"Global Warming"

[Al the DLOE]

[Graillik Tur]

And when did it become the population of the US's responsibility to run the planet? I thought we were supposed to respect the ideas and thoughts of other cultures?

The fact is, we have no clue. We still can't explain Stone Henge, the Easter Island Heads, The Colusseum, or how the Romans made the aquaducts. If we can't figure out how other humans did these things, what makes us think we can understand nature to the point we can accurately prodict anything. Crap, a Texas weatherman can't get his weather forcast 50% accurate. What makes you think anyone can predict jack out 10-20 years?

[BWS-1]

Well, check out Prypiat today (slightly over 20 years from the ''catastrophe'')

I take it back, attempt to find pictures of it BEFORE the incident. It was magnificent. Seek out pictures from the early 70's (good luck finding them). It was a booming metropolis bound to be a notable city one day... one day...

Look at this ''post-nuclear'' afflicted area now.

Seek out pictures from it (you won't be needing luck to find them).

Pay not attention to the desolation of the area nor to the radiation forbidding Man to live there.

Admire what is overwhelming, what is ''now booming'', what has, since then, been blooming.

Admire Mother Nature.

In just 20 years, AND after one of the most horrible nuclear accident. Observe how ''good ol Mother Earth'' grew strong and proud, in most areas, blasting through the city; drowning buildings with its denseness. Look at the beauty of this silent - yet still afflicted by radiation - area and how free it is, free of all restrictions. One could say ''Gaea's unleashed herself there; no, actually, it's Man who unleashed Gaea there''.

The planet will do just fine. And animals will too. They've always been survivors. And well, can't blame us for wanting to think about ourselves and perhaps losing ourselves in what could be called selfishness as a race that strives to survive: isn't it this very trait that is known to allow one's breed of animal (or plant) to survive? The concern for their own tomorrow? Molding on or doing what is in their power to live on? On that point, I guess if we're to be labeled as selfish, all animals are too. But to a certain extant we, like animals, are limited too: by fear. And we're good at using that against each others for the profit of other individuals that may include ourselves! Intimidation: humans didn't invent that haha among many other ''tactics'' used by us. Many ''humanize'' animals, saying they ''get traits from the humans'' or have ''human-like feelings'' since many believe only humans are capable of ''feeling'' for we are the ones that are to care, that SHOULD care, care for what? For the best we can get for us. Use earth all we can... but if WE are to be affected by the way we use it, or if WE realize we're abusing it and we're kinda going towards a bit of a dead end, WE'll end up ''powerspawning'' propaganda to make people care. In the end, what's it all about? it's about ''saving the earth... for tomorrow... so WE can still use it, so WE can still live''. Now THAT's state-of-the-art disguised and deceitful self centered narcissist selfishness commonly known as - but not quite as harsh as the aforementioned adjectives - anthropocentrism.

If we really cared about Earth, we wouldn't even have to be worried about whatever we can end up doing to it. There's no way Mankind will ever shatter whatever natural balance there is on Earth. At best, we'd ''change'' Earth, but it would be momentary, for everything else including Earth itself would adapt. Minus... maybe only Mankind. Which is why it has reasons to be afraid: Man's worst enemy is itself, hence, in its recklessness, the only potential casualty is also Man *cough*and maybe a few species of plants and animals here and there*cough*. But yeah, mostly, it's our loss that we fear, not our planet's loss. And that sorta makes me sick when I see all the ''publicity'' going on, misleading our judgment. It's almost as if people are fed to believe ''earth's like a crystal ball, BE CAREFUL - REUSE, REDUCE AND RECYCLE'' while actually, WE are the crystal ball, and we're just wrecking the hell out of who's holding us (our neat lil planet), and it's starting to show... that we are afraid that is! Not that we're about to witness the end of the world haha no, not quite... maybe just OUR end. ELL OH ELL

And to that, I wonder, what would be more ''human''/moral?

Eradicate 50% of the population assuming we'd know it would ''free some space for trees'' which would allow Mankind AND the rest of most of the known flora and fauna to prosper for millenniums to come (in other words, kill roughly 3 000 000 000 people now; allow for 188 000 000 000 to live within mentioned time frame)

or

''Save and preserve'' our current people, and ways, and lives, to ram straight into a wall and lose ourselves, preventing survival of the race and stamping the date ''2157 AD'' on Mankind's gravestone, among other races of plants and animals, all that because it was, at the present time back a bit more then a century before our fall, considered most ''immoral'' to ''sacrifice'' so many. (in other words, kill no one now, allow for 3 000 000 000 people to live their lives; lead to the loss of 32 000 000 000 people within said time frame, prevent the survival of Mankind which would round up to the nullification of 156 000 000 000 people from the other time frame)

What a dilemma... eh, granted these may not pass Occam's razor test, but this isn't quite the scientific question; the few assumptions - as inaccurate as they may be - aren't there as an attempt to convey information on the direct results, but more to convey an IDEA of the impact of the results themselves which, if one would want to argue about the numbers, could simply be translated to but an algebraic variable. But I felt that having vague estimates would help people grasp the impact of the results, which is the very purpose of the question.

To be honest, I have trouble thinking of what can be the right answer, there's only 2 answers after all: ''one right'' and ''one that feels right''.