The Great Wall of China
After reading Lindsay’s “China’s Three Gorges Dam,” I could not refrain myself from writing about one of the most important monuments in China’s history, The Great Wall of China. Because the Great Wall is not nearly as new as the Three Gorges Dam, it poses subtler questions about its effects on nature. It in fact is so old that it seems like a part of nature itself, much like how we consider the Stonehenge to be a part of nature. But in actuality, it is the product of the human hand, literally.
I cannot help to wonder how such a huge structure, over five thousand miles long, would have affected nature and its animals. How many habitats were destroyed with the construction of this unthinkably massive wall? Such questions inundate my mind, for I would never have thought that this revered structure, built to prevent destruction of humanity from war, ironically, could have caused major damage to nature. I am very surprised that I had never thought of this topic before, but then again, the Great Wall successfully shrouded itself with its blanket of grass and trees in order to blend into nature.
I wonder why there is always controversy about recent technological structures that could harm nature such as the Three Gorges Dam but not about things of the past such as the Great Wall. Is destroying nature with human technology a concept strictly limited to the present and the future? Why do we not talk about things of the distant past and their effects? Is it because humans were not harmful before, but are becoming increasingly so as we progress through time? And if this is true, how are we evolving so quickly? What are our outlooks for the future? I don’t know about you, but my mind is sufficiently blown.
Tagged animal, China, Dam, destroy, destruction, future, Gorges, Great, harm, humanity, massive, nature, past, present, structure, technology, Three, Wall, war
Excuse me if I’m being harsh. Disney invests in saving forests? Give me a break. To me this seems quite ironic. The Walt Disney Co. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars and cleared thousands of acres of land just for its universal theme parks. To invest a mere 4 million dollars (in the light of Disney’s massive income) in restoring nature is a joke action. It is more symbolic than effective. I mean Disney makes billions of dollars every year, only to invest less than 0.1% of its income in a major problem that is only exacerbated by its own being. Please feel free to disagree, but I believe that the carbon dioxide problem would be ameliorated if Disney found ways to limit its own harm to forests. And to potentially make things worse, Disney has recently been accused of dumping wastes at Burbank Studios. Because this trial is still new, these claims have yet to be substantiated. But despite this recent accusation, the simple operation of the theme parks and whatnot has released enough harmful products into nature. Is Disney just trying to cover up with this investment? Is Disney just trying to capture some unaware people into thinking that it is here to help nature, not to hurt it?
My disbelief of the intentions of Disney’s forestation efforts was present before I read the article comments. When I finally scrolled down, I realized some people agreed with my opinions. One post said, “Another great example of corporate ‘Greenwashing’.” Some others disagreed with my views. I’m not saying that Disney’s actions won’t benefit nature. Any amount of money donated to conservation efforts will prove useful. I simply find it hypocritical that Disney is assuming a responsible public image when it actually is hurting nature in many clandestine ways.
Tagged billion, Burbank, carbon, dioxide, Disney, dollars, dumping, forest, Greenwashing, harm, hypocrit, investment, million, nature, park, responsible, Studios, theme, Walt