Global Warming

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme. : I didn't say you were wrong about the fact that whole rafts of animal life have become extinct for reasons with nothing to do with mankind. I said you were indifferent. It seems to me that what went on before the advent of man isn't really helpful to a discussion about man's contribution to global warming, even if I am blaming him for things you don't agree with. In the context of the discussion at the point it had reached (I had suggested mankind was doing only harm), you appeared to say, So what? Shit happens to justify mankind's indifference. If you were simply stating that more species have died out since life began on the planet than have died as a result of mankind's activities, I have already conceded the point, and do so again. Mankind was not to blame for that.

My point is, we know better, or should know better, than to allow it where we can stop it. Out of self-interest if not compassion

And you have pointed out some instances where we have done good to the world. That does weaken my case, but I don't think it's enough to defeat it. Most developments were for mankind's benefit, and any improvement to the planet was incidental.

Thorne: My point is ...

... that kind of environmental pressure can, and does, lead to natural extinctions.

Of course that happens. You are quite right. But since mankind has come along, in fact, since industrialisation, he has extinguished them far more efficiently.


... 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 ...

Just because we are at the top of the evolutionary tree, so to speak, does not mean we have more right to be here than those lower down. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. That includes cute pandas. Because we are aware of their plight, and if it is within our power to do so, we have a duty to save them by not destroying their natural habitat. Even if that means foregoing ... um ... foregoing bamboo shoots.

The way you speak makes me think of a plague of humanity spreading over the planet destroying or subsuming all in its path. Just think of it. Mankind, a pestilence of greater than biblical proportions! If your attitude is prevalent (as I fear it might be) then the future you described in an earlier post - of the planet surviving after mankind has gone - is a bleak one. The only life to linger on after mankind's passing might be bacteria.


... look how well we did in Viet Nam ...

The reason the Western forces aren't doing too well in Asia is (a) because we are fighting against well-armed groups of terrorists/freedom fighters (we armed them while they were freedom fighteres) and (b) because we know the rest of the world is watching, and we don't want to be seen "digging the knife in." (In Viet Nam, for example, USA could have won at any time it liked, but for its fear of the consequences, and eventually, it simply gave up fighting.) But when push comes to shove and when the end justifies the means, I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA, UK, and even Canada and Australia (not to mention Russia and China) to fight dirty to ensure they come out on top. Hiroshima will look like a trial run. And even if nations have disintegrated into cities or tribes, the ones in the west will be best equipped to survive. It doesn't matter how slow to get of their arses they are, they will prevail by fair means or foul.

Good luck to you and your kids, and to me and mine if and when it happens. No-one will be laughing then.


TYWD