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.

Sighhh.... again with your tunnel vision. Mt St Helens is but one. Look
here for a wider perspective.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/world.html


Neither is this focus you have on "single" events/species/whatever.

I believe you began the focus on a "single" event/species/whatever with your
following comments-
"As to the explosion of deer and geese populations...This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline."


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'll agree 100% but I'm going to add to it. Nor have we identified the
extent of the affect. It's
the jump to the conclusion it must be negative and irreversible that bothers
me.

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.

What these figures probably did say Dan is that forestry management has
allowed
more trees to grow in a given area. Canopy management, the removal of a
larger mature
tree to provide access to sunlight by several smaller trees is a common
practice. Not only that
Dan, it also allows flora and fauna that grows beneath the canopy to thrive.
Contrary to your
conclusion of "narrowing of the ecosystem" it is in fact broadening it.


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.

Ahh the whale finally surfaces.

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 possibly 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.

I agree with you Dan for the most part that we have a responsibility as
stewards
of this planet. Where I find exception with your statements is this-

You presume to sit and lecture on irresponsible human behavior as it affects
the world around us.
You do this from a computer which is composed of all sorts of "unnatural"
stuff that will
eventually find it's way into a landfill of sorts. This same appliance is
one of the highest consumers
of electricity in your house. Other unnecessary appliances which I'm sure
you own a few would
be TV's, washer, dryer, microwave, dishwasher, blow dryer, etc. etc.

Furthermore Dan, if you've ever taken food out of the refrigerator and
discarded it because you let it go bad
or ordered more food at a restaurant than you could eat you've contributed
irresponsibly to the
over industrialization of our farmlands.

And finally Dan.... your statements presupposes God isn't in control.