*

Does everyone share the responsibility of conserving and protecting natural areas around the world? What is more important--protecting nature or protecting the livelihoods of people with jobs like farming, cutting down trees for wood, building new hospitals, schools, etc.?

 


     Both protecting nature and protecting the livelihoods of those people are important. While I was reading the question I said that nature is more important right off but then I saw hospitals and schools in the other sentence and I stopped for a moment. We have to protect the nature because we can not exist if nature is not healty enough to support us. On the other hand we have to build some hospitals or school or we need a home and for all of these things we need to support those people's jobs. I think people can find a way that doesnt hurt the nature too much and at the same time give us the source for the living places.However if people ''accidently'' break the nature's balance it will be impossible to bring it back that's why we have to be very careful.Otherwise we have to see the consequences.Best Example: ''Global Warming.'' We have to take caution before it is too late.

BIOMASS

In order to measure biomass, destructive techniques are used. Trees are cut down and plants are destroyed. Is this unethical?

*Yes. I think it is unethical. People are cutting trees and then dry them out to measure their biomass. Okay. But do they bring those trees back? No. They are cutting them on some purpose but that can affect nature's balance and it can definitely affect global warming. I think before it is too late, they should find a solution for that. Every single tree is valuable during these days. For example; in the past people were ''killing'' animals in order to get their biomass. But nowadays, the found a solution and they don't have to kill anymore. I think they should find a solution for trees too.

''It is not practical (and unethical in a park) to cut down large trees for biomass measurements.Therefore, trees require a different set of methods for biomass data collection. Forest ecologists regularly use allometric equations that relate a simple, non-destructive measurement such as tree diameter (DBH) to stem, branch and foliage mass, foliage area, and tree height.''

Citation: Biology 3700: Ecosystem and Community Ecology 2011<http://classes.uleth.ca/201103/biol3700a/Lab%20Information/Lab%201/Biol3700%20Lab1%202011.pdf>

TOK

''UNESCO organized a symposium on the scientific status of race in 1952. The declaration was made that all men come from a common stock and belong to a single species. Insignificant differences between them give no support to claim of racial hierarchy.''

-Was the UNESCO symposium correct in its statement that the differences between humans around the world are insignificant?


*I think that this statement is correct because scientists explained that all human beings come from the same ancestor. Race and racisim is all about the different religions, beliefs, life styles and living spaces. UNESCO is right to sat that insignificant differences between them give no support to claim of racial hierarcy because the biologhy aspect of the situation really has nothing to the do with racisim. I think that it is all about the classification we wanted to make and it is our creation. Of course there might be some differences between humans but it is not a support for racisim.