Can you proofread my essay and offer suggestions on how to improve it? Thank you very much!
the prompt is:
Consider the multitude of ways that the culture of humans is affecting our life course and future. Do you think that the future of humanity is in crisis? Why or why not?
"No more carbon dioxide!", "No more deforestation!", "No more intensive agriculture!" Those slogans are inevitable leitmotivs in the news since the end of the twentieth century. The fact that the fate of the earth is in jeopardy seems conspicuous for everyone. However, is it a new consequence of fin de siècle anxiety or a real threat? Moreover, is it our fate, as humans, or the fate of the earth that is in danger? In order to provide intelligible answers to such questions, the human species' impact on the earth must be assessed from the appearance of our species to the future.
The human culture has affected the human life course for millenniums although the news only emphasizes the present circumstances. The most significant effect of human culture over the human habitats dates as far back as about fifteen thousand years ago, during the Mesolithic, when the extinction of large body preys and climate changes incited the individuals to renounce the nomadic life and engage in sedentism. However, about ten thousand years ago, during the Neolithic, the adoption of the agriculture and the domestication of plants and animals to aggrandize the reliable supplies of food initiated habits that have deeply impinged on the earth. That lifestyle, which greatly enhanced and, above all, stabilized the rate of food acquisition, provided the humans with a better nutrition whose first corollary was the improvement of their health, and consequently the amelioration of their reproductive success.
Although the global population rate and the population density remained low until the nineteenth century, the adaptive strategy that consisted of exploiting the natural resources to fill ecological niches that had been previously unavailable, leaded the humans to seriously damage the earth. Indeed, the human activities, such as the deforestation, to increase the proportion of arable land or pasture in addition to construct dwellings, degraded the environment. The immediate consequences were an augmentation of the soil erosion and the soil nutrient depletion that instigated an impoverishment of the soil, the disruption of water supplies and climate changes. Durable consequences of intensive agriculture and forest degradation were noticed since the ancient times. Nevertheless, the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century marked both the amplification of the consumption of non-renewable energies and a manifest increase in the human global population. Those aggravating factors amplified the rate of exhaustion of natural resources in addition to deprive many species from their traditional habitat. That initiated an evident loss of biodiversity.
That brief historical review gives full weight to the present cultural heritage of the human species and to the implications of the future of humanity. Does that mean that the future of humanity is in crisis? Insofar as the human species has to outsmart the pressures that are exercised by selective agents to avoid being eradicated by the natural selection, the humans are no more or no less in danger. The adaptive strategies previously employed have jeopardised their survival because strategies and successes have nonetheless impaired their own habitats and ecosystems, in addition to increase so much their reproductive success that they have overpopulated their ecological niche. Consequently, since that phenomenon is under way for thousands years, humans have endangered their own species, and many others, to the point of creating a crisis. Although the outcome of the human errors might obliterate the human species and many others in the same time, an anti-homocentric view supports the idea that the earth has lived without humans and could do the same in the future. Indeed, many species, as unicellular forms, might not be impaired and could pursue their evolution through adaptation after the extinction of humans. The solutions to those problems are inherent in clear political decisions for reversing the current trend. Nevertheless, the keys for alleviating the overpopulation and the global warming, which are the most detrimental elements, lie in our acceptation of reproductive controls and of the diminution of our consumption of non-renewable energies. Consequently, to the extent our political leaders seem to remain resilient to environmental policies changes, "No more carbon dioxide!", "No more deforestation!", "No more intensive agriculture!" may turn out to be "No more humans", and "This is the end" could be more than lyrics of a song of the Doors.
the prompt is:
Consider the multitude of ways that the culture of humans is affecting our life course and future. Do you think that the future of humanity is in crisis? Why or why not?
"No more carbon dioxide!", "No more deforestation!", "No more intensive agriculture!" Those slogans are inevitable leitmotivs in the news since the end of the twentieth century. The fact that the fate of the earth is in jeopardy seems conspicuous for everyone. However, is it a new consequence of fin de siècle anxiety or a real threat? Moreover, is it our fate, as humans, or the fate of the earth that is in danger? In order to provide intelligible answers to such questions, the human species' impact on the earth must be assessed from the appearance of our species to the future.
The human culture has affected the human life course for millenniums although the news only emphasizes the present circumstances. The most significant effect of human culture over the human habitats dates as far back as about fifteen thousand years ago, during the Mesolithic, when the extinction of large body preys and climate changes incited the individuals to renounce the nomadic life and engage in sedentism. However, about ten thousand years ago, during the Neolithic, the adoption of the agriculture and the domestication of plants and animals to aggrandize the reliable supplies of food initiated habits that have deeply impinged on the earth. That lifestyle, which greatly enhanced and, above all, stabilized the rate of food acquisition, provided the humans with a better nutrition whose first corollary was the improvement of their health, and consequently the amelioration of their reproductive success.
Although the global population rate and the population density remained low until the nineteenth century, the adaptive strategy that consisted of exploiting the natural resources to fill ecological niches that had been previously unavailable, leaded the humans to seriously damage the earth. Indeed, the human activities, such as the deforestation, to increase the proportion of arable land or pasture in addition to construct dwellings, degraded the environment. The immediate consequences were an augmentation of the soil erosion and the soil nutrient depletion that instigated an impoverishment of the soil, the disruption of water supplies and climate changes. Durable consequences of intensive agriculture and forest degradation were noticed since the ancient times. Nevertheless, the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century marked both the amplification of the consumption of non-renewable energies and a manifest increase in the human global population. Those aggravating factors amplified the rate of exhaustion of natural resources in addition to deprive many species from their traditional habitat. That initiated an evident loss of biodiversity.
That brief historical review gives full weight to the present cultural heritage of the human species and to the implications of the future of humanity. Does that mean that the future of humanity is in crisis? Insofar as the human species has to outsmart the pressures that are exercised by selective agents to avoid being eradicated by the natural selection, the humans are no more or no less in danger. The adaptive strategies previously employed have jeopardised their survival because strategies and successes have nonetheless impaired their own habitats and ecosystems, in addition to increase so much their reproductive success that they have overpopulated their ecological niche. Consequently, since that phenomenon is under way for thousands years, humans have endangered their own species, and many others, to the point of creating a crisis. Although the outcome of the human errors might obliterate the human species and many others in the same time, an anti-homocentric view supports the idea that the earth has lived without humans and could do the same in the future. Indeed, many species, as unicellular forms, might not be impaired and could pursue their evolution through adaptation after the extinction of humans. The solutions to those problems are inherent in clear political decisions for reversing the current trend. Nevertheless, the keys for alleviating the overpopulation and the global warming, which are the most detrimental elements, lie in our acceptation of reproductive controls and of the diminution of our consumption of non-renewable energies. Consequently, to the extent our political leaders seem to remain resilient to environmental policies changes, "No more carbon dioxide!", "No more deforestation!", "No more intensive agriculture!" may turn out to be "No more humans", and "This is the end" could be more than lyrics of a song of the Doors.