Sacrifice, Delusion and Climate

[saul]

Can humanity change Earth's environment? Or, are we too small?

Perhaps the author of this TPOD is referring to a specific type of environmental or climactic change, because otherwise the answer is obvious: Yes. Is pavement different from grass? Is desert a different climate than rainforest? What happened to the cedars of Lebanon? What happened to 90% of large marine life in the last 50 years? What happened to the topsoil in Iowa? Why does the mighty Colorado river no longer reach the ocean? Why is there a mass extinction event of rapidity equal to any observable in the geologic record going on right now? The answers to these questions do not depend so directly on the electrical connection with the sun or on cosmic ray fluxes.

[mharratsc]

I have to agree with you there, Saul. Whereas I'm not exactly happy with the methodology of trying to win the economy of the world away from those whom control petroleum (using CO2 production as a villain), our efforts to debunk AGW should not cause us to cast a blind eye to the damage we have wrought upon our ecosystem. :\

[Aristarchus]

Without the benefit of seeing the context for which the following quote comes from (viz), "Can humanity change Earth's environment? Or, are we too small?" - I might need more to ascertain the specifics. In other words, at what level can humankind change Earth's environment. I would think that all ecosystems are predicated upon change from any influx or effect of natural courses from any other species, catastrophe, or trauma.

"Too small" seems to be an assumption based upon humankind's significance or insignificance, which solely appears as a concept of our minds being counterintuitive to one that comports to reality. One is neither significant nor insignificant, but simply responsible for finding a purpose, and a genuine approach to the latter is assuming it on an individual level, not collectively that disregards individuality. Ergo, Humankind is merely part of the natural equation. On a side note, one of my favorite B movies from the 50's is The Incredible Shrinking Man. As the man reaches the stage of becoming smaller into the single cell and sub particle realm, he realizes that he is on an exciting venture into the infinite. Thus, small or big are relative terms.

This does not exclude the uniqueness of humankind, but rather, a proper understanding of its role. Our planet is poorly managed by the humans, but this happens because individuals comply with the systems that are in place, especially an over confidence in technology. Our current dilemma arises from a false assumption that there is a causality to history, and Western civilization is a concatenation of all previous cultures/civilizations.

For example, the Colorado River doesn't reach the ocean because 80 percent of it is extracted for commercial farming, and the latter is dedicated to highly water needy agriculture, such as, alfalfa, cotton, and potatoes - low-valued crops

Once this civilization collapses, and it will collapse, because the universe probably doesn't see the logic of having the Jerry Springer Show continue ad nauseam, or the many variations of CSI with all its posers, the Colorado River will resume its flow to the ocean. Will our civilization affect some part of nature permanently? Probably. The Roman Emperor tried to protect the Cedars of Lebanon, but to no avail. Nature continues. One is still left with the responsibility of being.

We vote for the false dilemma arguments. We, as a group, are beholden to the system, but systems are living organisms that befall the same fate as the individual, i.e., death, and, in reality, death only represents change, but does it a little more drastically than birth. Otherwise, we would live in a universe of never ending CSI episodes. Truly hell, IMHO.

So, I suggest, relax, sit back, and enjoy watching the movie: Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

[GaryN]

I really do try to tread lightly on the land, leading an almost ascetic lifestyle, but I do think
George Carlin has a valid point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow