BuffettNews.com

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

stupiity of man, mankind...greed...there's a variety of things involved..

in the final analysis, who is that really loses?

I would like to think that we're all concerned, but, as evident here, not all of us are....

personally, I like to think that apart from the music, being concerned with the environment, all aspects of it, is what makes us parrotheads....

there's gotta be more to it than just tailgating and drinking, it certainly wouldn't set us apart from the general populace..if that were all it was

rereading what is required to be a sanctioned parrothead club pretty much says the same thing...


(I'm on my daughters lappy, it's an apple, I don't know how to highlight)

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

Inability to adapt to changing ecological, environmental and situational standards.

I understand that humans have played a huge part in the extinction of animals, but humans are not the only culprits.

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

Inability to adapt to changing ecological, environmental and situational standards.

I understand that humans have played a huge part in the extinction of animals, but humans are not the only culprits.

interesting...please elaborate...

longlinergirl wrote:

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

Inability to adapt to changing ecological, environmental and situational standards.

I understand that humans have played a huge part in the extinction of animals, but humans are not the only culprits.

interesting...please elaborate...

Animals that are unable to adapt to changing environemnts will become extinct that has been the way of life on this earth since before humans were around. In fact, I would wager that more animals have gone extinct due to their inability to adapt than humans have ever caused.

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

Inability to adapt to changing ecological, environmental and situational standards.

I understand that humans have played a huge part in the extinction of animals, but humans are not the only culprits.

interesting...please elaborate...

Animals that are unable to adapt to changing environemnts will become extinct that has been the way of life on this earth since before humans were around. In fact, I would wager that more animals have gone extinct due to their inability to adapt than humans have ever caused.

Unfortunatley enough touching has been passed from us through to the environment that separating which species we've influenced vs which we didn't is difficult at best. But as we know we pay particular attention to those we thngs we can see vs those things only seen through a microscope, the latter is the biggest threat to mankind.

bumper wrote:Unfortunatley enough touching has been passed from us through to the environment that separating which species we've influenced vs which we didn't is difficult at best. But as we know we pay particular attention to those we thngs we can see vs those things only seen through a microscope, the latter is the biggest threat to mankind.

Of course we have influenced the environment. Even if we did not want to and tried actively to prevent it, there is no way we could not affect the environment. We are part of the environment.

Not sure what you meant by your last sentence. Are you saying that we do not pay attention to microscopic things and that those are the biggets threat? Or that we only take care of things we can see without aid, and that failure to look after samll things is the threat?

bumper wrote:

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:

green1 wrote:

longlinergirl wrote:How bout looking at other things that cause animals to become endangered...overdevelopment, ruining of the Everglades, pollution...its not only whaling, or commerical, or recreational fishing, or overhunting...

Inability to adapt to changing ecological, environmental and situational standards.

I understand that humans have played a huge part in the extinction of animals, but humans are not the only culprits.

interesting...please elaborate...

Animals that are unable to adapt to changing environemnts will become extinct that has been the way of life on this earth since before humans were around. In fact, I would wager that more animals have gone extinct due to their inability to adapt than humans have ever caused.

Unfortunatley enough touching has been passed from us through to the environment that separating which species we've influenced vs which we didn't is difficult at best. But as we know we pay particular attention to those we thngs we can see vs those things only seen through a microscope, the latter is the biggest threat to mankind.

that's for darned sure...are we to end up like something out of a B movie sci fi channel, wearing protection from others everywhere we go...

hmm protection, some things comes to mind...

I think pogo had it correct...

Moonie wrote:
but, I guess there are those that wouldn't mind...

Your passive aggresive tones are irksome.

green1 wrote:

Moonie wrote:
but, I guess there are those that wouldn't mind...

Your passive aggresive tones are irksome.

geen...I don't know where you get that from...you cannot deny that there are those that have no concerns whatsoever about the environment or the loss of flora or fauna...

it's quite evident...

you can lay off the passive/agressive gobbledegook..OK?

you are assuming that I'm referring to people here at BuffettNews...that's just not the case

you do know about making assumptions...

I realize I got to this party sort of late. Here’s a couple of links to check out if you are REALLY interested in seeing what human impact has had on the Planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_(book)

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/about/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/


My perspective is man does have significant impact on the environment. If you take only a few minutes and look at the impact of the Urban Heat Islands relating to air quality and smog formation, you’ll see they only occur because of development of otherwise green and natural spaces. Also, there are things man can do to mitigate much of their impact on the environment.

Tequila Revenge wrote:My perspective is man does have significant impact on the environment. If you take only a few minutes and look at the impact of the Urban Heat Islands relating to air quality and smog formation, you’ll see they only occur because of development of otherwise green and natural spaces. Also, there are things man can do to mitigate much of their impact on the environment.

I do agree that we affect the environment and we can, and do, affect it both directions. There are some people who pollute and there are others who prtoect. My take is that we are stewards of the planet simply to keep ourselves and our decendents alive. But being a steward does not mean over management. It means protecting species, but at the same time culling the herds if they get too bug. It means starting wildfires periodically so that the undergrowth gets cleared out so when a lightning strike occurs it does nto cause a firestorm. It also means that the people who build on flood plains or on cliffs over the water stand a fair chance losing their homes. And we do not need to bail them out. Likewise when you drain marshland you stand a good chance of losing everything when a massive storm comes in and has no place to dissipate it's strength.

I am not arrogant enough to believe humans can destroy this planet. it was here long before we walked it's face and it will be here long after the last human is gone. We may make it uninhabitable but we cannot destroy it.

green1 wrote:

Tequila Revenge wrote:My perspective is man does have significant impact on the environment. If you take only a few minutes and look at the impact of the Urban Heat Islands relating to air quality and smog formation, you’ll see they only occur because of development of otherwise green and natural spaces. Also, there are things man can do to mitigate much of their impact on the environment.

I do agree that we affect the environment and we can, and do, affect it both directions. There are some people who pollute and there are others who prtoect. My take is that we are stewards of the planet simply to keep ourselves and our decendents alive. But being a steward does not mean over management. It means protecting species, but at the same time culling the herds if they get too bug. It means starting wildfires periodically so that the undergrowth gets cleared out so when a lightning strike occurs it does nto cause a firestorm. It also means that the people who build on flood plains or on cliffs over the water stand a fair chance losing their homes. And we do not need to bail them out. Likewise when you drain marshland you stand a good chance of losing everything when a massive storm comes in and has no place to dissipate it's strength.

I am not arrogant enough to believe humans can destroy this planet. it was here long before we walked it's face and it will be here long after the last human is gone. We may make it uninhabitable but we cannot destroy it.

Well said Greeny

Of course we have influenced the environment. Even if we did not want to and tried actively to prevent it, there is no way we could not affect the environment. We are part of the environment.

I was responding to the statement below, it did not have a place in the discussion and you've agreed in the first line above.

In fact, I would wager that more animals have gone extinct due to their inability to adapt than humans have ever caused.



Not sure what you meant by your last sentence. Are you saying that we do not pay attention to microscopic things and that those are the biggets threat? Or that we only take care of things we can see without aid, and that failure to look after samll things is the threat?

Combination of both. Make E boli the size of an elephant and its ready observable, easier it is to see the easier it is to find.

bumper wrote:Combination of both. Make E boli the size of an elephant and its ready observable, easier it is to see the easier it is to find.

I am of two minds here, so bear with me for a second.

First. I think we need to find a vaccine for E Bola. But vaccines have their own risks. Potential hot batches were the virus is till virulent enought to cause an outbreak, the compounds used to keep the vaccines stable woutinely use mercury and aluminum both of which are linked to diseases such as parkinson's and autism. So where is the balance point. Plus with each new drug, anitbiotic and vaccine, diseases are evolving to check the advancement. There are now bacteria resistent to antibiotics.

Second. I disagree with your premise that people are not actively seeking out and studying microscopic things. I know you used E-bola but I believe you meant it to be more inclusive than that one disease. We have labs around the country and world studying microbes, viruses and chemical compounds looking for new diseases and new ways to cure dieseases.

I am not arrogant enough to believe humans can destroy this planet. it was here long before we walked it's face and it will be here long after the last human is gone. We may make it uninhabitable but we cannot destroy it.

That makes no sense, unhabitable vs what? nonexistent as in the earth no longer exist?

Second. I disagree with your premise that people are not actively seeking out and studying microscopic things. I know you used E-bola but I believe you meant it to be more inclusive than that one disease. We have labs around the country and world studying microbes, viruses and chemical compounds looking for new diseases and new ways to cure dieseases

Of course we do, I did not say we didn't. My point is we tend to pay attention to the things that are obvious to us, that which we can readily see, smell, hear or taste. I trust E bola can kill me, that I have no doubt but how can I fear that which my senses does not allow to identify as readily as a stampeding elephant

bumper wrote:I am not arrogant enough to believe humans can destroy this planet. it was here long before we walked it's face and it will be here long after the last human is gone. We may make it uninhabitable but we cannot destroy it.

That makes no sense, unhabitable vs what? nonexistent as in the earth no longer exist?

When the earth formed it was uninhabitable then it progressed and animals and plants developed. Then periodically there were cataclysms that wiped out almost all life. But that one spark remained and developed a new set of life, animal and plant. We could make this earth a glowing dustball and there woudl still be some life somewhere on it. And over time it would develop into complex life forms. We cannot destroy this planet, it is too massive. Even if all the nukes went off at once we would not destroy it. Humans would not exist, but the planet would.

Read the beginning of my post where you took this quote and you will see that I believe we are stewards of this planet simply for survival purposes. Not to preserve the planet.

bumper wrote:Of course we do, I did not say we didn't. My point is we tend to pay attention to the things that are obvious to us, that which we can readily see, smell, hear or taste. I trust E bola can kill me, that I have no doubt but how can I fear that which my senses does not allow to identify as readily as a stampeding elephant

OK, I understand what you are saying, but what is your point?