A.

DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO METHODS (LONG DIVISION AND SYNTHETIC DIVISION) IN

DIVIDING POLYNOMIALS,

B. PERFORM THE TASKS NEEDED IN ORDER TO DIVIDE POLYNOMIALS, AND

C. RELATE THE TOPIC TO REAL-LIFE SITUATIONBIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM

Biodiversity is defined as the vast variety of life forms in the entire Earth. It encompasses all
kinds of life forms, from the single-celled organisms to the largest multi-celled organisms. Its
definition is in the structural and functional perspective and not as individual species

Another definition of biodiversity is "the variability among living organisms from all sources,
including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.
Biodiversity is the source of the essential goods and ecological services that constitute the
source of life for all and it has direct consumptive value in food, agriculture, medicine, and in
industry." (Villaggio Globale, 2009)

Understanding biodiversity within the concept of ecosystem needs a thorough study on the
relationship of the biotic, the living organisms and the abiotic, nonliving organisms.
Interdisciplinary approach is needed to study the ecosystem. Biodiversity plays a major role in
this natural dynamics. For example, a large number of golden snails in a certain area of a rice
field can help predict a low production of rice harvest, since eggs of the golden snails are
considered pest for rice plant. On a positive view. the larger number of different species in a
certain area can be a predictor of sustainable life in that area. Sustainability of the ecosystem
ensures a better survival rate against any natural disaster. Therefore, we, as human inhabitants
of the ecosystem, must preserve and conserve the biodiversity of all creatures.

In simpler terms, it is true that people will always depend on biodiversity on the
wholeness of our being and in our everyday lives. More so, our health will ultimately depend
upon the products and services that we acquire from the ecosystem. Somehow, there are ways
and processes in the ecosystem that are not apparent nor appreciated by us, human beings.
Think about the need to drink clean and fresh water, the need to eat healthy vegetables and
food, or the need of man to transport which makes him rely on fuel. All of these are human
needs that are answered and provided by our ecosystem. Thus, if we fail to keep the process of
taking care of the ecosystem, it is us who are actually putting our lives at risk. Significant decline
in biodiversity has direct human impact when ecosystem in its insufficiency can no longer
provide the physical as well as social needs of human beings. Indirectly, changes in the
ecosystem affect livelihood, income, and on occasion, may even cause political conflict (WHO,
n.d.).

Changes in Biodiversity

Alteration in any system could bring varied effects. A change in biodiversity could have erratic
effects not only in wildlife or marine life but also in human beings. For example, humans
inhabiting the forest would disturb the natural order of life. Trees and plants would be affected in
the land- clearing operations where the houses would be built. The animals, insects, and all
types of life forms in the cleared area would either be displaced or most likely be killed. The loss
of these life forms could affect the entire ecosystem governing that environment. The food chain
might be damaged. From this, we can clearly infer that when our ecosystem is not well taken
care of, biodiversity encounters changes that may impact human health on such different levels.

Threats to Biodiversity

There are major threats to biodiversity that were identified by the United Nations' Environment
Programme (WHO, n.d.). These are the following:

1. Habitat loss and destruction. Major contributing factor is the inhabitation of human
beings and the use of land for economic gains.
2. Alterations in ecosystem composition. Alterations and sudden changes, either within
species groups or within the environment, could begin to change entire ecosystems.
Alterations in ecosystems are a critical factor contributing to species and habitat loss.
3. Over-exploitation. Over-hunting, overfishing, or over-collecting of species can quickly
lead to its decline. Changing consumption patterns of humans is often cited as the key
reason for this unsustainable exploitation of natural resources.
4. Pollution and contamination. Biological systems respond slowly to changes in their
surrounding environment. Pollution and contamination cause irreversible damage to
species and varieties.
5. Global climate change. Both climate variability and climate change cause biodiversity
loss. Species and populations may be lost permanently if they are not provided with
enough time to adapt to changing climatic conditions.

Consequences of Biodiversity Loss

Even with the improvement of technology and science at present, we still have a lot to learn
about biodiversity, more so about the consequences of biodiversity loss. However, the basic
concept about biodiversity loss was from Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

Intact ecosystems function best since the organisms composing them are specialized to
function in that ecosystem to capture, transfer, utilize and, ultimately, lose both energy and
nutrients. The particular species making up an ecosystem determine its productivity, affect
nutrient cycles and soil contents, and influence environmental conditions such as water cycles,
weather patterns, climate, and other nonbiotic aspects. The loss of biodiversity has many
consequences that we understand, and many that we do not. It is apparent that humankind is
willing to sustain a great deal of biodiversity loss if there are concomitant benefits to society; we
hope they are net benefits. In many cases, the benefits seem to accrue to a few individuals only,
with net societal loss. However, it is extremely difficult to estimate the future costs of losses in
biodiversity or of environmental damage (Rainforest Conservation Fund, 2017).

As stated by Tilman, "The Earth will retain its most striking feature, its biodiversity, only if
humans have the prescience to do so. This will occur, it seems, only if we realize the extent to
which we use biodiversity (Rainforest Consevation Fund, 2017)."

Nutritional Impact of Biodiversity

According to the World Health Organization, biodiversity is a vital element of a human being's
nutrition because of its influence to food production. Biodiversity is a major factor that
contributes to sustainable food production for human beings. A society or a population must
have access to a sufficient variety of nutritious food as it is a determinant of their health as
human beings.

Nutrition and biodiversity are linked at many levels: the ecosystem, with food production as an
ecosystem service; the species in the ecosystem; and the genetic diversity within species.
Nutritional composition between foods and among varieties/cultivars/breeds of the same food
can differ dramatically, affecting micronutrient availability in the diet. Healthy local diets, with
adequate average levels of nutrients intake, necessitates maintenance of high biodiversity
levels. Intensified and enhanced food production through irrigation, use of fertilizer, plant
protection (pesticides), or the introduction of crop varieties and cropping patterns affect
biodiversity and thus impact global nutritional status and human health. Habitat simplification,
species loss, and species succession often enhance communities, vulnerabilities as a function
of environmental receptivity to ill health (WHO, 2007).

Health, Biology, and Biodiversity

Almost all living organisms are dependent to their environment to live and reproduce. Basic
needs of living organisms such as air, water, food, and habitat are provided by its environment.
The evolution of human beings was due to the improved access to these basic needs.
Advances in agriculture, sanitation, water treatment, and hygiene have had a far greater impact
on human health than medical technology.

Although the environment sustains human life, it can also cause diseases. Lack of basic
necessities is a significant cause of human mortality.

Environmental hazards increase the risk of cancer, heart disease, asthma, and many other
illnesses. These hazards can be physical, such as pollution. toxic chemicals, and food
contaminants, or they can be social, such as dangerous work, poor housing conditions, urban
sprawl, and poverty. Unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation and hygiene are responsible for
a variety of infectious diseases, such as schistosomiasis, diarrhea, cholera, meningitis, and
gastritis. In 2015, approximately 350,000 children under the age of five (mostly in the developing
world) died from diarrheal diseases related to unsafe drinking water, and approximately 1.8
billion people used drinking water contaminated with feces. More than two billion people Jacked
access to basic sanitation.

The interrelation between human health and biological diversity is considerable and complex.
With the current biodiversity loss at unprecedented rates, the delicate balance between human
health and biological diversity is at risk.

Environment-Related Illnesses

Some human illnesses that are found to be related with its environment include Parkinson's
disease, heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, diabetes,
obesity, occupational injuries, dysentery, arthritis, malaria, and depression.
By contrast, activities that promote health and extend human life could have adverse
environmental effects. For example, food production causes environmental damage from
pesticides and fertilizers, soil salinization, waste produced by livestock, carbon emissions from
food manufacturing and transportation, deforestation, and overfishing. Health care facilities also
have adverse environmental impacts. Hospitals use large quantities of electricity and fossil fuels
and produce medical wastes. To prevent some diseases, it may be necessary to alter the
environment. For example, malaria was eradicated in the United States and other developed
nations in the 1940s and 50s as a result of draining wetlands and spraying DDT to kill
mosquitoes. A reduction in mortality from starvation or disease can lead to overpopulation,
which stresses the environment in many different ways-increasing use of fossil fuels, clearing of
land, generating pollution and waste, and so on (Rensik & Portier, 2017),

Interestingly, according to experts, climate change could also have a serious impact on human
health and could deteriorate farming systems and reduce nutrients in some foods. In this case,
biodiversity increases resilience, thus helping adjust to new environmental conditions.
Safeguarding of coral reefs, for instance, is essential to reduce the risk of floods, as this
extraordinary ecosystem can reduce wave energy by 97%, thus protecting over 100 million
people all over the world.

Relationships between human health and the environment raise many ethical, social, and legal
dilemmas by forcing people to choose among competing values. Many of the issues at the
intersection of health and the environment have to do with managing benefits and risks. For
example, pesticides play an important role in increasing crop yields, but they can also pose
hazards to human health and the environment. Alternatives to pesticide use create trade-offs in
health. The extreme action of stopping all pesticide uses could significantly reduce agricultural
productivity, leading to food shortages and increased food prices which would, in turn, increase
starvation in some parts of the world. Public health authorities have opted to regulate the use of
pesticides to enhance food production while minimizing damage to the environment and human
health. Energy production and use help sustain human life, but it can also pose hazards to
human health and the environment, such as air and water pollution, oil spills, and destruction of
habitats (Rensik & Portier, 2017).

No issue demands greater care in balancing benefits and risks than global warming. A
significant percentage of global climate change is due to the human production of greenhouse
gases. Climate change is likely to cause tremendous harm to the environment and human
health, but taking steps to drastically reduce greenhouse gases could have adverse
consequences for global, national, and local economies. For example, greatly increasing taxes
on fossil fuels would encourage greater fuel efficiency and lower carbon dioxide emissions, but
it would also increase the price of transportation, which would lead to widespread inflation and
reduced consumer spending power. Managing benefits and risks also raises social justice
concerns. In general, people with lower socio-economic status have greater exposure to certain
harmful environmental conditions in their homes or at work, such as lead, mercury, pesticides,
toxic chemicals, or air and water pollution. Communities and nations should wisely choose a site
for a factory, a power plant, or waste dump, or regulating safety in the workplace to minimize
impact to the society. The decision-making process should be fair, open, and democratic, so
that people who will be affected by environmental risks have a voice in these deliberations and
can make their concerns known (Rensik & Portier, 2017).

When drafting and implementing environmental health regulations, it is important to consider

vulnerable subpopulations. A vulnerable subpopulation is a group with an increased
susceptibility to the adverse effects of an environmental risk factor, due to their age, genetics,
health status, or some other condition. If an environmental regulation is designed to protect
average members of the population, it may fail to adequately protect vulnerable subpopulations.
Justice demands that we take care of people who are vulnerable. However, almost everyone in
the population has an above-average susceptibility to at least one environmental risk factor.
Since providing additional protection to everyone would be costly and impractical, protections
must be meted out carefully and the populations who are vulnerable to a particular
environmental risk factor must be defined clearly (Rensik & Portier, 2017).

In addition to this, various public health strategies pit the rights of individuals against the good of
society, such as mandatory treatment, vaccination, or diagnostic testing; isolation and
quarantine; and disease surveillance. The owner of a coal-burning power plant must deal with
many laws concerning the operation of the plant, workplace safety, and carbon emissions. A
developer who plans to build 150 new homes with land he has purchased may also have to deal
with laws concerning storm drainage, water and sewage lines, gas lines, sidewalks, and so on.
Restrictions on property rights are justified to protect human health and the environment.
However, opponents of these restrictions argue that they are often excessive or not adequately
supported by scientific evidence (Rensik & Portier, 2017).

Human rights issues also come up with research on environmental health that involves human
subjects. For such research to be ethical, human subjects must give consent, and great care
must be taken to ensure that they understand that they can opt out of the research project.
Since the late 1990s, some pesticide companies have tested their products on human subjects
to gather data to submit to the government for regulatory purposes. Some commentators charge
that these experiments are unethical because they place people at unacceptably high risk
without a clear benefit to society. Others have argued that the experiments, if properly designed
and implemented, could produce important benefits to society by providing useful knowledge
about the effects of pesticides that lead to stronger regulations (Rensik & Portier, 2017).

With these in mind, a mitigating plan and a workable plan of action should be studied in order to
not compromise biodiversity, while at the same time, promote good health among the society.

SUMMARY

Most of the time, it may seem impossible to really value species singly or in a detailed manner.
But we have to consider the entire Earth as a single unit. A loss of single-celled species or a
family of wild grass can have adverse effects in the entire biosphere. Biodiversity seen in macro
level seems to be still vast and rich, yet if we look at it in micro- level, per species, we have lost
too much. Eventually, in the near future, this biodiversity loss will have a great negative effect
especially to us humans. "The value of biodiversity is the value of everything" (Rainforest
Conservation Fund, n.d.).
We must recognize the value of the organisms with which we share the planet. As Costanza et
al. (1997) put it, "We must begin to give the natural capital stock that produces these services
adequate weight in the decision-making process, otherwise, current and continued future
human welfare may drastically suffer... many ecosystem services are literally irreplaceable." We
do not, and probably cannot, ever evaluate such services adequately, but we can value the
ecosystems of the world appropriately (Rainforest Conservation Fund, n.d.)

Biodiversity is the variability of different life forms and ecosystems on Earth. Human health
depends on the products and services provided by ecosystems -- healthy ecosystem means
healthy community. A healthy ecosystem fights diseases and stabilizes the climate. However,
there has been a gradual biodiversity loss happening over the past decade and because of this,
human health has been greatly affected. Clearly, the world must notice the importance of the
relationship between biodiversity and human health.

3 Levels of Biodiversity

1. Genetic Diversity

The question why non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 66 million years ago (Ma)
remains unresolved because of the coarseness of the fossil record. A sudden
extinction caused by an asteroid is the most accepted hypothesis but it is debated
whether dinosaurs were in decline or not before the impact. We analyse the
speciation-extinction dynamics for six key dinosaur families, and find a decline across
dinosaurs, where diversification shifted to a declining-diversity pattern ~76 Ma. We
investigate the influence of ecological and physical factors, and find that the decline
of dinosaurs was likely driven by global climate cooling and herbivorous diversity
drop. The latter is likely due to hadrosaurs outcompeting other herbivores. We also
estimate that extinction risk is related to species age during the decline, suggesting a
lack of evolutionary novelty or adaptation to changing environments. These results
support an environmentally driven decline of non-avian dinosaurs well before the
asteroid impact.
2. Species Diversity

3. Ecosystem Diversity