next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Steve, Yes, I was talking about the extreme. Long before the earth is actually engulfed by the sun, temperatures will rise and drive off all the water. It will be all over. Of course, that is a long, long way off. The extinction of large mammals in North America after the end of the last glaciation is blamed on human activity. Humans also killed off flightless birds in many parts of the world. As for the prediction of mass human deaths in Africa, this is to be expected more from overpopulation than from global warming. It may happen without any climate change. —Paul On Jun 11, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Stephen Shaw wrote: > Hi Paul, > Interesting opinions, but under point (4), apart from the > religiously-backed > Armageddon-sayers, I hadn't heard anyone seriously make the extreme > claim that > "the planet itself is not sustainable, but will be destroyed in the > end, with > all life on it", at least not in the near term which appears to be > what you > mean. In the ultra-long term, the several astronomers on this > network will be > able to tell us when the sun is likely to have expanded to red giant > status and > to have gobbled us up which will surely achieve this end, but I > think that this > is currently projected to happen several billion years down the > road, not in > the near term. > > As a result of projected global warming, water shortages, political > interference > (e.g. Zimbabwe, Burma) but predominantly because of continuing > massive human > population expansion, it is likely that many parts of the world will > experience > increased famine based on unsustainable agricultural food production > in the > near future, and that the resulting human deaths will accelerate > into numbers > not seen yet even in the earlier Ethiopian crisis. The extinction > of current > animal and plant species that is already evident is bound to > accelerate also: > some scientists have suggested that we are now at the start of a > global mass > extinction period like those that have happened before several times > in Earth's > history, but for the first time this one will have been precipitated > by human > interference and competition. > > Even so, no-one reputable has suggested as far as I know that all > life will > disappear as a result -- even after the great Permian extinction in > which >90% > of then-current species reputedly disappeared, life bounced back and > subgroup > richness eventually increased even more. The corollary, though, is > that this > process of evolutionary replacement took many millions of years, and > the new > groups that emerged were not the same as the old. Once gone, the > gorilla, > tiger and the U.K. Large Blue* and their particular genes are not > coming back > in the same form. > Cheers, > Steve > *added for entomological colour -- butterfly now reintroduced from > mainland > Europe, but is it exactly the same species, same genes? > > > Quoting "Paul S. Boyer" <psboyer@eastlink.ca>: >> Some points on the global warming issue.... > .... 4. There are also bad principles which go largely unquestioned in >> this discussion, which show the complete lack of economic >> understanding by the public, and even by people otherwise well >> educated. Two of these are: the sustainability argument, and the >> precautionary principle. >> >> There are very few resources in the world which are truly >> sustainable indefinitely. In the long run, the planet itself is >> not sustainable, but will be destroyed in the end, with all life >> on it. It makes no sense to eschew non-sustainable resources: >> just the opposite. Economic analysis shows that the most rational >> policy is to use resources, even non-sustainable ones, and the >> sooner the better. When considering sustainability, one must >> always take into consideration the time frame: products made from >> plants are classed as sustainable, but what about the soil from >> which those plants grow? How long will it last? > >
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects