At the moment we can cut down the trees, burn the fossil fuels and empty the oceans because these resources are there. Imagine what life would be like if our ancestors that had depleted these resources. How would we get by without any oil or in a world where one of the main climatic and atmospheric regulators had been destroyed.
Our current greed and selfishness is creating problems further down the line, many of us won’t have to deal with the worst consequences but it will be something the future generations inherit from us, what a thoughtless legacy we’ll leave behind.
Judging by the small scale example of Rapa Nui aka Easter island, the prognosis for Humanity is not good.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter...
Many of the natural resources of the isolated island that should have been husbanded to sustain a growing population were apparently wasted in erecting public works of a religious nature.
Mother Nature make people pay the price good or bad in the long run an that you can take to the bank.
Frankly silly.
Should all humanity be executed because someone committed a heinous murder?
On the other hand, who can make that decision?
Specifically, who can decide against the will of those in authority/power?
It is possible we could do that and still survive, and create an artificial biome, but the world be a sorry place, it would be a huge loss.
If only the people who actually did those things were getting hurt, I'd be all for letting them taste the bitter fruits of their own labors.
If only the *groups* of people who did those things suffered (eg the wealthy nations that are using a disproportionate share of resources), I'd probably be OK with that, too, though less so.
But the harm caused by AGW and other environmental abuses is disproportionately falling on those who did very little or absolutely nothing to actually contribute to the problem in the first place. The poor, the disenfranchised, people in third-world countries who are just barely scraping by, and so on. And, of course, the environment. Elephants, chimps, gorillas, dolphins, and certain parrots may be as smart as we are (or at least close), and they shouldn't have to suffer for our mistakes.
So, no, we shouldn't just let it happen.
That's exactly what will happen.
Allowed by who? Or if not allowed, stopped by who?
If I were God, would I allow it? Probably not, why should I? But I am not God. Nobody else here is either.
I am not sure who God is or where he is or what he has been up to lately, but I am confident he is not posting Qs and As on Yahoo Answers.
Are you asking God?
Same problem. He won't answer here.
You might get someone who says that God tells him to drive a hybrid, recycle and keep the lights switch off when not needed. And them someone else who feels called by God to spend as much time as possible here, lying about science, in order to save the world from Al Gore, the Masons, the Man in the Hollow Reptilian Moon, and the international Kenyan Jihadist conspiracy of Marxist scientists.
I think God might be pleased if you learned to spell words such as consequences.
If you are asking whether it is a good idea to continue to do next to nothing to stop massive destruction of rainforests, overfishing, and addiction to fossil fuels, I would say, No. The problem is HOW to take such action, especially given that half the US Congress is bent on not doing so and determined to lie about science in order to rationalize their hand-in-sand position of denial and deception which helps them garner campaign funding contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
In other words, try again with a clearer and more meaningful question.
Should humankind be allowed to cut down all the rainforests, empty the ocean of fish and burn all the fossil fuels and suffer the conesquences....discuss?
