1. Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique was created in 1960 to preserve wildlife, but a civil war in 1977 wiped out most of its inhabitants. Conservationists have since worked to protect and replenish animal populations.
2. Environmental disasters from 1970 to 2019 have led to developments in science, engineering, and policy. The article explores disasters on land, water, and in the atmosphere, as well as solutions to prevent or minimize further disasters.
3. Humans both induce and reduce environmental disasters through their actions and policies.
The article titled "Human Impacts on the Environment" discusses two main topics: the conservation efforts in Gorongosa National Park and environmental disasters caused by humans. While the article provides some interesting information, it has several biases and missing points of consideration.
Firstly, the article focuses heavily on the conservation efforts in Gorongosa National Park, but it fails to mention the negative impacts that humans have had on this environment. The civil war that occurred in Mozambique is briefly mentioned, but there is no discussion of how human activities such as poaching and deforestation have affected the park's ecosystem. This one-sided reporting presents a biased view of the situation.
Secondly, while discussing environmental disasters caused by humans, the article only covers events from 1970 to 2019. This narrow focus ignores many significant environmental disasters that occurred before 1970 and fails to provide a comprehensive overview of human impact on the environment. Additionally, some of the claims made in this section are unsupported and lack evidence.
Thirdly, there is a promotional tone to the article as it highlights conservation efforts by National Geographic Emerging Explorer Mateus Mutemba. While these efforts are undoubtedly important, they should not be presented in a way that promotes National Geographic or any individual explorer.
Finally, there is a lack of exploration of counterarguments or alternative viewpoints throughout the article. For example, while discussing solutions to prevent or minimize further environmental disasters, there is no mention of potential risks associated with these solutions or any opposing viewpoints.
In conclusion, while this article provides some valuable information about human impacts on the environment, it has several biases and missing points of consideration that limit its overall effectiveness as an informative piece. It would benefit from a more balanced approach that considers both positive and negative aspects of human impact on the environment and explores alternative viewpoints and counterarguments.