It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Earth on track for epic die-off, scientists say

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
[quote by JohnPhoenix]
Big Problem with this Post.

That only takes into account wild animals. We as a whole do not eat wild animals. The billions of pigs, cattle, chickens and other farm mass produced animals that feed us are in no danger at all believe me.

And domestic pets. My point is that if all the other animals die off it won't effect us much at all. We do not rely on wild animals anymore.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]

[End quote by JohnPhoenix]

JohnPhoenix you must think you are a great or smart man to not care about animals that can't be used as a pet by you or to feed your belly. You don't care if all of the animals die except those that you can use for your own personal satisfaction. That's what wrong with this world, people don't care about anything that they personally can't personally make a gain off of.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by RussianScientists]




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I didn't say the killing off of other species was good or bad but really Darwin doesn't either. Sure its survival of the fittest and the strongest will continue to pass on a more dominate survival trait to its kids while the weak will just die off and the passive traits will die with them.

That argument doesn't fit here though. Have you heard of symbiotic relationships or even just ecosystem balance? Just because something dies off because of another animal or species doesn't mean that it wont then have a negative effect on the species habitat that killed it.

Example:

A wolf pack kills off all the deer in the area because their population grew to big or they just ate too much one year. A few months later the wolf pack dies off because it now has no food source.

So yes we as humans could cause a negative change to the earth besides global warming and probably due to pollution that then could cause us to also die off because we didn't understand the widespread consequences of our actions.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


Problem is, Darwin never mentioned the strongest or the fittest - a common misconception that simply reinforces my previous point about you actually reading his work.

My original point remains, and apparently is not about to be rebutted except in a way that shows a lack of understanding.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


Problem is, Darwin never mentioned the strongest or the fittest - a common misconception that simply reinforces my previous point about you actually reading his work.

My original point remains, and apparently is not about to be rebutted except in a way that shows a lack of understanding.



You haven't even made a clear point and I was providing a overview not a quote of Darwinism. You didn't point out earlier that I hadn't read or understood Darwin either. You haven't provided a counter point or even your own points in a clear manner that is factual.

Stop trying to sidetrack and actual talk about the topic being discussed.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by whoshotJR
 


I'll say whatever I want thank you - it's pertinent to the subject and you have no right to tell me how to post.

My original point stands and you have said absolutely nothing to refute it.

On the other hand, you have shown arrogance and ignorance in equal measure.

If you have a problem with my posts or if you think that I have been off topic, then there's an alert button you can hit.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I think as any logical person would agree humans are bound to have an impact on the planet. Be it by means of industrialization or our role as top dogs over other species. But i think that impact is over exagerated in the grand scheme of things.

Lets not forget the planet has never before had a species like us. One that can adapt and develop at such a fast rate. So i think its safe to say all speculation is just that!

And at the end of the day, despite our great inteligence and adaptability we will never survive a meteor impact, super volcano or the multitude of unknown disasters that have preceeded our current dominance of planet earth. At the end of the day we are just animals. All animals go through population boom and busts........There are various ways this can happen but in the end it is a natural occurence and ne that our great adaptability will not save us from.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrabbit1
I think as any logical person would agree humans are bound to have an impact on the planet. Be it by means of industrialization or our role as top dogs over other species. But i think that impact is over exagerated in the grand scheme of things.


Fair point, but as I said, EVERY animal affects its environment - some more than others, admittedly, but we are far from alone in having a direct effect on the planet.




Lets not forget the planet has never before had a species like us. One that can adapt and develop at such a fast rate. So i think its safe to say all speculation is just that!


I think the insect world may argue with this point - if they had PC's and the net




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join