10 Best Arch Support Inserts For Running Shoes

Best Arch Support Inserts For Running Shoes in 2023

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Humans and the Natural World: Is it Necessary for Humans to Care for Nature?

An essay addressing the idea of human interactions with nature. Should we be more sympathetic to the needs of nature, or continue down our path's of insolence and litter?

But humans don't conserve, defend, or take a stand against pollutants. As a race, we don't rush to recycling bins or walk ourselves to work. We don't see how many pollutants our cars give off and gasp in horror; it is because we don't realize our own insolence that our predecessors may not have the same beauty we are so blessed with today. We are the present day idiots rampaging through life without a care in the world as to the world itself. We plunder the country sides of the globe exploiting every resource, depleting every crevice. Thus, our modern day nature is now full of fake trees and plastic flowers; artificial rocks and cleverly disguised, simulated natural environments, otherwise recognized as zoo's. We've manipulated the food chain in a sick game of survival of the fittest only to find out that soon enough, we won't be surviving. Eventually, because of our nonchalant destruction of anything and everything, there will be no more natural world to turn to. There will only be stimulants, artificial stems, cloned cows, and hopefully a protective cover for the Earth in recollection that the O-Zone layer might not make it past another 20 years. But have no fear! We're humans! We can do anything, save anything, be, become, and do anything! A little natural crime is far from horrific!

Wrong.

A little natural crime is exactly what's destroying humanity, the environment, the world. However, we see no problem in this slow demolition of the natural world. We've come to an age in time when cloning and stem cell research are our biggest worries. We express displeasure about subjects that have yet to be perfected, yet at the same time refuse to protect what we want to keep sanctioned so badly. But there are those who would argue against environmentally friendly approaches. Why complain about the life expectancy of today's cows when we can kill a little more to help further the experiment that one day will simply let us produce as many as we want? Why protest about artificial supplements being implemented into our everyday fruits and vegetables? Are they not bigger and juicier than before? Can you not have a grape and an apple at the same time now thanks to the experimental techniques of a few modern agriculturists? We have such wonderful prospects and such tasty treats, why then do we see a need to object?

Quite frankly, because it is flat out disgusting.

We're guiding ourselves down a non-returnable path; tread too quickly and we're trapped with no chance of escape. Humanity has single handedly placed itself in a rut. Humans populate way too much, way too fast; humans consume way too much, way too fast; humans pollute way too much, way too fast. There is nothing humanity has ever done slowly, yet there is nothing more in need of a slow touch right now than mother nature herself. The resources we are so flippantly using will never come back, something humans obviously have yet to grasp. The animals we kill, trees we chop, O-Zone layer we so easily take bits and pieces of. These things, though possibly scientifically replaceable over time, are priceless right now. Until scientists have mastered cloning, perfected artificial agricultural breeding, and have found a way to mend the holes in the most vital veil the world will ever know, humanity has no choice but to conserve and limit our outlandish ways.

"The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. 'Flowing water purifies itself every ten miles,' my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights"(Hardin, 808).

It is obvious that the population problem has not only gotten out of hand, but is now beginning to directly affect the environment around us. Yet when we realized that throwing all of our waste to the oceans, piling it up on cargo ships and sending it in the general direction of "that way", did we do anything to solve the problem? Better yet, have we, of all the years humanity has known and acknowledged the pollution problem in the world, found any sort of reliable solution to the ongoing and built up problem before us? Garrett Hardin, author of The Tragedy of the Commons, lays down some of the reasons why humanity is faced with such a difficult situation concerning our environment. One of the many arguments laid out is pollution, yet one of the most influential beyond that is population.

Human population has hit an all time high and, sadly, is still rising. Yet, as Hardin states, "our society is deeply committed to the welfare state,"(Hardin, 810) and because we're so committed to protecting and preserving the family over and above all else, the environment will just have to wait its turn.

"If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own 'punishment' to the germ line - then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons" (Hardin, 810).

What would there be to control if the laws of "natural order" and "survival of the fittest" dealt with the population problem on their own? If mankind didn't fondly accept the idea of "natural born human rights", would we still have these ongoing environmental issues? No. In fact, if natural order and the easy elimination of those who can't survive could take place, the world would be in a much healthier state. Yet instead of paying for our faults, even if that means the death of our own children, humans see it as a moral obligation to protect and help sustain all the innocent lives that enter this world. Even in America, we see the "little oops's" of society as cute and accidental, but how many more trees need to be cut down for that oops to go to school? However, despite it all, our only plausible excuse is that human beings have a conscience and a will to protect the "right thing to do". In fact, we'll wander to the depths of Hell to save a life simply because it's a human life, after all, who could let a thinking conscience die like that? Because humanity is so lenient we continue to cave into the needs of the weak. Lead by a few of the worlds kindest, most determined people, organizations such as Habitat For Humanity, Peace Corps, and Red Cross are doing all they can to save those in need.

Bless their kind hearts and compassionate actions, but no thanks. It is no longer about trying to help every single human being live past the ripe old age of 1,000. Nay, humanity needs to turn its head in the other direction and assess the real issue at hand, that is:

What do we do with these saved persons 1,000 years from now as the population has, assumingly, kept rising, resources have maintained a plummeting affect, and pollution has almost engulfed the world in a grisly, brown frenzy? According to Neil Gaiman we will produce and eat babies.

"We wandered around lost, for a time, and then someone pointed out that just because we didn't have animals anymore, that was no reason to change our lives. No reason to change our diets or to cease testing products that might cause us harm. After all, there were still babies. Babies can't talk., they can hardly move. A baby is not a rational, thinking creature"(Gaiman, 903).

Gaiman's work Babycakes is simply a hilarious exaggeration of what could be done when we look around one day and see absolutely nothing to consume, yet it hits home all the same. Is humanity ready to face a day when we might not have anything to eat? A day when a brown aura will out weigh the blue in the sky? A day when we will have successfully conquered and destroyed every natural resource on this great earth? Of course, because, according to Gaiman, we'll always have cannibalism! What better way to keep humanity rolling along than to consume our own kind! And what will we do when we run out of babies? As Gaiman put it, "we'll figure something out." But it is the understanding of babies that Gaiman uses to convince his readers of humanities downward spiral, or rather, where humanity is today and where we're headed for tomorrow. "Babies can't talk. They can hardly move. A baby is not a rational, thinking creature," and in fact, Gaiman is right. A baby couldn't properly defend itself when it is plucked from its mothers' breast to be ground up into baby burgers for the mass consumption of humanity. We would consume babies tomorrow much like we consume livestock today; as if they don't have the rights to a decent life in the first place.

Yet through all the evidence evaluating why humanity is doomed to failure and baby eating, there is one simple, overlooked subject of interest: humanity doesn't want to know about pain. We're not even interested in knowing how our food is handled before it reaches our mouths, even if it means saving lives.

"Then it's upon you: Poky Feeders, population 37,000. Cattle pens stretch to the horizon, each one home to 150 animals standing dully or lying around in a grayish mud that it eventually daws on you isn't mud at all. The pens line a network of unpaved roads that loop around vast waste lagoons on their way to the feedlot's beating heart: chugging, silvery feed mill that soars like an industrial cathedral over this teeming metropolis of meat" (Pollan, 886).

Power Steer

Yes, we can, and thus far we have. Now it's time for a change, a difference. Humanity can put an end to the unsafe pollution, population, and environmental increases. Former Vice President Al Gore mentioned in his informative environmental film An Inconvenient Truth that the world can make a difference, one person at a time. Instead of driving to work everyday, why not walk? Even taking a bus can limit the amount of pollutants that enter the air produced by a car. Instead of throwing away plastics, bottles, and paper, why not purchase a recycling bin and start to recycle? In fact, why not start a trend and get your friends to triumph in the same fad? Gore points out that it is not impossible to fix the current problems in the world, it is simply an obstacle most aren't willing to face. The problem with American's isn't completely the fact that we don't care so much, or even the fact that we aren't aware of the issues at hand, it is the fact that we're too lazy to act upon our injustices. It's not hard to find out what's wrong with humanities treatment to the world around it, and it's certainly not hard to find out how to solve the problem, the only question is: how far are we willing to go to protect and secure a good environmental future?

Can humanity attempt to go one week without serving any fleshy substance in meals to limit the amount of cattle and poultry intake? Is it probable that we can walk and/or take a bus to work instead of driving our Lexus's and BMW's? It's the little things in life that make the most difference and it's the little things right now that the world desperately needs to regain stability. Can mankind do what it takes to save ourselves? Are we ready to make a difference?, written by Michael Pollan, provides a nicer example of how cattle is treated in America as opposed to the many not so nice illustrations that could be provided. What he shows is still, however, a definite mess. Instead of the healthy, grass fed cows most Americans picture when they sit down to their fillet mignons at dinner time, these cows are grain fed and nomadically restricted. It's a shame that Americans refuse to take action in the care taking of our future hamburgers! The amount of hormones injected, fed, and exposed to everyday cattle is sickening, however, Pollan shows his readers this hormonal injustice in a nicer light. However bad his purchased cow might be treated, he is still being treated much better than most farms would feel necessary. It is this unnecessary treatment that needs to cease. Much like pollution and population control, the treatment of humanities' food needs to reach a more natural state, a more environmentally friendly and, in the case of animals, humane technique needs to be taught and executed. How can we expect future generations to care for a world that, up until now, has showed little to no respect for that and those around them? Can humanity really just sit back and continue to exploit the environment, the animals in the environment, and, consequentially, ourselves?