Tomorrow’s world is decided by today’s fight against Pollution

That, was the topic given to me a few years back – during a speech competition in my college actually (This was a preliminary round to short-list two people to participate from my college for a bigger competition). Thankfully, there were only 35-40 people and a couple of lecturers (one from another college) when I gave this speech. Read it below…We have always been looking at pollution in our point of view. Let’s now try to look at it in the point of view of nature.Sulphur is a part of nature and so is Oxygen. But Sulphur di-oxide is considered harmful to nature while it is also very much a part of it. Nature merely changes from one form to another. Some forms of nature are harmful to us but the amazing fact is, we have created these forms ourselves!

Maybe nature is trying to maintain an equilibrium through pollution. I am referring to the fact that mosquitoes thrive in stagnant water. Pigs and rats enjoy wallowing in slime. Polluted water creates a favourable environment for innumerable number of micro-organisms, which we consider harmful but are very much a part of nature. Maybe nature wants to allow all the species beholding it to enjoy its beauty equally. After all we are co-existing with above said species.

Or worse, has nature chosen us for extinction? May be that’s a part of our destiny. But we cannot do much about that anyway.

Now, let us look at pollution in our point of view. Applying the principle that every coin has two sides, we are aware of the positive side of science and also its negative side. Pollution is one of them. We know the negative side of pollution. Does it have a positive side? The very concept of positive and negative are vague in the sense that they cannot be defined in absolute terms simply because they are relative quantities. They just cannot exist individually.

Don’t we feel comfortable adhering to set patterns and in the process, polluting? Why else would we continue to use plastic covers and such things?

Don’t we actually save a lot of money because of pollution? Why else don’t we treat chemicals before releasing them in to water sources?

Don’t we see a future in pollution? Assume that we keep polluting at our present rate. In the near future, the situation would get so worse that we will be forced to control pollution. We would then have to make huge investments in harnessing the technologies needed for controlling pollution. This in turn would encourage a lot of investments and industries on pollution control and that in turn would encourage Universities to offer new courses on pollution control. In short, we can visualize a huge economic boom due to the large amount of money transfer involved, and all this because of pollution.

The question is, could we afford the situation to get so worse? May be we might just lose much more than we stand to gain? Would we like our breakfast to be replaced by some high energy life sustaining tablets simply because we can no longer grow crops? Would we want our younger generation to visit a ‘Virtual reality based highly life like’ forest in which they could see and listen to different animals simply because they no longer exist? I don’t claim that the damage would be so huge, but it might be in comparable levels.

We once believed in religion and kingdom. But we no longer do.
We once believed in imperialism and caste system, but we no longer do.
Now, we believe in Science and Capitalism (Silence for a couple of seconds …… to get the message across without saying it 🙂 )

Commercialization, is by and large our biggest hurdle in fighting pollution. Why else is a simple law like ‘Emission control’ not been effectively implemented in a few countries? What we need to do now is to transform our biggest hurdle in to our biggest strength.

If the economic boom due to the pollution control which I was describing before, could be created right now, why should we wait for the situation to get worse? If necessity, desperation, need and money are the factors which will make people change, we will bring them in an indirect way.

Everyone knows that renewable sources of energy and other pollution resistant technologies are going to be the future. The companies which bring them to the market earlier will have a majority market share. So, we will need to create a healthy competition which would encourage huge investments in to research and development of renewable sources of energy (Both from the Government and institutions), which would make the pollution resistant technologies commercially viable and more efficient than the non-renewable sources of energy. We will have to make the best talent available with us to work exclusively on the above quest immediately. Remember, we have no dearth of talent – they are just used in the wrong places.

No force, no law, no act and definitely no resolution will make people change. We will have to bring ideal solutions through more practical means.

Actually I was the first speaker, and left the hall immediately. So, I was not able to listen to what others had to say on the topic. Of course, I was not selected! 🙂 But I felt that it was a trend setting and path breaking speech, back then. Somehow I feel like that even now – I feel that I have lost my golden touch these days 😉

Warning: If you have come through the search engines, looking for an essay on pollution, you will have to exercise discretion while copying any part of this article as it is highly inflammable. I mean, your teachers eyes might go up in flames! Of course, I don’t have any problems with people copying my work. But no one does 🙁 – LOL.

Destination Infinity

I still don’t understand why I was not selected 🙂

You can read similar articles in the Concepts and Ideas section of this blog.

(Visited 46 times, 1 visits today)

19 Replies to “Tomorrow’s world is decided by today’s fight against Pollution”

  1. Well, I guess pollution can have a positive side IF it gets out of hand and annihilates the human species completely without causing much harm to the other species. Somehow, Mother Nature must hold humankind responsible for our evils. What better way than using pollution as a frankenstein monster that kills its own maker? 😉 At least the other animals and plants will be left in peace once the human scum creatures are removed from the planet! 🙂

    What I was trying to say in the first few paragraphs is, Pollution is also a part of nature, I mean if you look at it at the atomic level. The atoms just re-arrange, but just because it is harmful to us, it doesn't mean that it is not natural! I was trying to convey that we are so self-centred that we have come to completely believe that nature is everything that is good for humans and the higher level creatures (to a small extant). So, what you call as evil may actually be evil to us (and certain higher creatures), but not to nature.

    1. Some of it is natural, mostly it isn't. Things like CO2, CH4 and SO2 all exist naturally but nature has a way of bringing back the balance and maintaining it.

      Unfortunately, pollution caused by human scum creatures, like uncontrollable CO2 cannot be balanced by nature. Others like chlorofluorocarbons, any kind of plastics, radioactive waste dumping, lead pollution, asbestos etc. are not natural (they may be natural only in minute traces) and are caused by human vermin 😡

        1. No, we aren't a part of nature at all, at least in the sense that other living beings are.

          Humans are like cancer, which may be "a part" of the host. If cancer isn't removed from the host by force, the cancer will eventually kill the host 😡

          I guess Cancer is also a part of nature. We as human beings, cannot create things. We can only change the composition of certain things. And whoever has created the basic components was fully aware of the consequences of the changes that we are making (I think), and hence cancerous cells could have been deliberately allowed to form by the creator. But I share your contempt towards certain human beings, not all

  2. i had two read 2 times and there are many questions within. the last line is very clear…

    Ask no. I myself have a lot of questions on this one, as I read it after a long time!

  3. Once again a thought provoking post DI… this is wonderful.. 🙂
    you have analyzed the things so well, how the things will change in future, and what oppurtunities it provides to us… hats off 🙂

    Those are all assumptions I made. Actually I have made some small changes while posting it here, as the original one was too idealistic! Reminds us of how idealistic we begin our lives and how 'idle'istic we end it!!

  4. it reminds me of the time I wrote disadvantages of non conventional energy sources and didnt get thru an interview 🙂

    I always knew bloggers were strange! But don't worry – even Einstien was sent out of class for not able to understand mathematics, I heard somewhere!! Not very sure though… but great people have always… 🙂

  5. Good great grand speech indeed, and I would have selected Mr Destination Infinity as FIRST, if I were on the jury there. Life is like that: what a jury selects is his 'reflection'. Our life is our life. But in practical utility world that jury's selection may do many turning wonders in somebody's life, that too is true.

    Anyway, specially the following lines in the speech made me think, ponder and wonder – it gives a new perspective unlike our mono-attack-like attitude:

    "Maybe nature is trying to maintain an equilibrium through pollution. I am refering to the fact that mosquitoes thrive in stagnant water. Pigs and rats enjoy wallowing in slime. Polluted water creates a favourable environment for innumerable number of micro-organisms, which we consider harmful but are very much a part of nature. Maybe nature wants to allow all the species beholding it to enjoy its beauty equally. After all we are co-existing with above said species."

    I can't complain against the jury! My college did their best – getting a judge from outside the college was the best that can be done in a competition that was internal to the college! So, no complaints there. And yeah, there are two sides to every coin. Some times we miss to see the obvious advantages and disadvantages of certain things because we have not been trained to think that way!

  6. Your speech is really good, but it scared the guts out of me ! I need a piece of land in moon !! Soon !!! 😀 😀

    My fears are confirmed – humans are not going to leave even the moon unpolluted 😀

  7. hmm… seeing humor in something serious!
    So what if you were not selected, not all think alike you see. 🙂

    Back then I was upset that I was not selected. But reading that speech now (the one before minor changes), I felt, it was a bit idealistic! So no hard feelings

  8. Wow, didnt know that you had good orating skills. The view point is bound to raise eyes, yet it pays to be different, isnt ? 😉

    There are advantages and disadvantages of being different I guess. You might have to pay, but there are fruits to reap as well

  9. Ahem, ahem!

    You were not selected because you mixed up your speech with 10 soulful, melodious songs! 😉

    Or maybe, people couldn't get your sarcasm!

    But you're right about the survival of the fittest part. 🙂

    Our bigger problem than pollution is population. Somehow polluting technologies are more productive, and efficient (money-wise), and since, we've to satisfy the needs of such a vast population, using costlier environment-friendly technologies are 'thrown out of the market'. First, we'll have to control the population, otherwise, for obvious reasons, we won't be able to afford organic farming if we sea children for poor families die of starvation. 🙁

    You might enjoy this post of mine:
    http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/05/futurist

    Nice sarcasm and some interesting points!

    TC.

    I am coming to that post, but you have made a good point on population. Population does contribute to pollution, but there are certain 'advanced' countries which, inspite of their not-so-huge population, contribute to the bulk of global carbon emissions by having at least two or three cars per small family, for example!

    1. Yes, you're right. Greed not moderated by conscience is indeed bad. In fact, any emotion not moderated by conscience can have ill effects.

      I've 'heard' that the US is not allowing development of environment-friendly technologies any where in the world 'cuz then they fear, their petroleum-based politics (so many wars and investments in increasing their military might) of 5 decades would go waste! Sounds a bit whacky, but not entirely untenable.

      BTW, you've yet to visit that above post, and even my blog! 😉

  10. I liked it. We are a part of nature and everything is natural, if anything us realizing we are polluting, is also natural and so we must do something about it…

    Disclaimer: Well if we don't do anything about pollution, Nature will not be responsible for the consequences!

  11. I read it and kept reading and forgot what you explained in the beginning, and was wondering why this was quite unlike your other posts 🙂 Then read the lines at the end 🙂
    Your writing style has changed!

    I liked the bit about nature trying to maintain it's equilibrium, and a future in pollution!But the post gave me the creeps… this could well be our future! 🙁
    And as for not being selected, I think judges have set ideas, maybe a table, with how many marks for all the negatives, how many for introduction and this much for solution 😉 If you are creative in such a system you may not get selected… not sure just guessing.

  12. As long as economic opportunism and military development (read as paranoia driven security) exist, there will be no use in any action that might counteract pollution.

    Think solar or the fantasy-like 'unlimited' tidal energy would be pollution free? Think again… of all the solar cell manufacturing industries or tidal power corporations that crop up.

    Pollution will simply get localized… not diminished.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *