[quote]knewsom wrote:
I never said anything about desroying the planet. However, it’s possible that through our actions we’re damaging the ecosystem such that it could make life for humans very difficult, and/or deadly for hundreds of millions of people, not to mention countless species of plant and animal that could become extinct.[/quote]
It’s already deadly to hundreds of millions of people. Between earthquakes, tsunamis, Saddam, and the Janjaweed, the oceans rising between an inch and a meter in the next 50-100 yrs. is pretty tame.
[quote]“Fear will keep them in line. Fear of this battlestationm.”
“The power of this battlestation is insignificant next to the power of the Force.”[/quote]
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
Admittedly, I slept through my polisci 101 class. I must’ve only caught the parts about leaders like George Washington, Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela who lead people through inspiration to do what is right rather than scaring them away from (or into) doing something wrong.
You’re right if you look past pollution lowering/eliminating actions like getting rid of leaded paint, leaded gasoline, and asbestos, reforestation, all manners of water purification, coal emissions regulations, field runoff regulations, recycling, the Montreal Protocol… all of which were much easier to implement than any war. Now a war against cars that will cause the earth to warm up and/or cool down, the ice caps to melt on the edges and grow in the middle, and the oceans to rise .4 to 4 m in the next 50-500 yrs. is a hard sell.
Rather genocentric of you. You’re concievably right, of all the chordata or ‘animals’ we’ve had a very large (if not the largest) impact. But if we look at the big pond (eukaryotes or all of life) I would say many of the nitrogen fixers are at the top of the ‘environmental impact’ chain and have a very long list of others below them and above us. Our effects may be more ubiquitous, but our magnitude is yet to be proven (Note the line about ‘contain signatures’ rather than ‘dominated by’):
Observed climate change signatures have included a global warming trend, strongest at the high latitudes (Hansen et al. 1999); a decrease in Northern Hemispheric snow cover (Groisman et al. 1994); and increasing atmospheric water vapor in the Tropics (Houghton et al. 1995). The ecological consequences of these changes have included a global greening and a strong greening and poleward expansion of the Eurasian and North American boreal forests. Satellite imagery has been the primary evidence of these vegetation changes but is limited to only two decades of temporal recording. In addition, the observed climate and vegetation records contain signatures of the effects of anthropogenic land use and aerosols, making it difficult to determine the specific impact of rising carbon dioxide levels and climate change.
MICHAEL NOTARO, ZHENGYU LIU, ROBERT GALLIMORE, STEPHEN J. VAVRUS, AND JOHN E. KUTZBACH, I. COLIN PRENTICE, ROBERT L. JACOB, Simulated and Observed Preindustrial to Modern Vegetation and Climate Changes, J. Climate, 18, p3650-71, 2005.
and
By masking the high albedo of snow and through the partitioning of net radiation into sensible and latent heat, boreal forests significantly warm climate (in some months and some regions by more than 5C to 10C) compared to climate model simulations in which the boreal forest is replaced with bare ground or tundra vegetation.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/staff/bonan/boreal.html
I’m not saying ‘go out and buy an SUV’ but the dynamic vegetation and carbon fixation data can quite easily make a tree look just as scary as an SUV, and I have yet to see an SUV self-replicate. Pretty soon, those trees’ll be everywhere! Are you scared yet?