[geeks] Mr Bill?

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Sep 18, 2008, at 17:26 , der Mouse wrote:

>> I teach Environmnetal Science and from all I've read it appears that
>> 99% of the time when humans "improve" on nature, they usually just
>> f__k it up.
>
> First off, I agree with the basic sentiment I think you are trying to
> express.  But there's something which bas been bothering me for a
> while, which I can perhaps best phrase as a rhetorical question:
>
> Why do we consider it "damage" when humans alter the planetary
> ecosphere but not when other creatures (pine beetles, ocean algae,
> beaver dams, etc) or effects (volcanoes, sunspots, whatever) do so?

I was thinking of asking the same thing.

Why are humans not considered natural?

BTW: Beavers kill deer every year with their reckless modifications of  
streams and rivers, just like humans do.

But it's OK when a beaver does it for some reason.

Magnitude aside, everything on this planet harms something else.   
Nature is competitive that way.

What's so amazing about survival is that we could one day rule the  
world and also take good care of it at the same time, and get  
obliterated by a big chunk of rock that hits Earth a little too hard.

Bang... and it's all over.

Next.



-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com