Re: Global warming

"ruylopez"

Aye, but the difference is now they are going extinct by the day. I
thought the
concept of habitat loss caused by man was pretty well understood and could
be
referenced without much background. Do you disagree that there is a huge
man-made extinction event going on right now?


If you define what you mean by "jugh man-made extinction event" and tell me
the time span of "right now" I will attempt to agree or disagree.


Some species "look" better to us than others and we give them more
concern than others. (You mentioned Rachel Carson and Silent Spring some
time ago. I am sure that you are aware that she was at least partly
responsible for the elimination of DDT from the environment. This likely
was a good thing for many species of animals ... it is also possible that
millions of "humans" died because of this ... this is just a simple
example
and is intended to be simple.)


I'm not one to get suckered by "cute" species. Besides Labrador
Retrievers. I
am not aware of what you are getting at about DDT, I will look into it
sometime.


I believe there is quite a bit of support that the removal of DDT has cost
hundreds of million lives. I also believe that there is a growing consensus
that the removal has turned out to have been a "mistake" and DDT is again
being used ... certainly with more care than before ... but that would be
true of paraquat as well.


Humans are part of the ecosystem too. Visit Westchester County in NY and
the place is overrun with deer. What a surprise. Lots of unintended
consequences. We (in the USA) are doing more today than any people has
ever
done for the environment and lesser species. That is just my opinion,
yours
may be different.


Uh oh, "lesser species". This is the myth of man being master of the
world. I
don't buy it. We may be trying when we can to protect the enviroment, but
we
still live invasively and practice totalitarian agriculture. We pollute
and
consume, and I don't think we are helping the environment overall.


Well, I must disagree with anyone who will not concede that we humans are
indeed the top of the food chain. I think that improving the life and
lifetime of humans is likely an evolutionary imperitive. Or do you disagree
that species tend to adapt to help "their" species to survive and reproduce?

I know that "altruism" is difficult to discuss in evolutionary terms, but
you seem to have a lot of it and it had to come from "somewhere." If not
evolution, what?


I think these are all the places Paul dreams of colonizing. I'm just
questioning the assumption that we can remake the entire Earth in our
image
(it's still in process of course) and prosper.


Again, not wanting to "catch" you or anything, but who is making the
assumption that "we" can remake the "entire Earth" in "our" image? What
does that even mean?


It means what I was getting at above. We have created habitats for man
only all
over the world and if you find a spot we haven't gotten to yet, we're on
the
way. In our image is probably bad language; I am trying to rid myself of
cliches but it is a slow process. I should say however we see fit.


I am still not clear about what you mean. Why would you have evolved to
think this way? Why would you give up your rightful place at the top of the
food chain (if that is what you mean) in order for more humans to perish so
other (can I say "lower") species can thrive at your expense?

I know that you are likely thinking that there should be a way for humans
and every other species should be able to live in perfect harmony without
any conflict ... I am not sure what period of history (recorded or
pre-history) might represent that time. Seems like everything changes and
the strongest survive ... at least I think I heard something like that one
time.


I think that we in USA have made our environment better by almost every
measure.

In a worldwide culture of overconsumption we are the clear leaders. I
can't
possibly agree with this one. We may be spending more money and time on
environmental issues than the rest of the world, but that is a luxury; we
can
afford it.

So, it is the better life that we enjoy that is the problem. I was watching
an animal show this morning ... the lions were taking down a zebra ... as
they were tearing at it without much gusto ... the narrator said the lions
were not very hungry. Shame about that. They were just doing what came
naturally.

I wonder if it is man's nature to better his own environment. Build a
better house, feed his family better food, give them better medicine to
extend their lives ... and when he is more comfortable and has the
resources, he helps others in other tribes and improves his own backyard.
Where once, shitting on the ground was OK, now he joins in with his
neighbors and builds sewers. When the river seems to be getting polluted,
he takes steps to clean it up and make it better for himself and his
decedents.

Usually, when the family is starving, he is not concerned about the
possibility that next year their might be fewer deer. When he seeing there
are plenty of deer, he might make some pets or he might do many other things
because he can.

There are more healthy deer (and more migratory birds) in the USA than ever
in the history of this continent.

We will continue to make things better and better as long as we can afford
it. It is possible for the road to hell to be paved with good intentions.


.