Thread: What do you think?

I decided to post this here in Environmental Issues because we are trying to get people to realize that the world is in crisis and we have a big environmental problem coming up. Where better than Environmental Issues to post a poster about an organization fighting for the habitat of a well-known species - homo sapiens sapiens?

Originally Posted by The P-manator

I decided to post this here in Environmental Issues because we are trying to get people to realize that the world is in crisis and we have a big environmental problem coming up. Where better than Environmental Issues to post a poster about an organization fighting for the habitat of a well-known species - homo sapiens sapiens?

What makes you think our world is in crisis?

Define why you want to save the world. What to do for that.

Well I am not sure about the starving part, though it is true in the 3rd world countries. Well but I think technology is the major reason behind our destruction.

Well we can never stop earth's destruction but we can reduce it's rate.
We started manupulating and disturbing and polluting the environment ever since we started agriculture.
Well it's of sure that we cannot live as we lived then but we can find alternative source of energy and reduce pollution rate.

Many individuals, in their own limited way are doing something, it may be insignificant in isolation but in total are becoming a force for change. You ought to take your poster and stick it on a few doors, the Whitehouse, No 10 Downing street and, various other 'heads of state' residences.

Megabrain - You just posted my wish. However, I think it's illegal to put a poster on a private house without permission.

anand_kapadia - I am not trying to save the world single-handedly. I am trying to raise awarness about this problem. The problem? We are destroying our own habitat, as the poster says. What happens when we destroy our habitat? Well, we already know: look at the polar bears, and all those endagered species whose habitat we have destroyed. The problem also is that we are suffocating ourselves and heating up our planet.

Dilan - I don't mean we are starving now, I meant that if we destroy our habitat, as we are, we will starve.

Yes i am totally agreed with your thoughts P-M.
We all know that we are destroying our own habitat. But the main problem which comes is the ego of the people. If we start single handedly we ignored whereas as you said a group can create a much significant change.
Best of luck. I am with you.

Originally Posted by Kolt

What makes you think our world is in crisis?

And you don't ?

Originally Posted by The P-manator

Megabrain - You just posted my wish. However, I think it's illegal to put a poster on a private house without permission.

anand_kapadia - I am not trying to save the world single-handedly. I am trying to raise awarness about this problem. The problem? We are destroying our own habitat, as the poster says. What happens when we destroy our habitat? Well, we already know: look at the polar bears, and all those endagered species whose habitat we have destroyed. The problem also is that we are suffocating ourselves and heating up our planet.

Dilan - I don't mean we are starving now, I meant that if we destroy our habitat, as we are, we will starve.

Ya I get your point. But I guess, only a few people care about it.
I am with you too.

Mr. p-man; polar bears were near extinction some years back, during the thought to be global cooling crisis, but have rebounded for really no reason except possibly global warming. 25K 1950 and 50k today.

of all species that have ever existed on the planet, over 99% are said to have vanished. likewise we find new species near daily around the world, thought to have or have no known history (new). by the way most all vanished well before man, much less mans activity.

the African elephant, which were killed for there tusk by natives, have evolved w/o tusk, also on the rebound. the panda bear would have long been gone w/o mankind. i think man has done well for the animals and plant life of earth. buffalo, wolfs, eagles etc...

now, if you think any one is not aware of the Global Warming Theory of Al Gore or his types, your being miss led. the loudest and longest voices will always be heard by the most, even believed by some. many however are trying to figure out just what is so wrong with a little longer spring-summers and falls, less heating requirements and all the things that have come from this horrible natural environmental event. when it cools again and it will, less golfing and pleasurable outdoor activity will cease, Al Gore and types will simply move on to some other of mans pleasure and attempt reclaiming notoriety and creditability by that means.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Originally Posted by Kolt

What makes you think our world is in crisis?

And you don't ?

you were not talking to me; but yes, i do think there are pending world crisis and real ones. global warming, cooling, CO2 or how i behave are not any of them. to base the future of mankind on such issues and ignore the real problems will elect the wrong leaders to all our nations.

Originally Posted by jackson33

the African elephant, which were killed for there tusk by natives, have evolved w/o tusk,

Jackson, that's crap, Elephants reduced to near extinction between around 1860 and 1960 (the greater damage) You are sugesting that The elephant has evolved without tusks in something like 150 years?

No.

Pandas long gone without man? - No Man removed virtually all the bamboo forest, where now rice grows. What books are you reading???

I'm sorry jackson, but i don't agree. There are thousands of studies around the world that support the theory that the earth is warming up quicker than it would naturally. I would just like to point out (to everyone) that just because the area you live in may have had a record warm/cold year or decade does not mean that the global warming theory is true or false, as it is the speed of the global temperature which is at question not local ones (hence the name).

And as for The P-manator poster, i think he's right to show it to us. But your (jackson) right to show us that many species have also had population fluctuations in the past with no influence from humans. Both arguments though, are invalid as the examples given are all local, there always has been and always will be small changes in small ecosystems that effect certain animals.

I know of Al Gore, but not what he has been saying, so i can't comment on that. The problem is if global warming does turn out to be true, the consequences will be terrible. If for example the north Atlantic gulf stream collapses, countries like Canada, Russia and northern Europe will become uninhabitable, southern Europe and central USA will struggle with extra people coming from the north and with their own food production and water supplies. Plus the extra heat (that normally goes up the Atlantic) will stay around the equator coursing major problems there. It will be a domino affect.

We still don't know whether it is a man make problem or a strange natural cycle (most agree it is going to happen), but we should be trying to do as much as we can to help the problem, better safe then sorry.

Cat; i don't question what you have seen. in the process, you have seen much of what i can say and back up, with their scientific views. for now I'll just use NASA's own findings, since they are somewhat on your side of the issue.

the NASA outpost on the Ant Arctic, as been cooling .6 degrees over each 10 year period or at a 6 degree pace over 100 years. ice on this virtual glacier has increased 13% in area, since first recorded by NASA in the 1980's. the overall southern hemisphere temperature has not budged and the northern is very slightly up. even the worst of the worst suggest the northern hemisphere has increased less than 1 degree over the past century.

the problem is "if it is true" is not of importance. the earth will warm and cool over time. it has been 13 degrees warmer or 15 degrees coolers than now, several times over the past billion years. many feel its in an overall warming period from the past mini ice age, 110k years ago, even considering the lessor ice periods 10k and 1k year past. it won't matter what is done.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by jackson33

the African elephant, which were killed for there tusk by natives, have evolved w/o tusk,

Jackson, that's crap, Elephants reduced to near extinction between around 1860 and 1960 (the greater damage) You are sugesting that The elephant has evolved without tusks in something like 150 years?

No.

Pandas long gone without man? - No Man removed virtually all the bamboo forest, where now rice grows. What books are you reading???

tusk-less male African elephants have always existed, they survived and now out number the ones with tusk. this from Paul Harvey, about 5-7 years ago and i really don't care.

yes, pandas seem to depend on bamboo and will eat little else. if something other than man, killed off all bamboo, all the pandas will be just as gone.

during a very cold spell in your area, when people would not eat potatoes many people died while potatoes were all around. the food chain no doubt has caused extinction in the past and i only suggested some examples.

Jackson,

I have just done some searching on-line and discovered this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

The implication to me is that as bull males have been killed for their tusks, these rarer males [tuskless] have had more opportunities to breed. Your figures may be well out but the 'phenomina' is real, Fascinating!

I am obliged to you.

MB

Originally Posted by The P-manator

I decided to post this here in Environmental Issues because we are trying to get people to realize that the world is in crisis and we have a big environmental problem coming up. Where better than Environmental Issues to post a poster about an organization fighting for the habitat of a well-known species - homo sapiens sapiens?

Sorry, I've been away from the computer for a few days. Otherwise I would have responded sooner.

So to P-manator Cat1981(England) or anyone who agrees, I will once more ask my original question.

Why do you think our world is in crisis?

We see a temperature rise, coincident with our use of fossil fuels, and decide we are destroying the planet, at best that is circumstantial evidence. Had the temperature and environment been constant over the last 100 millenia it would be more credible. Whether it is the cuase of the current climate change or not remains hotly debated. I subscribe to the belief that what man is doing is not the cause but, does not help the situation.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Jackson,

I have just done some searching on-line and discovered this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

The implication to me is that as bull males have been killed for their tusks, these rarer males [tuskless] have had more opportunities to breed. Your figures may be well out but the 'phenomina' is real, Fascinating!

I am obliged to you.

MB

ran short on time yesterday; play poker daily.

Paul Harvey, has got me in trouble before and most all he has said over the past 40 years comes from USA Today, according to his site.

i could not find many statistics to match, but according to
everythingpreschool.com, as you indicated mating habits changed which allowed tuskless males to come from 1% in 1930, to 30% currently. they also noted that near tuskless were also substantially up in numbers.

Kolt; what would you expect some one agreeable to say in response to your pointed question. the world may well be in crisis, but certainly not from GW.

there is nothing wrong with leading conservative lives, protecting species in need of protection or planting a tree now and then. we do all want clean water, fresh air and have desires to leave our kids and theirs a stable environmental planet. if we could control nature, there are many things that could be done, however we cannot do this at this time...

Mega; there are many things that have gone up, down or fluctuated with temperature and climatic changes. the primary difference today is, mankind has devised methods for self preservation, at least on much of the planet. the biggest link to environmental change, if abnormal, would be the 200% increase in humans over a 110 year period. however since the change is so little this factor, implies to my mind, how little effect we actually have.

i do not subscribe to mans influence on nature and feel very strongly that nature has already adapted to mans existence.

if any one denies this issue is politically motivated, watch the reactions to the US attempts to go 100% ethanol in the next few years. you will see reports on how this is bad for some thing or another. it will be no less heated then the CO2 issue is now, calls for big business or governments to do...whatever this issue will be.

I know I'm new, but I have a hard time thinking of a large apex predator that is omnivorous and exists in all areas from pole to pole and has a population over 6 billion world wide is Endangered or anywhere close to extinction.

If we lost 3 billion people tomorrow, in 50 years you wouldn't be able to tell other than by looking at recovery rates among the other apex predators.

I admit the first year would smell pretty bad...what kind of greenhouse gases do you get from 3 billion rotting corpses?

None that isn't already in the ecosystem. Perhaps we should give people a can of lynx each, that should stop the smell.