Tome said:
>>You must think continuums
(continua?), not "either-or"; bell curves and the right-wall curve of
evolution, not the total disappearance of the ecosphere. Worst case
scenario: there will be SOME ecosphere supporting bacteria and roaches,
despite us. (Biocentric viewpoints give us a handle to perhaps add to the
list.) Most likely some "individual communities" will survive.<<
What worries me is runaway warming. But I agree that it (the biosphere) might get
but end up as just a republic of rodents, grasses and roaches.
>>You are arguing the "Perfect Storm" argument.
The crash will not be perfect, not all communities will be wiped from the
face of the planet. <<
Homo sapiens is highly likely to be extinct. I don't think I'm alone in thinking
that. But even if it clings on somehow, there will not be any human culture left to
speak of. Human *society* will be extinct. I'm not sure what kind of lifestyle the
communities of survivors you speak of, can hope for.
>>The ecosphere is not going away, it is merely changing <<
Yes, anything is possible. But there is a danger of runaway warming.
>>Many will die. One does not have to be among the dead.<<
The problem I have with this is not just that it sounds like whistling in the dark,
but that it sends out quite the wrong message. More of the ecosphere will be saved
if we don't try to save ourselves (which is surely likely to lead to thermonuclear
war), but if instead all humankind acts in concert to save the totality. Those who
try to save themselves and say devil take the hindmost, are putting themselves in
the position of the wealthy males who bought seats on the Titanic's lifeboats and
left women and children to die. It's not very edifying. I can't believe that you of
all people are suggesting that! Are you?
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
