On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Liz: > > I am not sure I understand your comment. > As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that > forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches > it accelerate. > There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating > influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an > "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.]. > By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself. "Unnatural" would be > external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable > boundaries.] > In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus > unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective > absent an "unnatural" earlier one. > > I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on the planet apart from deep sea smokers. I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at justifying ourselves. I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I don't particularly want the same for our children. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
