Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Comments:

Old Comments:

2008-07-17 13:27:13
The ecology is selfcorrecting. I mean, look at the paleolontology--there were times when over 95% of species went extinct. Comparing that to the current extintion rate is laughable. Just 12000 years ago (estimated), the last extinction wiped out about 30% of species and by that I don't mean mere variants of one species, and we barely made it, as well. Yet, life went on. We have some impact, but so do other species. In fact, we are nowhere near the impact insect have, nor we can remotely match their numbers. They are tiny, but their numbers surpass ours in several orders of magnitude. And they are nowhere near the impact fungi have. I am not saying we should not act responsibly and try not to keep the impact we have to a reasonable degree. Yewbetcha we should, and we've been trying with a degree of success in the last 40 years, which is the time frame when we became aware of a potential problem. But your ecomageddon scenario is in the realm of paranoic delusion. As already
2008-03-27 11:45:23
What BS. Tell that to the passenger pigeon, the ivory billed woodpecker, the golden toad, gastric-brooding frogs, Tasmanian tigers, Carolina parakeets, lonesome george (the last individual of a species of Galapagos tortoises) pretty much all the birds of Guam, and a whole host of other species.... all of whom are extinct and are NEVER coming back. Not to mention the 1/3 of amphibians that are in risk of extinction, an even higher fraction of turtles and tortoises, and so on. From frogs, mammals and birds to trees, butterflies, fungi, as well as way too many other organisms to name, hundreds of species have already gone extinct and thousands more are well on their way. We are currently experiencing another mass extinction, only one of five or six other such extinctions in the 3.5 billion years or so that life has been in existence. The thing is that this time it is solely due to what humans have done. To say that we can't have a lasting effect on the ecology on this planet is not only blatantly ignorant (to put it nicely), it is also extremely dangerous and sad. For what good is having clean rivers if nothing lives in them?
2008-03-27 11:39:26
What BS. Tell that to the passenger pigeon, the ivory billed woodpecker, the golden toad, gastric-brooding frogs, Tasmanian tigers, Carolina parakeets, lonesome george (the last individual of a species of Galapagos tortoises) pretty much all the birds of Guam, and a whole host of other species.... all of whom are extinct and are NEVER coming back. Not to mention the 1/3 of amphibians that are in risk of extinction, an even higher fraction of turtles and tortoises, and so on. From frogs, mammals and birds to trees, butterflies, fungi, as well as way too many other organisms to name, hundreds of species have already gone extinct and thousands more are well on their way. We are currently experiencing another mass extinction, only one of five or six other such extinctions in the 3.5 billion years or so that life has been in existence. The thing is that this time it is solely due to what humans have done. To say that we can't have a lasting effect on the ecology on this planet is not only blatantly ignorant (to put it nicely), it is also extremely dangerous and sad. For what good is having clean rivers if nothing lives in them?
2008-03-27 09:48:37
You seem to miss his point. Only man has the arrogance to believe that he can have a lasting effect on the ecology of the planet. We have been here but a moment in the history of the earth. All the problems man faces with regard to the ecology of the planet are self correcting. In other words, when it gets too bad, we will all die and the earth will go on as if nothing or no one had ever existed here. Having said all that, I might point out that the rivers in most of the civilized world are far healther now than they were in 1970, also there are more forested lands than in 1900. So, how bad have we made it?
2008-02-29 21:00:07
The problem is coexistence. You can get any amount of people to exist in a peaceful and positive way as long as there is more than plenty of room and more than plenty of resources for everyone.
2008-02-24 18:53:01
We better think how to save what we have here, than destroy it on daily basis... Men kind is the only one who acctually creates and later destroys. Now, how stupid is that...???
2008-02-23 14:49:23
well, when we colonize another planet we will NEVER have any problems like whats hapening here, right? so we will never have to worry.
2008-02-23 11:24:34
Yeah... I guess so. But what does that have to do with this picture? besides, world jump day was a JOKE.
2008-02-23 11:14:50
mmmm, money.
2008-02-23 11:14:28
i guess he's talkin bout the world jump day. but i don't see any relation to that and what that number should stand for :P as for the picture, it is true, we destroy our world on behalf of less cost and more profit. money talks!
2008-02-23 10:18:15
What in the living world are you talking about?! changing the orbit of planets? O_o... And who do you think you are to annoy US with your comments? I guess you think you're a living god?
2008-02-23 10:05:45
Only when the last person who thinks they are a living god dies, will people realize that nothing they could possibly do will change the orbit of a planet that weighs 5.9736×1024 kg, by so much as a hair's breadth. So feel free to panic and jump up and down as much as you like, if you do it without annoying others.