|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 22nd, 2003 05:08 PM | |||
| Mike P | Thought so. | ||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 05:04 PM | |||
| kellychaos | They're mostly ... NO! | ||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 05:03 PM | |||
| Mike P |
Quote:
      I have no idea if those are funny, disturbing, annoying, or some combination of the three... |
||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 04:54 PM | |||
| kellychaos | Where'd all the funny go? :/ | ||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 04:46 PM | |||
| kahljorn |
I agree with The One and Only We should all live under the sea! Under the seaaaaa |
||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 04:37 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
Okay Dean, but you should realize that my posts WERE SUPPOSED TO BE HUMOROUS. Please read the thread title called FOR ALL YOU ENVIRONMENTALISTS for more. |
||
| Oct 22nd, 2003 05:43 AM | |||
| blackheart |
You can quote me on this. ;) Quote:
If you only care about the "human race," then why don't you transport yourself & your "desirable species" into a little bubble, away from all this "environment" and "ecosystem" stuff (who needs that eco-crap anyways?). Surely you could survive without it... Wrong. Everything is connected. Every single bacterium, bird, tiger, plant, virus, ocean, rock, grass, everything correlates with the other. How did you think we got this far without it? The Earth has been around far longer than humans have; it is its own self-sustaining system. Now, with the arrival of humans and the industrial age, are we really having a problem with the balance of the Earth. Even insignificant thing (to you) are significant. Bacteria are the basis of the food chain. And, they create 1/2 of the world's oxygen. 80-90% of insects are decomposers, pollinators, or food. Without the enviroment, we have no economy. Take this for example: a lot of our products come from wood. Wood comes from trees. Trees live in forests. Animals, plants, and insects existing in a healthy forest work together. Water and nutients help build the trees, while organisms living in the soil keep it rich in bio-matter. Fungi (such as microcorrizhal fungus) living in the soil help decompose detritus, and also protect trees from disease. In addition they feed off the tree's sugars, so the relationship is mutual. You could say we can make a tree farm then. Wrong again. Tree farms are far too "clean" to ever replace a healthy forest. Also, a healthy forest needs layers of different sized trees, because they also provide shelter for animals. Another example, when the ground has dead trees, known as nurse logs, it helps put nutrients back into the soil, a source of energy. Animals consume this energy, and then we consume the animals--or the energy is recycled back into Earth. Either way, it is a win-win situation. We mustn't forget the food web. If one key species is ruled out then the whole food web could crumble, or cause disease and famine, or cause overpopulation/underpopulation. How do we know what the key species is? It could be anything from a gnat to a rabbit. It is not up to us to pick & choose what species lives and what species dies. Disrupting nature's natural cycles affects everything: carnivores, herbivores, decomposers and composers alike. And, most importantly to you--US. A damaged Earth is a damaged Economy. What we must do is maintain riparian zones/watersheds, keep a forest rich and diverse in life, and log selectively. Species will thrive, and that way "endangered" may become something of the past. But with humans taking over the Earth like a disease, the future for the health of Earth is grim. It's people's ignorance like yours that contribute to its demise. Get your facts straight and pull your head out of your ass. Thank you. *mic click* |
||
| Oct 18th, 2003 10:18 AM | |||
| mburbank |
One and the Same; I may take the time to provide you with resources when I'm back at work, but you're obviously already convinced. In brief, you need large and diverse numbers of plant and animal species becuase any single strain can be wiped out by disease. See Potato famine. This is why over engineering plant strains is dangerous. You only grow one strain of rice or wheat and it can be comletely decimated by a single blight. Point two. As animals, we are part of the ecosystem. Point three. Are you suggesting space migration in the near future? Boob. That's like sitting in a sinking ship and not bothering to plug the hole because you figure a biological mutation will probably cause you to sprout wings pretty soon. Point four. See Vinth backing you up? Do you need further proof you've strayed into the idiot zone? |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 11:55 PM | |||
| Emu | Ah, the joys of living in a fragile ecosystem with a bunch of nuts who wouldn't mind it being thrown into chaos. | ||
| Oct 17th, 2003 11:35 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
You have to remember that if it is some unknown organism, it is not being kept in check by endangered species. They have too small a population. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 06:38 PM | |||
| VinceZeb | OAO, do you think Max is going to back up any of his idiotic liberal ranting with facts? Man, you must be on drugs. | ||
| Oct 17th, 2003 06:22 PM | |||
| Zhukov |
Read this again. Quote:
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 06:08 PM | |||
| Mike P |
Quote:
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:46 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
And before you judge all libertarians to think like I do, read this. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:44 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:43 PM | |||
| FS |
Quote:
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:36 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
You must realize, kelly, that this planet must already be tipped in favor of carbon dioxide. Between pollution, a much higher population of animals on earth, and a much lower population of plants, this planet has to get rid of carbon producers. Would it not, therefore, be logical to kill off as many creatures as possible? Species that are undesirable are species that cannot be used as food, etc. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:32 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:23 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
I also can't believe I have to actually prove something so fundamental as the importance of biodiversity to you. It is appalling that you have no idea why people emphasize it so much. I suppose that this would be good place for you to start: http://www.fathom.com/special/biodiversity/ |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 04:11 PM | |||
| The One and Only... |
You seem to forget something. I don't care about the ecosystem. I only care about the human race. I would love to see your opinions backed up by scientific claims. If we can eliminate every undesirable species, keep some for food, and keep plants so as to maintain producers, the ecosystem would be perfectly fine - aside from the fact the the majority of earth would be industrialized. You do realize that it is not so far off that we will need the earth at all, right? Soon (if not now), we won't even need soil to keep plants. That is not some college kid's claim, that is just common sense. Even you must realize that, considering our population growth, we will need to leave this planet or go to sea after another century or so. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 01:05 PM | |||
| Jeanette X |
 Max!   The otter pup thanks you on behalf of animals everywhere for articulating that so well. 
|
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 09:56 AM | |||
| mburbank |
One and the Same; you're only showing your ignorance regarding ecology. The wider the base, the more stable the system. Not farm animals, as many different animals as possible. Not one strain of goats, as many strains as possible. Not green plants, as many different strains of green plants as possible. Smaller sytems are weaker systems, vulnerable to damage in all sorts of ways. Your faith in technologies ability to keep pace is charming, but faith in God to rescue you would make more sense, since religous faith requires only faith, and quite sensibly needs to physical evidence. I don't think your viewpoint is due to your youth, I think your degree of faith in the workings of your own brain is due to your youth. You think you've stumbled on some sort of iconoclastic realism when in fact your only wading through the same swamp a gajillion other half way bright college kids have waded through before. It's all very daring I'm sure. It's also self centered, overly proud, glib and absurd. Any scientist worth their salt would tell you we have only scratched the surface of understanding eco systems, how they work, and their effects on and relationship to our own survival. Proceed with caution. Even if you don't give a shit about beauty, wonder, the rights of other species or any of that other vaguley sugary happy crappy, you don't need to be a dunce. We're messing with things we have a very poor understanding of and every day we reduce our chances of understanding any more. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 07:11 AM | |||
| Mike P |
I'm okay with people hunting for food and stuff, but if we just let rich guys go after tigers with shotguns for thier skin, what would be done with the rest of the animal? I'm also sure there would be a regulation on how many tigers coudl be brought over to die as well, so that some would be left in their native habitats... and I know this has to do with more than tigers, just to clarify. |
||
| Oct 17th, 2003 06:42 AM | |||
| FS | There would be a whole less surviving going on if you'd have to get up close and personal with all the delicious animals, rather than pick them off from 50 feet. | ||
| Oct 17th, 2003 01:31 AM | |||
| kahljorn | Large claws+sharp teeth=holes in your neck | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
