Quote Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo View Post
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.
My point is that any group of animals will utilize their resources to as great an extent as possible. And it may not even be that group which will suffer, but those groups who follow behind.
Let's postulate a large herd of herbivores, say zebras, feeding in a rich, but relatively small grassland area. After a period of time they have devoured all the food in the area and move on to another site. Next comes a herd of, say, gazelles, moving on from their last feeding grounds and moving into this currently devastated area. There's not enough food for them here so they must keep moving. But how many will die because of the lack of food. And if they happen to keep following the herd of zebras they could really be in trouble. True, it's not exactly an extinction, but that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.

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.
It's not a question of whether species are destroyed by other animals or by natural disasters. Sure, mankind is prolific in his destruction of animal and plant life. But it's my contention that the vast majority of those species were so specialized and so dependent upon a very narrow ecological niche that they would die off sooner or later anyway. And if we can improve the lives of millions of people by destroying the habitat of a small, almost extinct species, then I say, go to it!
Panda's are a good example. They are so specialized that they can only survive on ONE kind of food. Over the centuries mankind has encroached upon their territory for his own needs. Now the panda's are on the verge of extinction. Setting aside their apparent cuteness, what loss to the world if they are gone? Of course, if we can come up with some good recipes, maybe we can use them as a food source. That would pretty much guarantee their survival as a species. Not too good for the individuals, but the species goes on!

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.
Oh, certainly. They won't be a bit of trouble. Just look how well we did in Viet Nam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They don't stand a chance against us. The problem is that we "calculating, plump, long-lived and healthy people" are not likely to get up off our asses until it's far too late.

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.
I didn't mean to imply that Westerners can't live off the land. Some can, undoubtedly. Most can't, at least not easily. Some will learn, no question. Most will not, at least not in time. Many will survive, for a time, by stealing what they can from those who have what they want. Soon, though, that supply will run out, too. Then those scavengers will die as well. Or they will die trying to steal, killed by others protecting what they have.

For my own part, I don't see any of these major changes happening within the next 20 years or so. Chances are I'll be long gone by the time they happen. If not, then chances are I'll be one of the first casualties, because I doubt that I could "scavenge" enough to survive. I don't know that I'd want to.

As for my kids, I've done what I could do to get them through childhood. My life has not been difficult, I know, but I like to think that their's was somewhat easier. They will get whatever is left over when I'm gone and I hope it helps them. But the future belongs to them, now. They must deal with it as best they can. Virtually every generation since the dawn of time has concluded that their children were out of control, a menace to civilization. I hope I've taught mine better than that. They're good kids. I think they'll do well.

As for the rest of the world, and all those endangered species that 90% of the world never heard of, the hell with 'em if they can't take a joke.