not equal to the other creations in the nature but superior to them. This duality, from the beginning, sets a milestone in the long journey of humans’ struggle to control and exploit the nature.
According to the Christian beliefs, as White stated, the earth that we are living in now is a temporary place and we will eventually go to a better place; therefore, this place has no importance and does not need to be protected. In Christianity, the earth is given to us to use it as a big resource, we have no obligations toward the earth and the earth can be exploited and altered in any ways we wish.
Of course all these beliefs played a major role on development of the humans’ attitudes toward the nature. Humans, using science and technology together, have taken in charge to control and exploit the nature relying on their “God-given” rights. They believed that since God created everything on earth for the use of humans then humans have every right to exploit the earth with every tool they have, and the tools, they have now, are enormously powerful all because of the advancements in technology.
I think that we will not be able to find solutions to our environmental problems within the framework of our current science and technology. Because I agree with White that most of the problems that we have are created in the first place by our science and technology whose attitudes have been formed by Christian attitudes. I do not see a way to solve our problems “by just applying more science and more technology” without changing the attitudes behind our science and technology.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Barlow, D., Chuck. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. “Why the Christian Right Must Protect the Environment: Theocentricity in Political Workplace.”
Humans and the Nature
“The relationship between humans and the rest of the nature is hierarchical. and humans, being superior to the rest of the nature, are thus morally permitted to use nature in any way they see fit.”
Throughout the history, humanity had seen itself as the center of everything. They believed that humans were created by the God and in the image of the God. Anything other than the humans around us is created by the God to serve the humans’ needs. According to their view, humans had a special place in the environment, they were superior to the nature because the nature was explicitly created for their use (White). Not only did they see themselves in a special place in this planet, but also they believed that the earth, being inhabited by humans, was the center of the universe thus was a special planet, too. This school of thought led the development of anthropocentric or human-centered world view.
Under the principles of the anthropocentric world view, humans are thought to be masters of the rest of the nature thus the nature is only a resource for the well-being of the human race. Since the nature is only a resource, humans are allowed to use the nature in any ways they want without taking any considerations for the nature itself.
I also believe that today’s widely accepted environmental movements such as conservationism and the movements toward achieving a sustainable society are also products of the anthropocentric world view. Although, these movements do concern about the well-being of the nature and they support the idea that the nature is valuable, they still perceive the nature in human terms, that is, they believe that the nature should be protected to serve the humans better in terms of using it for recreation, appreciation and enjoyment (Lamb).
Although there have been many scientific findings, such as Newton’s geocentric discoveries and Darwin’s theory of evolution, that suggest that humans are not any special with regard to the rest of the nature, most people still see themselves as superior to the nature (Lamb). I think this is mostly because of the fact that most of our science, technology, and teachings have been derived from the historical roots of the anthropocentric world view.
Historically, some counter ideologies have been established against the anthropocentric world view. For instance, preservation can be seen as a counter idea for conservation or deep ecology is a counter idea for both shallow ecology of conservation and sustainable development. Even though, these ideologies establish good world views in terms of defining the nature as a separate entity from humanity and recognizing the nature’s intrinsic value, they are far from being practical in the current way of thinking. However, I not only think but also hope that these ideologies could be good alternatives for the current way of living in the future. Because, I believe that no matter what happens, the nature will survive and our existence will depend on the way the nature shape into when it manages its survival.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Lamb, Kara L. “The Problem of Defining Nature First: A Philosophical Critique of Environmental Ethics.” Social Science Journal. Vol. 33. Issue 4. p475.
Naess, Arne. “Ecosophy T: Deep Versus Shallow Ecology.” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston.
White, Lynn. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.” Environmental Ethics. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Boston.
Footprint
From the very beginning, every element of the ecology has been altering its environment in one way or other. Some in small scales, some in larger scales, but everything that constitutes the earth has a contribution to the way the earth is right now. This is not only the case for the living organisms, but also is it the case for non-living forms of the ecology. For instance, who could deny the effects of the wind, the water or the sun to the formation of the environment as we know it. Rivers, for example, cause erosion, carry water for life to inland and contribute the formation of deltas. Volcanoes, to name another, cause major environmental changes in their vicinities. Similarly, animals change their environment so that the environment could be more suitable to their way of life. For example, birds make nests on trees and rabbits dig tunnels into the ground to protect themselves from the intruders and weather conditions. Because of the higher intelligent factor, in my opinion, humans have changed their environment more extravagantly than any other species on this planet.
The most major of the changes made by humans have occurred during the process of industrialization. Because of the improvements in the health services and medical advancement, industrialization led to a sharp increase in the population (“Humanity...”). In order to provide a better life for the increased population in the developed countries, technology has been intensively used to produce more food, more housing and more comfort on the expense of other things, such as people in less-developed countries, species with no commercial value, and ecosystems that are never thought to have any importance.
Some of these changes that humans have made are major changes that harm the environment greatly and it is doubtful that the environment ever will be able to repair itself. For example, as Rachel Carson indicated in her book, wide usage of chemicals has been harming the environment in many irreparable ways, and many species have been harmed by these changes in the environment (Carson). Carson claims that these chemicals cover the surface of the earth, get into the soil, get into the groundwater, and she adds that we might never be able to clean up these chemicals out of our precious water resources (Carson).
Other than the use of chemicals, humans are using fossil fuels to meet the increasing demands for energy in the industrialization process. Fossil fuels are formed in millions of years of time period, and they are limited. By using up these fossil fuels, we are taking something out of the environment that would take other millions of years to be replaced. And, by burning these fossil fuels, we are causing atmospheric pollution that would lead some harmful consequences. For example, scientists argue that because of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by fossil fuel burning, global warming could be on its way. Scientists think that once this happens, the earth would never be the same. The weather conditions would change, flooding would occur in many coastal cities, some animals that cannot adjust the changes very rapidly would go extinct (“Humanity...”). As it is foreseen, most of these changes would be very harmful to the environment and humanity itself, and they are irreversible.
Since we are the only species that have moral values, and since we are the only species who could think about the consequences of an action before we take it, I think that we are obligated to use these unique skills of ours. I think that we are obligated to apply our moral values to the environment, and we have to see the fact that we are not superior to the nature but a part of it. Our moral values should be our guidance in our decision making process. We should ask this question to ourselves: who are we to decide this earth’s fate? We have to remember the fact that this earth has been here much longer than we ever came into the scene and it will be here after we are long gone.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Co.
“Humanity: An Agent of Global Environmental Change.” One Earth One Future. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
The most major of the changes made by humans have occurred during the process of industrialization. Because of the improvements in the health services and medical advancement, industrialization led to a sharp increase in the population (“Humanity...”). In order to provide a better life for the increased population in the developed countries, technology has been intensively used to produce more food, more housing and more comfort on the expense of other things, such as people in less-developed countries, species with no commercial value, and ecosystems that are never thought to have any importance.
Some of these changes that humans have made are major changes that harm the environment greatly and it is doubtful that the environment ever will be able to repair itself. For example, as Rachel Carson indicated in her book, wide usage of chemicals has been harming the environment in many irreparable ways, and many species have been harmed by these changes in the environment (Carson). Carson claims that these chemicals cover the surface of the earth, get into the soil, get into the groundwater, and she adds that we might never be able to clean up these chemicals out of our precious water resources (Carson).
Other than the use of chemicals, humans are using fossil fuels to meet the increasing demands for energy in the industrialization process. Fossil fuels are formed in millions of years of time period, and they are limited. By using up these fossil fuels, we are taking something out of the environment that would take other millions of years to be replaced. And, by burning these fossil fuels, we are causing atmospheric pollution that would lead some harmful consequences. For example, scientists argue that because of the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by fossil fuel burning, global warming could be on its way. Scientists think that once this happens, the earth would never be the same. The weather conditions would change, flooding would occur in many coastal cities, some animals that cannot adjust the changes very rapidly would go extinct (“Humanity...”). As it is foreseen, most of these changes would be very harmful to the environment and humanity itself, and they are irreversible.
Since we are the only species that have moral values, and since we are the only species who could think about the consequences of an action before we take it, I think that we are obligated to use these unique skills of ours. I think that we are obligated to apply our moral values to the environment, and we have to see the fact that we are not superior to the nature but a part of it. Our moral values should be our guidance in our decision making process. We should ask this question to ourselves: who are we to decide this earth’s fate? We have to remember the fact that this earth has been here much longer than we ever came into the scene and it will be here after we are long gone.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Co.
“Humanity: An Agent of Global Environmental Change.” One Earth One Future. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Biodiversity
Biological diversity or biodiversity can be simply described as number of different species within the ecosystem. It includes not only all the animals, plants and micro-organisms that exist on the planet but also it includes all the genetic variety within these species and the variety of ecosystems that they inhabit (“Biodiversity...”). Since the creation of the earth, the earth’s biodiversity has been constantly changing in various rates of speed. Whereas evolution introduces some new species, some natural phenomenon such as changes in climate, volcano eruptions, and meteor impacts may cause extinction of some species. In today’s world, other than these natural phenomena, by over-exploiting and destroying the rainforests, humans have become a huge threat to the biological diversity of the world.
Tropical rainforests are estimated to cover about 7% of the earth’s land surface, yet they hold more than half of the total species in the world (“Vanishing...”). Rainforests are very rich and diverse ecosystems. Everything that constitutes an ecosystem continues its existence in a delicate balance. Even a small disturbance to this balance may cause unintended consequences. Let alone a small disturbance, humans have changed and continue to change this delicate balance in many major ways such as over-exploitation and destruction of rainforests. By the over-exploitation and destruction of rainforests, many of the forest species are facing extinction at a rate that would never be possible in natural conditions.
The main reason behind this massive destruction of rainforests is strictly economical. Mainly local people either encouraged by huge international companies or driven by their instincts for survival in a capital-driven society want to get a “piece” of these precious resources to find themselves a “better” place in their societies. However, giving the finite nature of these resources, in my opinion, these people are preparing their ends in terms of both economically and ecologically.
Destruction of rainforests has one direct and several indirect effects on decreasing biodiversity. The direct effect is , as one would imagine, the fact that the species that only live in the areas that are being destroyed would go extinct. These species would include large trees, small plants, animals, insects and even different types of fungi. The indirect effects are related to habitat alteration and species’ survival skills in a fast altered environment.
First, destruction of rainforests would cause soil erosion, with the fertile top soil gone, soil left would not be suitable for many plant species that originally inhabit the area, and they go extinct. Another indirect factor would be the fact that rainforests, as the name implies, largely contributes to the rainfall in their vicinities, their destruction would lead decreasing in the amount of rainfall and this would create some discomfort for many species that depend on rainfall, and if these species would have difficulties in adjusting the new conditions, they would face extinction. Another indirect effect would be related to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Forests help removing CO2 from the atmosphere but when they are destroyed, in contrary, they give out CO2. Scientists argue that increasing levels of CO2 levels would cause global warming and in the process, some species would not be able to go along with the changes and vanish from the face of the earth forever.
I think that every ecosystem is invaluable. Some elements of the ecosystem whose contribution to the human lives is obvious such as water, air, soil, plants, etc. are not
more important than the elements whose contribution is less obvious such as swamps,
bacteria, insects, fungi and microorganisms (“The Science...”). The author of the article called “The Science of Biodiversity” argues that the best way of protecting the endangered species is preserving the endangered ecosystem. In the case of rainforests, if we want to preserve the species, we have to preserve the forests.
Up to this point, we have not been able to identify all the species on the earth; therefore, we do not know what kind of use they might offer and whether or not they would be beneficial to humanity in any way. For instance, researches show that only 5% of the known plants have been analyzed for their medical properties (“The Science...”). Since the rest of the plants have no known medical properties so far, they are considered to have no economical value, but it does not mean that they contain no beneficial component to be discovered in the future; therefore, I think that we are morally obligated to conserve every species as if they are as valuable as a treatment for a fatal disease because they might turn out to be (“The Science...”).
Conserving the genetic diversity within individual species is especially important for domesticated crops and animals, because depending on a few number of crops and animals may cause a great economic lose in case of an outbreak which could affect only the species that we are heavily depending on for our food resources (“The Science...”). I think that we have a great obligation toward the human race to keep the species as diverse as possible, because I think it might be helpful to the survival of human race in the future by providing varieties of replacements for our current resources.
In my opinion, biodiversity is so important for the future of this planet, and obviously this accelerated rate of extinction is going to be a huge problem in the near future. Most of the damage is being done by human activities, keeping this in mind, I think that we should set new regulations to keep this types of activities limited, and we should also establish scientific foundations to conserve the existing biodiversity and its components. As I understand, biodiversity is really complicated and has many parameters, and I do not think that we have scientifically advanced enough to reach a thorough understanding of biodiversity. I think that we should conduct more researches on this issue to complete our understanding about biodiversity and its components. Meanwhile, I think, we should immediately stop this accelerated rate of extinction because it will be too late to find out that we cannot survive on this earth by ourselves when we are really by ourselves.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
“Biodiversity is a Guarantee of Evolution.” UNESCO Courier. Volume 49. Issue 9. p4.
“The Science of Biodiversity.” Global Resources.
“Vanishing Forests and Vanishing Species.” One Earth One Future. National Academy of Sciences. Washington. p. 116-130.
Tropical rainforests are estimated to cover about 7% of the earth’s land surface, yet they hold more than half of the total species in the world (“Vanishing...”). Rainforests are very rich and diverse ecosystems. Everything that constitutes an ecosystem continues its existence in a delicate balance. Even a small disturbance to this balance may cause unintended consequences. Let alone a small disturbance, humans have changed and continue to change this delicate balance in many major ways such as over-exploitation and destruction of rainforests. By the over-exploitation and destruction of rainforests, many of the forest species are facing extinction at a rate that would never be possible in natural conditions.
The main reason behind this massive destruction of rainforests is strictly economical. Mainly local people either encouraged by huge international companies or driven by their instincts for survival in a capital-driven society want to get a “piece” of these precious resources to find themselves a “better” place in their societies. However, giving the finite nature of these resources, in my opinion, these people are preparing their ends in terms of both economically and ecologically.
Destruction of rainforests has one direct and several indirect effects on decreasing biodiversity. The direct effect is , as one would imagine, the fact that the species that only live in the areas that are being destroyed would go extinct. These species would include large trees, small plants, animals, insects and even different types of fungi. The indirect effects are related to habitat alteration and species’ survival skills in a fast altered environment.
First, destruction of rainforests would cause soil erosion, with the fertile top soil gone, soil left would not be suitable for many plant species that originally inhabit the area, and they go extinct. Another indirect factor would be the fact that rainforests, as the name implies, largely contributes to the rainfall in their vicinities, their destruction would lead decreasing in the amount of rainfall and this would create some discomfort for many species that depend on rainfall, and if these species would have difficulties in adjusting the new conditions, they would face extinction. Another indirect effect would be related to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Forests help removing CO2 from the atmosphere but when they are destroyed, in contrary, they give out CO2. Scientists argue that increasing levels of CO2 levels would cause global warming and in the process, some species would not be able to go along with the changes and vanish from the face of the earth forever.
I think that every ecosystem is invaluable. Some elements of the ecosystem whose contribution to the human lives is obvious such as water, air, soil, plants, etc. are not
more important than the elements whose contribution is less obvious such as swamps,
bacteria, insects, fungi and microorganisms (“The Science...”). The author of the article called “The Science of Biodiversity” argues that the best way of protecting the endangered species is preserving the endangered ecosystem. In the case of rainforests, if we want to preserve the species, we have to preserve the forests.
Up to this point, we have not been able to identify all the species on the earth; therefore, we do not know what kind of use they might offer and whether or not they would be beneficial to humanity in any way. For instance, researches show that only 5% of the known plants have been analyzed for their medical properties (“The Science...”). Since the rest of the plants have no known medical properties so far, they are considered to have no economical value, but it does not mean that they contain no beneficial component to be discovered in the future; therefore, I think that we are morally obligated to conserve every species as if they are as valuable as a treatment for a fatal disease because they might turn out to be (“The Science...”).
Conserving the genetic diversity within individual species is especially important for domesticated crops and animals, because depending on a few number of crops and animals may cause a great economic lose in case of an outbreak which could affect only the species that we are heavily depending on for our food resources (“The Science...”). I think that we have a great obligation toward the human race to keep the species as diverse as possible, because I think it might be helpful to the survival of human race in the future by providing varieties of replacements for our current resources.
In my opinion, biodiversity is so important for the future of this planet, and obviously this accelerated rate of extinction is going to be a huge problem in the near future. Most of the damage is being done by human activities, keeping this in mind, I think that we should set new regulations to keep this types of activities limited, and we should also establish scientific foundations to conserve the existing biodiversity and its components. As I understand, biodiversity is really complicated and has many parameters, and I do not think that we have scientifically advanced enough to reach a thorough understanding of biodiversity. I think that we should conduct more researches on this issue to complete our understanding about biodiversity and its components. Meanwhile, I think, we should immediately stop this accelerated rate of extinction because it will be too late to find out that we cannot survive on this earth by ourselves when we are really by ourselves.
Vedat YOZKAT
References
“Biodiversity is a Guarantee of Evolution.” UNESCO Courier. Volume 49. Issue 9. p4.
“The Science of Biodiversity.” Global Resources.
“Vanishing Forests and Vanishing Species.” One Earth One Future. National Academy of Sciences. Washington. p. 116-130.
Telecommuting
As the technology advances, now it is more possible to provide all job related tools and equipments at home. If all tools and equipments can be effectively used at home, then is it really necessary to go to a workplace?
Traditionally, a work place is designed to accommodate the need of the job required and the need of the employees. Nowadays, more and more business can be conducted at home without even have to be present in a workplace. More people are working in home-office environments and technology is helping them conduct their business as effective.
Advanced technology offers some tools to make it easier. Of course, Internet is offering great help for this type of businesses. Internet today is more available and much cheaper. In most countries, large bandwidth Internet is obtainable in residential areas also. This would help employees to access their corporates’ networks, use remote applications, conduct some tasks over the Internet etc. Furthermore, concepts such as cloud computing, web based applications etc help employees to use applications more securely, faster, cheaper and with more convenient licensing.
For corporations that require secure transactions, Virtual Private Network (VPN) applications are to rescue. VPN is much cheaper and widely available today. VPN or alike ensure users to access their corporate networks securely.
Communications tools such as video conferencing, IP telephony can also be easily set up at homes. Such communication tools now can be integrated to the corporates’ networks; therefore, even the employee works at home, all capabilities of the corporate’s communication network can be easily used at home. This would also help reduce travels to the clients, employees can directly communicate with the clients without leaving their homes.
Telecommuting offers great benefits, we can categorize these benefits under several categories: environmental, social, financial, personal, business, risk management.
For environmental benefits, we can easily say that, as the name applies, telecommuting eliminate the daily commute to work therefore it helps reducing the fossil fuel usage and helps environment by reducing CO emission. Furthermore, not having big business buildings also helps reducing energy consumption by eliminating the heating, cooling, lighting etc.
Telecommuting also offers some social benefits, overall traffic would be reduced, communities would start offering more jobs to the disabled, retired and people live in remote regions, employees would have opportunities to adopt better parenting practices, it would help employees to improve their social life by keeping the delicate work-life balance.
Financial benefits are one of the main reasons for corporations to adopt these practices. Telecommuting would help reducing the office space requirements substantially. This would lead to reduce cost of the property, rent or cost of ownership, cost of utilities, insurance etc. It would greatly lower the overhead expenses.
Telecommuting is said to promote employee’s morale. It would reduce employee’s absents and turnover rate, employees would have opportunity to have better time management.
Business wise, telecommuting provides some advantages too. Since there is no single location but the business locations are widely distributed, business can be conducted accross multiple timezones easily. In case of a disaster, disaster recovery could be initiated more easily and the business could be restored in a shorter time period.
Similarly, businesses that adopt telecommuting practices have better risk management. This type of businesses are more strong against natural disasters, terrorist attacks, wide spread illness etc. Furthermore, by eliminating the need for commuting everyday, traffic accidents are no longer a threat for employees.
Overall, telecommuting aim to empower colleagues without an office setting
to conduct their jobs effectively and productively without compromising
corporate standards. This in return provides countless benefits to the business
itself.
Vedat YOZKAT
Vedat YOZKAT
What’s next?
Computer technologies is the fastest growing technology since the beginning.
Each year new applications are introduced, these applications are not only for high-tech companies and educational institutes but also for the common people and changing our way of life.
Business companies and governmental agencies are investing more and more money in the security systems. Security applications is thought to be major money making tool for IT companies. We could expect in the near future that we will face many electronic security systems in our daily lives. Just an example, Israel is investing more money to increase its airport security. They are installing “Truth Machines” to all airports. Of course, they are not planning to use these machines on every single passengers however they think if they encounter with a suspected person, they could get help from these machines for their interrogations. In the near future, liars are not welcome on board anymore, what’s next? (http://security.nemesysco.com/gk1.html)
From very huge filming machines to hand-sized mobile telephones, nowadays, everybody could get a simple mobile telephone with all kind of recording capabilities. These small devices could record voice, video and pictures. It is expected that in upcoming years, a big percentage of people will have an access to such devices. This would lead to more discussions about privacy as some are not hesitant to use these devices to record some moments that are not meant to. Some institutions such as museums, movie theatres, concert halls, government buildings etc are installing scrambling devices to block this type of recording devices in their premises. In the near future in communication age, we wont be able to communicate freely, what’s next? (http://www.netline.co.il/Netline/LPjammer.htm)
We are just barely getting used to our plastics instead of money but it seems that shortly, they will be replaced by our mobile phones. 39 major credit card companies in Japan have just started a new application with which by just showing your mobile phone to the cash register and enter your pin, the payment is automatically charged to your mobile phone bill. It is expected to be widely available soon for other countries too. First barter, then money and plastic cards, in the near future our mobile phones will be replacing all. Who says men show more interest in the technological gadgets, here is a gadget where women enjoy talking and shopping at the same time, what’s next? (http://www.quicpay.jp/)
There are so many new applications in the line to change our lives. Some are adopted really fast, some are just ending up in the waste basket. As the computer technology grows as fast, we will be asking this question again and again, what’s next?
Vedat YOZKAT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)