Protect the last of the wild

Post by pnloyd » Fri, Nov 02, 2018, 1:33 PM UTC

dharma1 wrote: post #9

fractallyte wrote: post #3

I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…

Could not agree more with this. Evolution on Earth has had a very long time to develop super advanced nanotechnology, which we understand and utilise very poorly and are destroying forever - for what? More beef on the plate, palm oil for products no one needs and a bit of money for one generation? Beyond being critical to the survival of deeply linked ecosystems, and ultimately ourselves, it's just really stupid to d…

Post by gnosis89 » Mon, Nov 05, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

village-idiot wrote: post #120

gnosis89 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, you're merely arguing semantics with me on evolution. You can call it adaptation or a catalyst for evolution, whatever word you want, but it's still evolution. When applying the theory of evolution to humans, you can't use such a simple definition because we have technology. Additionally, our minds are powerful enough to decide to do things that will cause physiological changes beyond those that one might say w…

There’s no point in continuing this thread, you’re literally making up your own definition for every subject we’re talking about.