Hi Steemians,
We, humans have the tendency to do things, either fully unaware or not, that would actually have an impact to our surroundings. We would think I am throwing just this one candy wrapper. I don't think this will pollute the oceans. The sea is so vast and deep. A wrapper as little as this should not have an adverse effect to the environment. Nature will not condemn me for this one candy wrapper.
It is a misconception
Why a misconception?
You can call it like you want: misconception, fallacy, illusion, misbelief, delusion and etc. There are many things, like the candy-wrapper example above, that actually cost us the health of the environment. I have discussed this in one of my previous articles. This is the ecological theory of "Tragedy of the Commons."
What is the Tragedy of Commons then?
This is a theory used in social science and ecology describing a scenario or situation wherein people acting as individual users taking actions according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good. This results to depleting, spoiling or exploiting resources through collective action. Saaaaaaay whaaaaat?
Let us take the example again below.
On the picture portrayed above, a student throws a wrapper while either on his way to school or home. He has the notion that it is ALRIGHT because it is a teeny weeny wrapper in the streets. However; he is not the only one with the same mindset. Few blocks from the vicinity is another student. On an adjacent street is also another student. What is worse is that the first student told his classmates that he threw a wrapper. The others follow as well. I hope you absorb where I am getting at.
We are just talking here about a simultaneous occurrence. Trashes don't magically disappear once another one is thrown. In different times on different days, these wrappers then accumulated. We all know the horrors it could result. Some will block the drainage; hence flood. Some will be washed out by the canal to streams to rivers then to the seas and oceans. Poor creatures then mistaken these for jellyfish or algae and devour them. We know it is for certain death due to suffocation. The breakdown of the chemicals included on those trashes will also leach to the soil and may lead to the aquifers or reservoirs: unclean water. It would also make the soil not anymore arable for crops.
....and this is because you thought you JUST threw a wrapper
Let us take another example.
On the picture above, a man is cutting down a tree using a chainsaw. He is doing this maybe as a timber for his house. It might be because he ran out of firewood. He might use this for furniture. There might be a demand of timber in the neighborhood, and since this is near his place, he can cut and sell it. This tree might also be blocking his house.
What I'm trying to relay is that there are a variety of reasons a person can exploit a natural resource. The problem is we are just talking one independent individual. yes, he is just cutting one tree and the effect should not be drastic. That is the issue. What about he decides to cut another tree again? What about if the neighbor saw and also wants to do the same thing? In another area with abundant trees, another person is also cutting a tree. This is a repetition and a continuum. The result? A bald area of the forest.
This will then be a domino effect. Lesser trees means lesser roots to hold the soil. When it rains, the soil will then erode into the rivers and seas making water levels rise. This will then result to destroying coastlines. Lesser hold of the soil would also mean landslides and mudslides. We all know these can result to casualties. We actually had a big one in near our place wherein multiple baranggays/communities/houses were covered in land. Many lives were lost.
Lesser trees also means lesser producer of oxygen and consumer of carbon dioxide. We all know which molecule or air we prefer or is suitable for breathing. That tree should've accommodated a number of animals. That tree should've provided shade to the inferior herbs or shrubs.
I hope you get my point.
What if things were done the opposite?
Now, I know throwing is relatively easier than picking a trash. If you would look at the physics side of it, it really consumes more energy and time to pick up a trash than to throw one. The hassle of bending and finding a trash bin is much harder than just releasing the wrapper. What if then we devote a portion of our time and energy doing that? The effect is far, far greater. Collective efforts would really be beneficial in the long run. It would not only benefit your generation but generations after yours. Imagine the streets clean, the canals and sewage clear and free-flowing. It is but healthier to live in an environment like that.
Unfortunately, in that instance, you would really benefit more in cutting a tree than planting one. Planting a tree is messier and you are even unsure that the tree will grow! You can't earn with planting but by cutting, it is instant money.
But then again, we are talking about long-term effects here.
What if just by a random instance you saw an uprooted shrub? You then decided to plant it properly. What if then you convince a community to do the same because you saw a barren area? Your neighborhood then decided to plant at least one tree: one for each individual.
The results might not convince you immediately but it will in a couple of years. We all know the benefits of the forest ecosystems. We know the importance of trees in our environment.
As simple as picking up a trash or planting a tree can greatly help the environment.