Thrall says: I get very tired of hearing this kind of argument [Man has done only harm to the planet]. Generally, those who put it forward forget that mankind is a part of nature. ALL life does harm in some way or another.

I'm sorry to be so tiring, but I doubt your generalisation is true: I'm sure the people I referred to were aware of their place in Nature and the planet's evolution. That is the assumption one has to make in the absence of evidence to the contrary, anyway.

And as for ALL life doing harm - maybe by eating other plants and animals, or building nests - but no other species that I'm aware of has industrialised the way mankind has, nor has any other species changed the face of the planet the way we have. And you admit this when you say that man is destroying the parts of Earth where we live (pretty much everywhere except the deserts).

I would go so far as to say (as pure conjecture, mind) that the degree of harm caused by mankind is far beyond that caused by all other species (including all human species before homo sapiens), past and present, put together.

But after disagreeing on where the blame lies or how much of it, Thrall and I do seem to have a similar outlook on where it'll all end if it carries on the way it is going. And as for blame? What does that matter - what's done is done. The thing is, must we carry on doing it? Is there another way for China to develop?



Ozme says: Species come and species go.

How indifferent is that? OK I guess a few -raptors polished off several different kinds of -suaruses. And maybe an unheard of breed of antelope is beyond our ken because the sabre-toothed tiger got to it first. And I've heard of an incident where a single cat was responsible for wiping our the entire population of (unique?) birds on a small island. But I think no other breed of animal is responsible for the extermination of so many other species as is mankind. (I suspect we were even responsible for the extermination of the neandthals, our cousins.)

Man comes and species go is perhaps a better way of putting it.


Now I know it's easy for us wishy washy western liberals to get all consciencious and say that we're burning too much fuel and we're eating way too much, and I recognise the inclination of the conservatives to believe in the law of "the survival of the fittest" (notwithstanding their hatred of Darwinism). But self-destruction ... how does that fit in? Are we truly going to throw ourselves over the cliff like so many lemmings (which really don't do that anyway)?

I suppose we can relax to some extent in the knowledge that, when you do look at things dispassionately, it'll be the Africans and South East Asians who will suffer most, and the profligate developed countries will then have plenty more room to expand into.

As we used to say in Britain, "I'm alright, Jack."


TYWD