Mother Earth
Out of context: Reply #49
- Started
- Last post
- 72 Responses
- DaveId0
JazX,
i don't generally go in for "mother earth" rants either, but as far as i know, most respected experts (academics, organizations, NGOs etc) involved in long-term environmental thinking advocate just that sort of emergency conservation.
for exapmple, in "the future of life" (by E.O. Wilson, one of the most important biologists of the 20th Century, and by no means an environmental radical) , he argues that the human race will only survive the current biodiversity botttleneck (next 100 years) if we radically change our behavior now.
this is coming from one of the most resptected scientists in the world.
i totally respect your position regarding co2, but it is only one factor in a system so complex that systems theory specialists wouldn't publically dare to make predictions. I'm not completely sold on the global warming argument either, but according to practically everone who looks at the data, and is qualified to make assesments (not counting various politically motvated diatribes) we either straighten things out, or it is indeed spanking time.
the scariest part is that silly threads like this is exactly where the battle is won or lost (half of us think there's no problem). It is our uninformed opinions that count when it comes to rallying political and economic support for what could be fairly painless solutions.
knee-jerk political bias is natural, but is the enemy of reasoned policy making.
it would only take $50 billion to secure every biodiversity hot-spot on the planet (according to Wilson, step 1 in ensuring long-term survival of our species), and we just spent how many hundreds of billions on a needless military campaign.
technically speaking, we are indeed probably fucked.
*apologies for a humorless rant