You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land.
Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years.
Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety.
Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time.
A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
Read it all
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/28/climate-change-fanaticism-is-all-about-government-power-reader-post/
Morg
.
12 comments:
Hi Morg,
You said:
"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity."
I say:
No the real arrogance is assuming that we can go on mistreating the planet (and its other inhabitants), without it eventually coming back to bite us.
Yes, as you so rightly point out, life will go on without us. But I'm afraid I would much prefer the human races to be part of the earth's future, rather than simply a small note in its history. We seem to have a chose; 8,12, 16 billion then famine and ultimate extinction within a few hundred years, or a slow and controlled reduction to a world population of around half a billion sustainable for many hundreds of thousands of years to come. I know what my preference is.
You said:
"A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines."
I say:
2010-100=1910.
Edward Anthony Jenner (17 May 1749 – 26 January 1823) produced and used the first vaccine.
Chyarles Babbage's analytical engine 1837
Karl Benz produced, and sold, a petrol driven horseless carriage in 1885
The Wright brothers, first flight 1903.
Louis Blériot first channel flight (bloody illegal immigrants) 1909.
Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
I think mans stupid enough to.
When the first atom bomb was tested, the scientists did not know if the force of the bomb could set the hemisphere on fire.
But they went ahead anyway...gambled with everyones life....and quite few times after that.
Who knows....Particle Accelerators anyone ? CERN.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
What did Oppenheimer say when he seen the first detonation "I have Become Death- Destroyer Of Worlds".
(Bagvhadgita) ?
Is it a case of Mad Professor Syndrome ?
We dont really know what the outcome will be..but hey..what have you got to lose.
Chris
We disagree about nothing here. "100 yrs" is just a convenient number, that's all (and it wasn't actually me who said it - did you follow the link?).
As for population - oh if only I dared express my views. Ever seen the film "12 Monkeys"?
My issue is how to get it down without anyone being priveleged. And half a billion is way too many.
And of course the planet's going to come back and bite us - it already is doing. For instance, did you know that there is now only about 10% of the fish in the sea compared to 100 years ago (it's near enough)? In my own lifetime I've personally seen the reduction of the fish in the sea in the waters around Anglesey, as a very small indicator to guage by.
The easiest way to tell if there is over-fishing by the average size of the catch. 40 years ago a 10lb Bass was nothing special - today it'll get you a picture in the local paper. When I was a boy I'd see Dolphin and Porpoises daily - now, never. Mind you - that has as much to do with filthy polluted water as anything else. I used to use a multiplier reel, necessitating laying the line with finger and thumb when spinning - had a small pile of sewage on finger and thumb every time. The Irish Sea is disgustingly filthy. It's also the most radioactive water in the world.
All to do with population levels - so why are we importing people by the millions?
Dear Silly Kuffar (17:33 hrs),
That atom bomb story is a popular myth, but totally untrue. The science describing the nuclear reaction involved was well understood, and fully tested, by 1945. Although I admit their knowledge about the medical effects of its fallout was limited. What was clear though was the potential cost, in allied lives, of invading the Japanese mainland.
As for the new accelerator at CERN, that transfers energy into subatomic particles (protons electrons etc) any release of energy, over and above that, would be the result of individual break-ups of these particles which would be minuscule.
Keep well
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Hi Morg,
In the early 1980's I dove the wrecks in the English channel regularly, and they teamed with life (Cod over 5ft were common). A few years ago I went back and was shocked at the drop in both size and numbers of fish on those wrecks. I think if it were just down to over fishing, other sea life (none edible) would have stepped in to replace the over fished species. But that didn't appear to be the case. I am not rejecting overfishing as a great threat to life in our seas, but I just think there must be other factors involved as well.
Hi Morg,
You said:
"All to do with population levels - so why are we importing people by the millions?"
I say:
How else is Mr Brown going to find people willing to vote for him?
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie8.shtml
Oppenheimer did'nt quote the Baghvadgita for nothing
Cern's looking for the Higgs-Bosun Particle or 'God' Particle.
Next you'll be telling me that Man Made Global warming exists.
http://www.64knights.com/components/history_lessons.htm
http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=6270
The carbon we burn was once life itself. We are liberating that life cycle from its entrapment in the Earth.
And to put this in perspective. Tell me, why in all the untold trillions of tons of carbon use man alone has burned into the atmosphere... Where is it?
Dr. Chris Hill: Why must you deny this?
Cern:
The higgs boson particle does not and never will exist. These guys when they operate cern,,, It does NOT release more energy than they put into it. Its the biggest white elephant and embarrassment man has ever been duped into paying for.
They have even said it crosses the time barrier therefore it stopped itself from working... Jeez! give us a break.
@Andy
Typical 'Mad Scientists ' ?
Dear Andy (16:13hrs),
You said:
"The carbon we burn was once life itself. We are liberating that life cycle from its entrapment in the Earth.
And to put this in perspective. Tell me, why in all the untold trillions of tons of carbon use man alone has burned into the atmosphere... Where is it? Dr. Chris Hill: Why must you deny this?"
I say:
Storing Carbon as: living plants, fossil deposits (ie coal oil etc), or in the oceans reduces the amount that is present in the atmosphere and that's the point. Carbon traps infra-red radiation, so when the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere increases the planet warms up. No one questions the basic science, or at least no knowledgeable person does.
Ignoring for the moment the possibility that cold fusion may become viable, the only long term solution to the Earth's problems is a reduced human population and the use of wood fuelled power stations. A controlled cycle of replanting trees cut down for fuel, would ensure that Carbon released from power stations would be captured in the newly planted forests. It's important to realise the aim is to reduce the Carbon in the atmosphere not to excluded it completely.
Then you went on to say:
"Cern: The higgs boson particle does not and never will exist."
I say:
How can you possibly say that?
It may not exist, but if it isn't found when the theory predicts it should be, that theory will then have been falsified and new ideas to replace it can then be postulate. And yes the Higgs Boson is predicted by a theory (the electroweak theory) which has been tested and shown to be at least creditable (a theory by definition can never be proved, but it can be falsified).
From
Chris Hill
(Lancaster)
Post a Comment