Can agricultural productivity meet human needs in the long run ? Since twentieth century advances, given increasing costs, do not seem sustainable, further increases in output will not be achieved easily. Global population growth, while showing signs of slowing down, has pushed farmers and herders into areas unsuited to intensive agriculture, accelerating worldwide ecological disruptions. Reserves of arable land and fresh water have diminished alarmingly. Chemical runoffs have compounded pollution problems. Invasion of natural habitats have hastened species extinction. Desertification has been severe in the last hundred years, especially in North Africa, southern portions of Africa, Australia, northern Mexico, and the American Southwest. Tropical forests have shrunk by one-half since World War II, with agricultural pressures causing three-quarters of that loss. Government inter-vention has produced its share of catastrophes, ranging from a terrible famine in China between 1958-1961 that may have killed 30 million people and destroyed the Aral Sea. Taking everything into consideration, we may remain hopeful about humankind's agricultural prospects, but we can scarcely look forward optimistically at the end of the first quarter of the twenty-first century.
Ecological Degradation Factors Analysis
This question requires identifying which statement is NOT true concerning ecological degradation, strictly based on the information provided in the passage. We must examine how the passage relates various factors to environmental damage.
Passage Factors on Degradation
The passage highlights several elements contributing to or constituting ecological degradation:
- Global population growth is identified as a factor that accelerates ecological disruptions by forcing intensive agriculture into unsuitable terrains.
- Chemical runoffs, implying excess use of chemicals, are linked directly to compounding pollution problems, which is a form of ecological degradation.
- Desertification is explicitly stated as a severe issue that has intensified over the past century in specific geographical locations.
- World War II is mentioned merely as a time reference point when discussing the reduction in tropical forest cover. The passage attributes this reduction to "agricultural pressures," not the war itself.
Options vs. Passage
Let's evaluate each option against the passage's content:
- Option 1: Global population growth - The passage explicitly states this accelerates ecological disruptions. Therefore, this is presented as TRUE in the passage.
- Option 2: Excess use of chemicals - The passage connects chemical runoffs to increased pollution, confirming this is presented as TRUE in the passage.
- Option 3: Desertification - The passage directly names desertification as a severe ecological problem, confirming this is presented as TRUE in the passage.
- Option 4: World War II - The passage uses World War II as a temporal marker but does not present it as a cause or a type of ecological degradation. Forest loss is attributed to agriculture. Thus, this statement is NOT TRUE according to the passage in the context of causes/instances of degradation.
Final Degradation Conclusion
After careful review, the passage uses World War II solely as a historical marker and does not attribute any ecological degradation directly to the war itself. The other options (global population growth, excess chemicals, desertification) are clearly presented as factors or consequences of ecological degradation.
Important Questions from Reading Comprehension
Why, according to the writer can't people be motivated to use a resource prudently?
1. They feel that others may overuse the resource
2. It is possible to substitute the resource
3. Abundance of the resource availability
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
When do people use resources exhaustively?
The self-interest of people affects the use of renewable resources
People rooted in a locality
Which among the following is closest in meaning with the word 'deplete'?
