"Early humans blamed for mass extinctions"

[miken]

You are a hypocritical fool. I choose my own destiny, not my ancestors. If I choose to get educated then I won't end up in the trailer, and what my ancestors did or did not do would make no difference. I pay other people with my taxes to worry about these things, so why should I get worked up over them?

Get out of my face.

 

[GasX]

If you took the world's capacity to provide food and evenly distributed that food throughout the world, there would be more than enough for eveyone. The fact that people starve is not always due to an inability to produce food.

Go to Eritrea or Ethiopia. They have some of the most fertile soil in the world and produce huge harvests year after year. Then the government and / or rebels keep it from getting to the people so that they can maintain control.

 

[PlunX]

Since when does being higher in the food chain give humans the right to destroy pretty much whatever they want whenever they want? Are they eating everything they destroy? No, so how does being higher in the food chain give human's the right to waste/destroy the rest of the world for their own pleasure? Seems like this food chain business is only something you people have to tell yourself to make yourself feel more secure about the stupid and idiotic things that humans do.

I'm not talking about early humans, I'm talking about humans as a whole. Are we the most intelligent beings on the planet? Most likely, but if we truly were, I don't see how we can still be so ignorant.

 

[SirFshAlot]

regarding the original idea of this thread......

Great Book: Playing God in Yellowstone.

Documents man's infringement on a sound ecosystem for the sake of amking it a pleasurable tourist attraction.

Except it backfired.
When they exterminated the predators, i.e. the wolves and most of the grizzly bears, the ungulates' populations went unchecked and overgrazed the lands. It had a domino effect on the ecosystem. Now you go to Hayden Valley, and it looks like a wasteland.
But hey, you will see some bison.

The next highest animals in the food chain wouldn't manipulate environments for tourism, would they?

 

[Infidelity]

About 4 billion people I think in this world are starving, only 1 billion is not starving and the rest is somewhere between, we all ready dont have enough food.

No, we have over populated the earth. The Chinese and other countries. There is enough food for the species but it is our fault and another way we kill the planet- by over populating it.!

 

[Clinotus]

Milken,

You read my parable and missed the forest for the trees. The irony made me laugh for a good ten minutes Thank you!

 

[Amused]

<< AmusedOne

When northen men came first to iceland over a thousand years ago there were forests everywhere. Now we have 2 or 3 very very small forests left and wasteland is growing. >>



Replant. That's what your European brothers did.



<< Meanwhile, realistic estimates have --at the present rate of deforestation-- 500 to 1000 years until the rain forests are depleted. I think they'll be on their feet long before then (if we get out and let them) don't you? >>


So you think we just have problem when the rainforests are gone?[/i] >>



No, I never said that. However, the longer we keep our environmentalist and economic boots on the backs of their necks, the longer they will remain a largly agrarian society, and not make the jump to an industrial society.

That we should do anything that hampers their advancement reeks of elitism.

 

[miken]

<< Milken,

You read my parable and missed the forest for the trees. The irony made me laugh for a good ten minutes Thank you! >>



No problem clitorus!

 

[Tauren]

<<Since when does being higher in the food chain give humans the right to destroy pretty much whatever they want whenever they want? Are they eating everything they destroy? No, so how does being higher in the food chain give human's the right to waste/destroy the rest of the world for their own pleasure? Seems like this food chain business is only something you people have to tell yourself to make yourself feel more secure about the stupid and idiotic things that humans do.>>


Who's to say to it's wrong? You? Then don't turn on any LIGHTS. Don't eat at McDonald's, etc. Don't open a PLASTIC bottle of soda. Don't use toilet PAPER to wipe your ass. Don't open a CARDBOARD box and then throw it in the trash. Get the point???

 

<< why is that ridiculus?

no being harms the earth as much as we do >>



No beings have the ability to reason like we do. No matter if we reason &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;, because both forms (right+wrong) are man made anyway.

 

[miken]

Ok, Let me point it out in another way.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You want to improve the lives of everyone on the planet, and give the sun a rosey glow that comforts the weak and gives money to the poor.

Pollution HAS TO HAPPEN. Cause and Effect. Controlling the pollution has to be done, so it is, and has been for many years with very few problems. Global Warming and the Ozone layer seem to be the only &quot;serious&quot; problems we have.

So what's your solution, you're all up in arms about saving the earth, what do we do? recycle? ok. Drive Electric cars? will happen soon.

Our economy will fix the problems it causes by public pressure. So go ahead scream at the top of your lungs. It's not for me though.

 

[loosbrew]

man, some people need to be lined up on a wall, and shot...

loosbrew

 

[Capn]

Whatever your opinion, saying someone should be shot is definitely over the line. Please edit your post.

 

[SSP]

You can make thousands of matches with one tree. You can distroy thousands of trees with 1 match.

 

[loosbrew]

i didnt say who should get shot, i just some people really need to be shot. it is an honest opinion, as is everyone elses in this forum and thread. i feel that the world would be much better off without certain people. its not to say that i wish a certain race, or culture prevail, but it is fact that some people, that belong to some cultures, destroy the earth more than others.


loosbrew

 

[Pretender]

<< You can make thousands of matches with one tree. You can distroy thousands of trees with 1 match.


>>

Now that sounds like a good investment...

 

[bluemax]

loosbrew: The problem is that the people who want to keep our planet in livable condition for ourselves and future generations would like the money-grubbing scum shot. Then there would be noone left to overpollute, strip-mine, slash-burn, water-poison, air toxify and otherwise destroy the earth in search of the almighty dollar and a plush chair.

On the other hand, the greedy industrialists would want those damned &quot;tree-huggers&quot; shot. Then those pesky people with their darned &quot;morals&quot; would be out of the way to let them pollute the planet as much as they darned well please. The earth would be completely unlivabale in only a few generations, but hey - they'll have &quot;winked out&quot; by then anyways. Who cares what mess you left behind after you're dead?

Each side thinks the other is wrong.... but which one really is?

 

[miken]

I'd say that's a bit exaggerated...

 

[rahvin]

<<This is a totally selfish, materialistic attitude. If you poison a lake, it will take time to regenerate. Poison it 10% it's 1-10 years or so. Poison it 50% with industrial and human waste (sewage) it could take close to a hundred years. Poison it completely, all life is destroyed in that lake and some of its surrounding area, and it will likely NEVER regenerate. Something can't regenerate if you KILL it completely!>>

You couldn't destroy all life if you tried. There are bacteria living in the rockstrata that are within inches of the mantel, there are bacteria living in the sulfur plumes in yellowstone, there are bacteria and other organisms on the bottom of the ocean. For every poison you can think of there is a bacteria that thrives in and consumes that &quot;poison&quot;. Life is eternal, we are capable of destroying some forms of life but by no means could we destroy it all.

 

[bluemax]

I think you totally missed the point. [sigh]
Pehaps we can't STERILIZE the whole planet, but on the other hand, we can sure make it dead enough that we can no longer survive on it.

 

[Amused]

<< I think you totally missed the point. [sigh]
Pehaps we can't STERILIZE the whole planet, but on the other hand, we can sure make it dead enough that we can no longer survive on it. >>



And which, sans all out nuclear war, we haven't, and AREN'T even coming close to doing.

 

[Amused]

<< loosbrew: The problem is that the people who want to keep our planet in livable condition for ourselves and future generations would like the money-grubbing scum shot. Then there would be noone left to overpollute, strip-mine, slash-burn, water-poison, air toxify and otherwise destroy the earth in search of the almighty dollar and a plush chair. >>



We aren't anywhere close to destroying the earth. Any polution we've caused would be unnoticable in under 50 years if we suddenly fell off the face of the earth. I repeat, nature is far more resiliant than you make it out to be.

 

[Czar]

There are other ways of destroying our enviroment than with nuclear bombs.

 

[Czar]

<< Any polution we've caused would be unnoticable in under 50 years if we suddenly fell off the face of the earth >>


Thats one of the most idiotic statement ever. Our garbage will still be there after 1000 years, big part of it at least.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Any polution we've caused would be unnoticable in under 50 years if we suddenly fell off the face of the earth >>


Thats one of the most idiotic statement ever. Our garbage will still be there after 1000 years, big part of it at least. >>



Polution is something that has a negative impact on the environment. Our trash dumps are buried, would be completely unnoticable, and have virtually no impact on the environment.