1. Apologies to Thrall - sincerely meant. And to you, too, Thorne. An inexcusable lapse on my part.

2. You have a point about ants and grazing herds, and the consequent effect upon the food chain. At least, at first sight you do. As you say, grass grows again after the herds move on. So no harm done there. But if it doesn't, what would stop grass growing? Drought? Not an animal. Asteroids? Not animals. An Ice Age? Inanimate.

Predatory action? Possible - occasionally, and as you have pointed out, Nature will balance that out pretty quickly. Mankind? Ahhh ... there you go.

Ant colonies are outwith my firm knowledge and experience, apart from a nest beneath my patio. They are certainly undermining that. Eventually, I suppose they could undermine my whole house. However, I venture to suggest that whatever they get up to, it does not leave a permanent scar on the face of the planet, and even if it does, it pales into insignificance compared to what just one industrialised city ... no, even that comparison is pointless. I think ants are way behind mankind when it comes to planet destruction.

3. Yes, I concede, Ozme was right - species do come and go. But that misses the point. Just because it happens for other reasons does not ameliorate mankind's negligent or wilful destruction of the many, many known species and untold numbers of unknown ones. As noted above, asteroids, ice ages and other natural disaters are not animal. Mankind is animal, and sentient, and. most importantly, conscious of the effects of what he does. Furthermore he is not instictively compelled to destroy his environment. He is just out of control. So, although Ozme was right, I was righter.

4. I cannot believe that we, who are talking of and preparing ourselves (however inadequately) for whatever comes, will be unable and unwilling to take advantage of the poverty and weakness of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with a final catastrophe. Do you really believe that millions and millions of bemused and half-starved, AIDS-ridden wretches with no resources, no life expectancy and no protection can outlive us who are far fewer in number, calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people who already control all the resources that matter? They can barely survive when we do throw a few crumbs their way? Surely, those closest to the edge will be the first to go over it.

It's a dreadful thought, but maybe that's why Western governments are so mean with international aid ... No - they wouldn't be that callous, would they?

But don't run away with the idea that Westerners can't live of the land - they can, or they will quickly learn. Homo sapiens is and always has been a scavenger par excellence and has thriven on being one.

The thing to remember is, barring a catastrophe which sterilizes or even destroys the entire planet, chances are that pockets of humanity will survive. We are like that. We can acclimate ourselves to harsh environments. We can survive in places where more specialized creatures cannot. That is our greatest achievement. Agreed. And we shall do so, even at the expense of others of our own kind, the planet, and everything in it.


TYWD