Quote:

---

White Beard said:
There are also polar bears, but I'm hoping they will evolve into sea bears.

---

Quote:

---

zzripz said:

Quote:

---

Not much else we can do but spread the word and try to buy less. Materialism/consumerism is what the world runs on. If suddenly no one bought anything, world economies would collapse.

---

Oh, is that so. So cause it is like it is everyone just gotta conform, is that it? Well as I can see it, I do not give a fuck that world economies could collapse because I would rather that than see nature collapse which is what will happen if this sorry shit continues!

---

Then get rid of everything you own and live in the mountains somewhere. If you do anything besides that then yes, you are "conforming". And yes you have to "conform" in some ways if you wanna get anywhere. Some people are truly happy in nature and are perfectly content living off the map. If your not, then you better start conforming

And don't worry, societies collapse before nature collapses. We would have to fuck up big time to ruin all life.

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
When folk who pretend to care about nature say that they really mean their particular cozy living environment

This is a point I try to make often but tree-huggers always seem to miss it.

One consequence of a warmer Earth and more CO2 is more vegetation growing in the Earth's forests and oceans. Since plants are more or less at the bottom of the food chain, more plants means more and better-fed animals who have less of a struggle to stay alive.

So, while global warming might be bad for ONE species on Earth that likes to build cities near the ocean, many (most?) other species will benefits from global warming and the abundance of vegetation it brings about.

Global warming is only bad for humans. The rest of nature will simply adapt and go on exactly like it has for billions of years. It amazingly arrogant to presume that the best ecology for humans is the best ecology for everything else that lives on Earth.

I'd prefer humans to not destroy the forests and to not force other species to go extinct

Why not? We'd be in good company.

Nature has caused five REALLY BIG extinctions (and many smaller ones) that wiped out as many as 75% of all species each time. Yet here were are again. The Earth is not a shrinking violet. It's 5 billion years old to our 100 thousand, and if history is any guide, it will still be here long after we're gone. Of all the species that have ever existed here, 98% have already been killed off by nature. At the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary alone (the one that killed the dinosaurs) 75% of all species were wiped out. We can't hold a candle to that even if we tried.

You are worrying about a single blade of grass getting stepped on by a human running from a giant lava flow that is wiping out an entire forest. The human is inconsequential. The Earth won't even feel an itch from our efforts. The arrogance of your statement is astonishing. Even all out nuclear holocaust will mean shit to the Earth in the grand scheme. A mere million years later (0.02% of the Earth's age) the radiation will be long gone and a whole new crop of species will thrive.

---

You make some good points. And now I realize mother nature will prevail over our destruction. Never the less, I believe it is in most peoples best interests to be more environmentally "friendly."
...
Humans are part of nature and I think living in a society that forgets that is unhealthy and is missing an important part of what makes us human. I don't want to live in a smog filled world where you never see birds or deer, only walmart and McDonalds. Humanity would be much happier if we could be closer to "nature". IMHO

Quote:

---

i like cow poo said:
Try not to eat too much meat, because cattle produce MASSIVE amounts of methane.

---

coming from a guy who likes cow poo