But it is extremely very easy to realize the truth. Next time you eat, look at what you eat. Ask yourself how it was created. If it's meat, then it was some part of an anymal which was grown in controlled environment. Some industrial agriculture complex. However, that controlled environment is not what actually created the piece of meat you have on your plate. It is the food which the animal ate being directly responsible for creating the piece of meat on your plate. And where that animal's food came from? Most of it, we humans grew - be it corn, or rye, or soy; some of it, we humans caught in ocean - fish oil and fish floor. Or, if you're vegetarian, then, what you have on your plate, - is directly "grown or caught".
Unifying fact is, despite all the technological wonders, modern civilization still needs to _grow_ all the food we consume. There is no "synthetic food" (some scientific projects exist on that, but prospects are foggy and it's decades - at least, - before any mass production can start). Therefore, flora nd fauna of Earth is not just important - it's critically important for mankind (now and in observable future): without it, we won't have any much food to eat and, quite simply, will die (most of us) or even, extinct (all of us).
The latter statement is based on a fact that to grow even most simple agriculture staples, healthy ecosystem is required. Bees got to pollinate, microscopic fungi got to do their symbiosys with plants' roots so that green plants can get needed nutrients, various insects and small vertebrae predators got to keep green plants' parasites in check, and so on and so forth. For all those organisms to survive, the balance is needed. Increased droughts, floods, temperatures and all sorts of chemical pollution produced my us humans - unbalance ecosystems worldwide, including our own agriculture ecosystems (which by now is some 40%+ of Earth's land surface, by the way): some species are more tolerant to some of new factors, others are not, so some die out faster, while others are able to flourish as a result (when their predators die out).
As a consequence of the above, mankind nowadays have quickly increasing number of large problems in main frame agriculture: wheat and rice destroyed by exploding biomass of harmful (to those grains) fungi species, corn suffering from droughts in US, the famous problem with bees unable to pollinate well anymore, and so on.
As a result, despite massive further improvements in agriculture productivity (all the recent "wonders" of genetically engineered crops, computerized logistics, increasingly efficient agriculture machinery etc), global yield of crops during last decade was slowing its growth, and in 2012, global grain harvest was less than global grain harvest of 2011. World's food reserves are at record lows, as we speak - sufficient for less than 2 months of current consumption.
Climate change progresses as we speak. Melt of most ice above shallow arctic continental shelves during june-july - maximum insolation months - which already started and will be practically completed in about 7...12 years by optimistic estimate; this will greatly increase already massive methane emissions from seabed methane clathrates, and methane being 70+ times more potent greenhouse gas over a decade after its release (IPCC estimate, conservative) accelerating further increase of methane release in the region, we'll have truly run-away process. Global thermal inertia and currently present (but inevitably to disappear at some point) man-made aerosol (i.e. smoke and such) dimming of the athmosphere on top, it is very likely we'll see +4 degrees celcius world even before 2050. This will reduce crop yields worldwide by a factor of 5 or so, i suspect; in many regions, growing crops will simply become impossible (see professor Dai works about future PDSI and compare projected values with the great dust bowl during 1930s in US - which forced all farmers of most affected regions to flee, because nothing was growing).
The illusion of power which many humans have today, seemingly including, sadly, humans who are the most influential and powerful in so-called "developed" countries, - is not just dangerous; apparently, it's a death sentence to most of us now alive.
The main problem of almost every trader is the thoughts that trading is game or it's easy money. Before profitable trading you should learn a lot about this field. So, even don't try to trade with real money. You can learn how to make real money from this course ( http://forexsignal.kyma.info ) Second, you should choose the right broker. There are some brokers that plays against their own clients. So, your main goal - find good broker. Third, yo can generate more profits with automated trading software. As you maybe know, there is a lot of different scammers on trading market so it will be hard to find really profitable trading system. That strategy brings me a lot of money every month, all thanks to the course that I posted above. Hope you will follow my recommendations, bye!
1. This is only indirectly a question about global warming. Another category may be more relevant.
2. Endless economic growth is a myth to begin with. Just ask people who invested in property or the stock market in 2007.
3. Unless a reasonable degree of biodiversity is preserved, the economic outlook will be much more like "endless economic decline."
It's extremist to believe that we are destroying the planet just as much as it's extremist to believe we have no impact on the planet.
People don't pursue economic growth they pursue survival and once that is accomplished they pursue happiness. In developed nations we do not ignore climate change, we've become fair at mitigating climate impact but we could do better. That means utilizing the resources we have, developing newer better ways to do things, and improving infrastructure. The government role in this should be to ensure we aren't doing it at the detriment of our survival, we are all playing by the same rules, and mainly stay out of the way of innovation.
In underdeveloped nations most of the population is working on the survival part and the governments seem to be ignoring the development of infrastructure because they're too busy lining they're own pockets in pursuit of happiness, and the survival of their people suffers because of regular reoccurring climate impacts. This is why, alarmist are able convince someone living on a flood plain in India that Western Civilization has destroyed the climate which is causing them to have to live with flooding. I know alarmist like to think they're helping these people cope with natural disasters by telling them it's not their underdevelopedness that's the problem it's the development in other nations that's causing the problem.
Each generation humans event new things. The more technologically advanced humans become, the more dumb they are. People are so comfortable with their ways that when time comes to pass when everything breaks down, people will panic. If there is no plant life, species will die.
Let's start with the basic.
Water = Life
Plants need water, carbon dioxide and sun to survive.
Herbivorous need plants and water to survive.
Carnivorous need animals and water to survive.
Omnivorous need plants, animals, and water to survive.
Animal gives out Carbon Dioxide to plants. Plants give out oxygen.
If there is no water, than there is no plants, if there is no plants, than there is no oxygen, if there is no oxygen than there is no growth. No water+no plant+no animal = no assistance.
I hope that sums up.
With Respect,
- Kurumu
P.S. - If there is less human population and even out with the animals, than the environment equals out. Which will give earth to keep it's ablillity to support life and not have to go through a constant change. Those who mate to reproduce in a proper form are more acceptable than those who do not.
Well, the problem is that many people fail to acknowledge the economic benefits of biodiversity. Currently there are many scientists and organizations attempting to place exactly the sort of dollar-values you suggest on local ecology.
A good example is in pharmaceuticals. Much of modern medicine is based on chemical agents we found in plants, or on species of bacteria that naturally synthesize compounds useful to us. Destroying biodiversity has a definite impact on the future costs of manufacturing drugs or developing new drugs. If we damage insect populations, then that has a definite effect on the costs of crop production.
I personally think that we're heading for some significant problems. Take viruses, like Ebola or avian flu for example. As we cram more people per square mile, over-prescribe antibiotics, and keep animals together in great numbers to feed us, we're slowly creating the opportunity for nasty bacteria and viruses to gain a foothold. These little guys can evolve quicker than we can generate defences so I honestly believe we're going to receive a rather nasty smack-in-the-mouth from mother Nature. It's only a question of when. Spanish flu killed 50 million people at the beginning of the 20th century. Black Death decimated the European population. We're already finding bacteria resistant to virtually all our antibiotics. So, in a nutshell, everything we know tells us that nature WILL fight back and we'll learn the lesson too late for millions of people.
I believe bioscience is nearing a qualitative threshold in which extinction will be meaningless, as we will soon be able to synthesize (or resurrect) entire species from genome data.
Earths flora and fauna is much more resilient and adaptive than you think we are not causing mass extinctions as the MSN would want you to believe, but yes we need to do more, make more reserves and parks, areas where nature can flourish,
But I do not agree with the greens they would see people suffer and die out at the expense of nature.
50% of all human medical pharmaceuticals and 70% of the pharmaceuticals introduced in the last 30 years come from natural sources.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0320-drugs...
Be careful what you wish for.
gd
Have we reached a stage where human civilisation is now so powerful and important, that in fact the majority of flora and fauna on the earth are effectively worthless in comparison? Sure it's impossible to put a value on millions of years of plant and animal evolution. Sure it's impossible to put a value on complex ecosystems like coral reefs and rainforests. But isn't it also impossible to put a value on the thousands of years of human civilisation? Are we perhaps overlooking how mind-numbingly important humans are? Are we in fact completely justified in risking the extinction of thousands of other species, by for example, pursuing endless economic growth, and ignoring climate change?
What do you think?
I think that Western civilization has a big hubris problem.
I think you have been taught well by a pot smoking communist instructor.
!00% correct, (for a change)
