Environmental Humanities is a term for bridging the gap between culture and nature. Now that climate change and global warming is becoming more and more relevant, the gap is becoming even larger. Instead of one side neglecting the other like how it's been for a while now, it should be used together to fight what's inevitable. Cultural aspects such as businesses and our daily lives should now consider nature more than before. Since culture has so many environmental effects, it is only logical to take into consideration the harm it has caused and change it for the better. To bridge the gap we need to know what we've been doing wrong and make better choices.
Gene modification is the future. A type of gene modification has been used in the past before, like selective breeding to choose the traits you want to keep, but now with the introduction of CRISPR, we can make up those traits ourselves. It's a plausible solution, but it might give us humans too much control. I don't think gene modification is the answer, it might give us a fix for some issues, but it can very easily get into the wrong hands. I feel like it can have very major consequences if we pursue this even more, even going as far to be used on humans in a negative way. We as humans already ruined the Earth to a major degree, which just shows how much we don't know about our world. Simply changing a plant from green to red could possibly collapse an entire ecosystem, but we don't know that, and that's what's so dangerous about the idea of gene modification. Before developing ways to change the world, humans should at least try to return it as it used to be.
Everyone's heard of the term "hot-headed", basically another word for aggression. The term might actually mean something that actually happens. There have been a lot of studies about how heat causes people to get cranky or how when people get angry they get really hot for a second. The connection people have been making is that Global Warming ends up actually causing more conflict and violence than if the world were cool. Research done by James Rotton, however, shows that anger doesn't always increase as heat does, but how moderate temperatures cause aggression, while extreme hot conditions show a decline. I agree that hot temperatures can make some people angry, because if it's hot outside it makes everything hotter to do and doing so can make some people very irritated which in turn can lead into aggression, but saying that global warming can cause wars is just another slippery slope fallacy. I don't believe that global warming can lead up to something as big as a war because of just heat.