Are the worlds environmental problems reversible?

"If people want to change, they will. If they don't want to, it's hard to make them do so. The current interest in the environment is a good thing. The best way to make a contribution in fashion is to promote the idea that a fundamental interest in preserving the environment is itself fashionable." 

-Giorgio Armani

This quote shows that not only scientists and researchers take special interest in the world around them, even fashion designers understand the growing dire need for conservation. Armani is showing that the best way to create a better, more sustainable, world is to make it "fashionable," and use the idea of a trend to create a way of life. I agree with this philosophy because until society is presented with the realization about the state of the environment, no good change can be made. By promoting a new of living, a "green" way, we can come one step closer to solving the problem.  

There are many individuals and groups who spread the message of conservation and the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done to the environment. The question remains, are these wasted ambitions? I agree with the statement made in Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

      "The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services." 

 The possibility of changing the damage on Earth can be a reality, however the amount of change and compromises that need to be made in order to achieve this seems unlikely. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that there are too many opinions and experts that seem to want to make their position the "right" one and therefore nothing gets accomplished. I also think that most people will agree that they want a better environment for themselves and future generations, however that aren't willing to do something as simple as recycle or turn off the lights when not being used. 

   In the passage about the Easter Island, I learned that in some instances, even when conscientiously "living of the land" and working to preserve the natural habitat, it isn't enough. In society today, there needs to be a balance that is achieved between conservation and progression, this is not something that the people of Easter Island could accomplish, and therefore, they self-destructed. In modern times, we are at an advantage in that we have more technology and abilities to create a world of innovation, however  this often comes at the price of destroying our environment and ignoring natural resources. I believe that balance between these two ideas will create new opportunities for conservationism.