syntax252

I am stunned!

And I can understand that. but all I am saying is that what man does is what is natural for man to do, just as it is natural for the beaver to build a dam. I don't think it is necessary to reconcile it with anything. What is, is. Man is a thinking animal and as such might do anything. limited only by what is physically possible, his intelligence, his ambition and his resources, but he is still a quite natural being. Born of the mud. Betwen his brain and his thumb, he was able to control his environment to some degree, but for him that is natural. Therefore, it seems to me that any alterations that he makes in an ecosystem, or a habitat, for whatever reasons imaginable, it is a natural event.

Well sayo ald man, let's just say that whether a chain or a web, an ecosystem of a haditat, a question of dominance or a question of artifacts versus historical creation or a question of intelligence being a natural product of the evolutionary development of mankind, or indeed, whether you can see some excuse to proclaim that "evolutionary development" is a term somehow not quite to your fancy, I can see that you are indeed quite vexed that anyone lacking a degree in biology would have the unmitigated gall to have, or-God forbid-express an opinion on the question posed by the thread's originator. These are questions far above the capacity of mere lay people. (sarcasm intended) But the reality of the situation is that the question is really much simpler than you portray it to be. It is really a matter of whether or not one considers mankind to be part of the natural makeup of this planet--intelligence and all. If one does consider mankind to be a natural developement, then what man does is natural. If, on the other hand, one thinks that there is some sort of cut-off point at which mankind ceased to be a natural evolutionary development, then I suppose one might think that man's actions are not natural. Here is where the question hinges--in my mind. If man is a natural part of the environment/haditat/ecosystem/planet then his restoration of an ecosystem is as valuable as any other ecosystem. it is the same thing. Both are natural. No? (why did I have to ask that?)

Your link wouldn't load..Was it my browser or the link?

Indeed. I am trying to express an opinion and you seem to be trying to dazzle the readership with your vast command of scientific terms. But the original question was whether a "natural" ecosystem had more value that one that had been recreated--no? I would call it quite natural since it happens as a natural result the species that created it. And it has everything to do with the question, since the question was one of whether or not a man made ecosystem had the same value as an ecosystem that was not man made. Is mankind a natural developement? Are beaver dams part of the natural world? Anthills? Woodchuck dens? Was ecodominance the question? I thought the question was one of the value of an ecosystem. Well OK, if you prefer "web" to "chain." Are we not the species that feeds on all other species that we have access to, rather than the other way around? Well sayo, something must have caused us to develope a higher degree of intelligence than the other animals. What would you attribute it to? Devine intervention? Well if the question has already been answered--in your opinion--why are you still posting to this thread?

I remember in 1973 when the oil embargo was imposed, that all of the so-called scientific community made us a solemn promise. That promise was that by the year 2000, all the oil in the world would have been pumped and burned up. There would be no more. At the time I thought that was horseshit. I was right. Now I think that all this "we are in real trouble here" stuff is horseshit. I ageree that there is a finite amount of oil in the world. I do not agree that switching to some other energy source is going to be any great hurdle to jump. We will look back upon it as one of the best things to ever happen to us.

Well, I guess that I am not quite sure that we are discussing the same thing. I am referring to the fact that humans evolved here on Earth just as the other animals did, and therefore to say that when we create a haditat, or an environment or an ecosystem or whatever you may wish to term it, it is not correct to call it "unnatural." For you, perhaps, and if I am digressing, please feel free to ignore or comment at your whim, but again, I am trying to point to the fact that all that humans do on this planet is as "natural" for the human species as all that a lion does is natural for a lion. That is fine and dandy to specify 4 means of modification of a habitat, but am I obligated to follow your lead? I don't think so. "Pigs making like pigs" and humans making like humans is what I am referring to. I regret that I am not following some set of rules that you think appropriate, but if you will just quit trying to impress us with your educational accomplishments and realize that all I am saying is that humans are just another element of the natural world, it just might be a little less exasperating for you. Sayo, the only one in this whole damn thread who is arguing is you. When I referred to IQ, I was referring to man's intelligence advantage over the other animals. This is what puts us at the top of the food chain. It is also what makes us concerned for the welfare of other animals and the ecology in general. But our intelligence is a natural evolutional development. Just as the squirrel developed the ability to climb trees and the lion developed the ability to run down the Zebra, humankind developed the ability to make tools, build houses, be concerned for the environment and even make computers so that we could engage in stimulating conversations with people all over the world. But it is a natural development. Therefore, getting back to the original question of, is it an artifact when we attempt to recreate conditions that existed before we screwed things up, the answer, in my opinion, is no.

If by "peak oil" you are referring to the finite quantity of reserves running out, then I think you are getting a little more nervous than is necessary. First, we always know where the next 20 years of oil is comming from. Exploration for new sources is not carried beyond that because it cost money to explore for new sources of oil and beyond 20 years is longer than investors want their money tied up. Second, even when it does run out, it is not all going to run out at once. It will slowly peter out, and other sources of energy will come to the fore, such as alcohol, solar and wind power, hydroelectric sources, geothermal sources and many other sources that are here-to-fore sitting on the back burner because oil is so cheap and so easy.

WOW Speaking of habitat modification, have you ever visited a pig farm? Or have you ever been around where wild hogs have been in abumdance? Now there is habitat modifiaction. Also, the Beaver doesn't "modify his habitat?" Oh, it is clearly a factor. It is, after all, the human species that is in danger of altering the planet to the point that it is no longer fit for haditation--is it not?

When the oil embargo hitin '73, I was driving a 1973 Pontiac Ventura with a 350 engin in it. It was good for 14 MPG on the hiway. Now, I am driving a 2003 Monte Carlo with a 3800 CC engin in it that is good for 30 MPG on the hiway. Now, the kicker--the Monte Carlo is, in all ways a snappier, better handling and more reliable car that the Ventura was and even if I was driving the same miles every year, I would be doing it on less than 1/2 of the portion of my income that I had to devote to gas in 1973. The "energy crisis" was the best thing that ever happened to us. Yes, we will run out of oil eventually. But it is the sort of thing that is going to happen gradually enough that we will have no problem in adjusting to it. Hell, we may even be glad it happened.

The point is that the foxes breed faster that is healthy for their long term welfare--just as humans do. The balance between available resources and numbers of sustainees gets out of whack and the foxes suffer starvation. The beaver dams were not part of the ecology before the beaver showed up. And since humans are a natural product of evolution, their dams are just as "natural" as the beaver's are. If the beaver knew how to generate electricity to operate power tools, don't you think that they would do so? Hell, if they were smart enough, they would be cutting trees with chain saws. There are anthill colonies in Africa that cover a LOT or area. There are also prairie dog towns in the US that one cannot shoot accross. But the real reason that ants and prairie dogs have not taken over the planet is because they lack the IQ to do so. Do you think that intelligence in somehow unnatural?

That is where the alternate realities come in. In one reality, you exist, in another, you don't. To me, if one cannot embrace plural realities, time travel is not possible.

Actually it could be any number of things. It just depends on how many times it was visited. I really don't think that such a thing as time travel is possible.

And neither am I. Crude oil has been much higher in the past than the current $55 pr. bbl. Back in the late 70s it was $38, which, when adjusted for inflation, would be equal to about $76 today. We survived it then, we will survive it now. Actually, if the American consumer would adjust his driving habits, we would soon have a surplus, which would drive prices down.

According to this CNN article writtin at the time, there was no tsunami warning system in the Indin ocean. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/asia.warning.brown/index.html "Currently the Indian Ocean does not have a tsunami warning system, and of the 11 countries affected by the tsunamis, only Thailand belongs to an existing system working among the Pacific Rim countries." Edited to add: This site shows the location of the earthquake for a better understanding of the geography involved. http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=tsunami+map&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D68311dcd1e918e50%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dtsunami%2Bmap%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.usatoday.com%252Fnews%252Fgraphics%252Ftsnumai%252Fflash.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2Ftsnumai%2Fflash.htm