I agree somewhat, but if you think of a worst-case scenario, what happens? We're left with domesticated animals, and uncontrolled plant growth.
Plant growth actually means that we would have more oxygen, and plants are generally fairly easy to get rid of (as seen by the destruction of entire rainforests).
There would be some major ecosystem balancing to be done, no doubt. The same river the Chinese river dolphin used to live has lost 1/10 of its fish population thanks to pollution, which is what killed the dolphin. Take out a large predator, you have a growth of prey, but even that would eventually balance out as the food source for it left.
It would, eventually, balance out. That's why when we lose a large species like the wooly mammoth or several species of tigers, we don't really notice an impact.
I think that, on a whole, animal species are much less important than we seem.
BUT.
I want them around. If not for the fact that we could learn so much from studying animals, to the very simple pleasure of watching them. There's no way that I would even want to live on a planet without animals.
I love forests, I love animals, I love walking outside and breathing without ruining my lungs with pollutants. I believe in public transportation, turning out the lights, conserving energy and planting trees. My future house is going to be covered with plants and I hope to make it a haven for any number of birds and deer and what have you.
And as a biologist, I really can't express how sad it makes me feel to know that we're so self-centered, we can't cut back production and pollution to save an entire species. In a weird way, that's why I'm so against the Kyoto Protocol.
I think that environmentalists are pushing in the wrong direction. We should be pushing forward, not stopping altogether. If you stop altogether, as the Kyoto Protocol would pretty much guarantee, you not only bring the economy (and scientific advancement) to a crashing halt, but you let developing countries like China and India pollute more than developed countries.
I mean, if you think about it, we're actually moving in the right direction. I just watched a show about a building in Manhattan that actually cleans air and releases it back into the atmosphere, collects rainwater, and uses a natural cooling system.
And if we push forward, maybe we can use hydrogen and biofuel in a way that's better than gasoline.
I know a lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying, or misinterpret my intentions, but I'm just as environmentally conscious, perhaps more so, than most people. I just have a different opinion on how to get there: and I think that by looking at things plainly, we'll be more affected.
If people are saying "This will happen", and then it doesn't, you tend to mistrust them. If you say, "This is the worst case scenario", such as there being no animals, people might step back and think, "I don't want that." It's not dire to our survival, but it's a luxury. And if the civilized world knows anything about anything, it's luxury.
no subject
Plant growth actually means that we would have more oxygen, and plants are generally fairly easy to get rid of (as seen by the destruction of entire rainforests).
There would be some major ecosystem balancing to be done, no doubt. The same river the Chinese river dolphin used to live has lost 1/10 of its fish population thanks to pollution, which is what killed the dolphin. Take out a large predator, you have a growth of prey, but even that would eventually balance out as the food source for it left.
It would, eventually, balance out. That's why when we lose a large species like the wooly mammoth or several species of tigers, we don't really notice an impact.
I think that, on a whole, animal species are much less important than we seem.
BUT.
I want them around. If not for the fact that we could learn so much from studying animals, to the very simple pleasure of watching them. There's no way that I would even want to live on a planet without animals.
I love forests, I love animals, I love walking outside and breathing without ruining my lungs with pollutants. I believe in public transportation, turning out the lights, conserving energy and planting trees. My future house is going to be covered with plants and I hope to make it a haven for any number of birds and deer and what have you.
And as a biologist, I really can't express how sad it makes me feel to know that we're so self-centered, we can't cut back production and pollution to save an entire species. In a weird way, that's why I'm so against the Kyoto Protocol.
I think that environmentalists are pushing in the wrong direction. We should be pushing forward, not stopping altogether. If you stop altogether, as the Kyoto Protocol would pretty much guarantee, you not only bring the economy (and scientific advancement) to a crashing halt, but you let developing countries like China and India pollute more than developed countries.
I mean, if you think about it, we're actually moving in the right direction. I just watched a show about a building in Manhattan that actually cleans air and releases it back into the atmosphere, collects rainwater, and uses a natural cooling system.
And if we push forward, maybe we can use hydrogen and biofuel in a way that's better than gasoline.
I know a lot of people misunderstand what I'm saying, or misinterpret my intentions, but I'm just as environmentally conscious, perhaps more so, than most people. I just have a different opinion on how to get there: and I think that by looking at things plainly, we'll be more affected.
If people are saying "This will happen", and then it doesn't, you tend to mistrust them. If you say, "This is the worst case scenario", such as there being no animals, people might step back and think, "I don't want that." It's not dire to our survival, but it's a luxury. And if the civilized world knows anything about anything, it's luxury.
afkslafj. My, but I did ramble on. I'm sorry.