cheetah

Yet, man, as insignificant as our time on earth has been, has affected this planet more significantly than any other species, ever. More like on the order of events like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. So the concern is 1. Should we, as insignificant as we are, be causing such changes (we won't classify them as good or bad, since indeed, the world has gone through many changes over the billions of years) on the planet? and 2. Such changes may actually be bad for US. Should we be concerned that changes we cause will pose problems for the survival of current species, such as Homo sapiens, or do we not care and simply know that other, new species will fill the niches that are created?

Council

I can see your point.

Where I'm coming from is in the grand scheme of things. I really don't see man as having that great of an impact on this planet. Some attribute things like global warming, ozone depletion and other such events to mankind. This is where I do not agree. Tempratue fluctuation has been occuring for billions of years. Ozone has been both created and destroyed by the sun for billions of years. I also believe that we continue to evolve. Thousands of generations from now, our entire nutritional needs may be changed completely.....perhaps in what we consume, the quantity our bodies need to sustain healthy lives, and the combination of both factors.

Of course, the odds of another catastrophic meteor hit is far more likely.

Silent Acorns

OK, I'm going to put on my "Resident Infidel Hydrologist" cap for a moment and clear a few things up about water.

1) Groundwater takes a long time to recharge, how long depends on the local geology, but it can easily be 100s to thousands of years for deep aquifers. As a result, many ground water resources are effectively non-renewable at human time scales.

2) If you look at the global numbers there appears to be plenty of freshwater in the world. The problem isn't the total ammount of water, it's the fact that most of it is nowhere near where we want it to be. In many areas the combination of population growth and pollution are putting an ever increasing strain on local water resources. You have to remember that it is really expensive to move water thousands of miles, especially in the volumes that it is needed.

3) simply recognizing that we have the technology to clean polluted water is not the same thing as actually cleanning up the water. This technology is usually energy intensive, expensive, an/or slow.

4) lake and river water is NOT self-renewing. They only renew if precipitation continues to fall upstream, and even if it does it doesn't help much if the water is polluted by upstream users.

5) In the forseeable future, potable water will decrease and populations will rise, resulting in more and more areas suffering from water scarcity. But since water supply is fundementaly regional in nature, water shortages will be a regional problem - not a global one.

cheetah

Well, with all due respect, but this is hardly an issue for opinions. Whether man has had a great impact on this planet as compared to other species is quantifiable. And not just with regard to global warming, which though it may appear to be opinion, still suffers from a lack of convincing scientific evidence which could lead us to more information, but it's not something to just have "an opinion" about (By all means, do, but understand the truth of the matter can be studied whereas other things like is the color green pretty is simply opinion).

Scientific evidence is also pointing at the fact that human encroachment and use of resources is causing a mass extinction episode among other species. Considering we have only about 1%, I think, of species identified, we don't even know how many species we are killing off.

The question is not whether humans are having an effect on the planet. They most certainly are, as I mentioned before, to extents never seen before. The question is how nature will respond. The previous 5 mass extinction events occurred over approximately 5 million years on average (i.e. over about 5 MY 95-99% of species on the planet died), and humans have been having this impact for only a couple hundred years! Are we sure nature can deal with that? A cycle created by us for nature to deal with is a lot different than the cycles that normally occur. We think of teh asteroid(s) as traumatic event(s), but again, it took 5MY (approx) for the majority of the species to die off, also affording time for mutation of some species. The vast unknown is what is scary here, and again, we need to evaluate whether or not we care that we may be creating an inhospitable environment for ourselves and other species. It seems to be our natural instinct would be to prevent natural cycles from taking place that would create an inhospitable environment for ourselves and the species we depend on. But, that takes altruism on a grand scale.

Fire Jack

I was looking around for information on the prius 2 (the hybrid car) and I found this really neat site. Whats even more exciting is the new batteries he mentions, the 50kWhr LiS battery pack. This could revolutionize electric cars. Think how much nicer it would be to live in a city with no smog, every car runs silent and clean. TI will be a long long time from now but stuff like that shows that it is possible. If you follow the link he mentions 500 Wh/kg, apparently allowing a car to travel farther just on the battery than a full tank of gas. That would be cool.

Council

Sorry about that, cheetah. It seems we were talking past each other on one point. I totally agree with you that man has had the most impact on the environment presently, as compared to other species.




(Watch someone else come along and prove that some insect or bacteria earns that dubious title. )

paul30

Dear Fire Jack:

I do not agree about nukes. They are not clean.

The waste from existing (and quickly dying) plants is already beyond our capacity to spore.

Derec

They are much cleaner than fossil plants, especially coal.
And even so-called regeneratives are not 100% clean.

Quote:

The waste from existing (and quickly dying) plants is already beyond our capacity to spore.

Problems with nuclear waste are mostly those of politics, not technology.

UMoC

echidna

Seems like nothing comes easy in the energy game. Even Victoria’s attempts to increase wind farm capacity are being opposed by tourism & those resisting its visual impact on coastal environments.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articl...6683902874.htm ... and ... http://www.theage.com.au/text/articl...6683902877.htm I remember visiting the Orkney Islands north of Scotland a few years ago with friends, one of them being the one who works for Sustainable Energy Victoria. Damn, so windy you could barely stand up at times, so imagine his bitter frustration when we visited a massive turbine standing stationary in the gale. Orkadians (residents of the Orkneys) collectively voted against wind power because of its visual (and noise) impact on an island which receives most of its income from tourism.