Is there a solution to environmental decay?

Indications show that further damage to the environment is inevitable.
I am interested to know if there any arguments for and against the
notion that even with technology progress, the damage will be
unavoidable.  For instance, with nanotechnology and genetic
modifications;  greed, consumption and the poverty gap will continue
to grow. Further, life span may increase and population rise,
increasing the need to demolish habits for housing and industry. Also,
social, economic and political factors may hinder the ability of the
technology solutions to occur.

I would love for someone to help me in research of this very
interesting topic, by looking at both sides of the debate.

I have a preference towards published sources (journals, books) or
comments originating from a respected authority in the field
discussed.

Hi, thank you for bringing your question to Google Answers.

The only real problem with your question is that the topic itself is
so broad that it is difficult to know what information to offer you as
a place to start.

However, the situation isn?t hopeless. I would suggest that first you
go to the local library and look through the last year?s issues of
Scientific American. It isn?t perfect but there are several issues
which directly address your question and that is a great place to
start.

The July 2005 issue is ?Our Ever Changing Earth? and June 2003?s major
topic is ?The New Look at Human Evolution.?

These aren?t available for free online.

The May issue of Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=1
is a great piece of online reading which covers a lot of the major
topics and it is written by a famous environmentalist so you get a
view from both sides.

There are more interesting links at the MIT publication
http://www.technologyreview.com/search.aspx?s=environmental&searchSubmit=Search

Science News Online
http://sciencenews.org/
is also good.

ScienceDaily has a section for earth/climate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate.htm
and there is also an entire section at the bottom of the page with
links to Environmental Science stories.

Sustainable development is at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/directory/Society/Issues/Environment/Sustainable_Development

Also check out 
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns


From the environmental side start with The Natural Resources Defense
Council for a big list of other resources and groups
http://www.nrdc.org/reference/environGroups.asp


Google search term
Environmental groups

On a personal note, this is an extremely complex ongoing question of
science and society.

I suggest you begin with the scientific links just because it will
help you understand the basics more quickly, but don?t skip the
environmental links if you want a complete view. Just remain a bit
skeptical of all claims.

A good reason to start with the scientific sites is that they are
organized in such a way that you may be able to quickly narrow down
your research to one or two manageable topics.

I don?t recommend you pay any attention to politicians?statements or
claims, they tend to twist scientific and emotional issues to their
own ends (or those of lobbyists) and they especially try to simplify
complex questions to the point where their statements are often
meaningless.

For example, you will hear very definitive statements about global
warming from politicians on both sides of the question and, it is
almost certainly true that human actions are contributing to climate
change.

However it is also undeniable that there are cycles in earth?s climate
which includes ice ages and warm spells ? is global warming bad if it
stops an ice age? I?m not saying it is or isn?t or that we are near
the beginning of an ice age, just pointing out how complex things can
get.

Most people can?t even tell the difference between weather and climate.

Also, these topics tend to involve a lot more emotion than logic. Many
people panic at the thought of nuclear power in this country, ignoring
not only the incredible history of safe exploitation but also the vast
improvements made in power system designs in the past couple of
decades.

People who say nuclear power is too dangerous probably never worked in
a coal mine or had to breathe the fumes from a coal-burning power
plant or home furnace.

Good luck in your research; this is a vital and complex topic.

If you just begin with the links I provided it should keep you busy
for at least a year.

Many thanks for taking the time to research and answer my question.
You have provided a comfortable selection of sources that will become
a great starting off point in my research. Ideally a few more
resources would have been desirable, but the answer is a fair
reflection of the money offered. Thanks again!

As serious an environmentalist as Stewart Brand has come to realize
that nuclear power is safe and clean compared to things such as coal
mining and there are a lot of nuclear plants being built around the
world..

Also, the rate of population growth is slowing and is expected to
stabilize in about 30 years so, yes, there is hope.

You might want to read Mr. Brand?s article in the MIT publication:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=1

"I have a preference towards published sources (journals, books) or
comments originating from a respected authority in the field
discussed."

For $10???

Hi, the scientific links are generally single sources but NRDC is a
metasite and has about 60 links, many of which have their own groups
of links.

Have fun.