--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, and how many years now has Mt. St. Helens been spitting forth
consistently more pollution than Calif.? How did that single eruption
compare to the total emisions from all human sources in the U.S. in one
year--pick any? This fallacious logic isn't worthy of you.

Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever. My
argument is that we are affecting every natural system, and an even
greater number of species (some of which we haven't even identified).
I've seen figures that state we have more trees in the U.S. than at any
time in the past. What these figures don't say is that the number of
different species of trees in any given location is much less. This is
a narrowing of the ecosystem, all the way around: fewer kinds of trees
means that fewer kinds of birds will use them, fewer kinds of mammals
will hide in them, fewer kinds of insects will eat them. The fact that
we have more deer does not mean nature is "correcting" the damage we
are causing. I've stated I believe it means just the opposite.

I also do not believe we are an "alien" species; I do think we could
take better care of our home. We don't have to trash it. After all,
we do have the biggest, most complex brain (excluding the cetacea); I
think that gives us some responsibility.

The world isn't "too simple" to fix itself, it's too complex for us to
be irresponsible and stupid. The ice age was a natural event;
pollution from compounds never possibily created in the wild is not.
Concentrated mercury contamination of the food chain, scattered the
world over (how's that for a paradox?), is due to human activity
alone--nothing like it in nature.

Given enough time, sure the world could probably create another
ecosystem. Unfortunately, this is the one we live in. We probably
wouldn't be included in the next one, at least not for several million
years--we're proving to be pretty expensive.



Dan