next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Yes Dave, perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part, but of course, over the long haul, not much. Paul. On 2014-04-01, at 2:42 PM, David Patriquin wrote: > Good article Paul. > > I am doubtful about the human extinction part, indeed, our huge numbers probably guarantee that we will not go extinct but also that a lot of humans will suffer. > > I see the choice as between the earth as a giant dialysis machine, ever more dependent on high tech human management and and generating a plethora of bizarre, genetically engineered creatures, versus a species-rich, self-regulating earth. > > It seems we have pretty well opted for the former, but there are benefits to human mortality - perhaps a future generation will choose differently. In the meantime, let's conserve as much of the natural world as we possibly can! > > ________________________________________ > From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca <naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca> on behalf of Paul Ruggles <cpruggles@eastlink.ca> > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:17 PM > To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca > Subject: [NatureNS] climate change > > About a year ago I wrote an op. ed. article for the Herald about climate change from an ecological perspective. > Some of you may wish to read it. Especially in light of the latest failure for the world to respond. > You can retrieve it by googling - > > paul ruggles climate threat puts our species on brink. > > Paul Ruggles > > >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects