Whats your opinion save the planet or let it change?

Question

put yours this is mine:

i personally believe that we should undo things like smog pollution but nothing else. Like Global warming it was going to happen eventually how do we know that it wouldnt have already changed to a warmer climate? And also preserving species it think its fine to help animals affected by us doing stuff but not by natures doing. Like helping rainforest animals bc we took there home its cool but like animals who were like in the salt lakes or something well maybe if we leave them alone they will evolve so none of them can get stuck in the lake.

Cuz what if millions of years ago some dinosaur was like we need to save all the dinosaurs and built some dohickey so that the asteroid wouldn't kill them all ( a REALLY SMART dinosaur) then we wouldnt be like the way we are the wrold would keep going what if we are preventing some super race from evolving or even the humans from evolving to be even better like not prone to sickness dont get cancer stuff like that???

Answer 1

help the planet, of course!  If you continue then the world will overheat and the water levels will rise from the melting polar ice caps and flood the earth and start another ice age.

Answer 2

Your question is very challenging. How should humans exercise their power over life and the planet? The most effective solution is often so simple we overlook it.

Non-human animals rarely control their environment on any scale. Beavers perhaps exhibit the most power, and while the beaver somewhat controls temperatures within its lodges it does not dream of positively influencing outdoor temperatures. The beaver can indeed take measures to prevent flooding by painstakingly micromanaging its environment, but only humans can simply refuse to live where floods, fires, diseases and predations are likely to happen and thus save themselves the trouble.

The major religions did nothing to address the question of environment and our power over it. Modern science micro-manages everything technologically. People invest years of income into paying for their homes, an investment which, compared to the minimal investments made by animals is evidence of regress, especially when one considers that the modern home is easily destroyed by storms, earthquakes or fires and is a toxic cave that requires endless upkeep and whose monetary value is subject to irrational powers. And yet the power to remedy this tragic state of affairs is available, if only we are willing to apply such non-technological solutions as are offered by cob building material and permaculture.

Answer 3

First of all, the dinosaurs weren't causing the globe to get unnaturally warm. Sure, there are natural fluctuation in the Earth's temperature, however due to our carbon emission's the hole in the ozone is hardly 'natural' but is artificial, like tearing down a rain forest.

Secondly, just because we kill off a large percentage of us, doesn't mean that the survivors will 'evolve' to fight off cancer. It just means the survivors will likely be better at surviving holes in the ozone layer. In the mean time, other species (hopefully not our own) will have gone extinct because of the actions of man, not because of anything natural (I'm talking really longterm here). We aren't fighting against nature by reducing our carbon footprint, we're fighting FOR it.

Answer 4

'like' much?

Answer 5

I think we should save the planet.  We can stop burning fossil fuels, which despite what other people say, can stop global warming.  After all that is what caused it in the first place.  Why would you want to have the earth continue to deform?  Then your great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren won't have a place to live and will die and all life forms will be gone.  Do you really want that?  

I believe that nature does have to run it's course, but we can do what we can do help prevent certain things happening.  Like global warming.  

Answer 6

I agree with what you said (minus the whole dinosaur thing). Global Warming is a natural process and there's nothing we can do to stop it. However, I think we should "fix" the things that we did to the earth like pollution, deforestation, etc...

There's nothing we can do about global warming itself but there are things we can do to lessen the effects of certain things we have caused

Answer 7

Nearly all of the animals on the endangered species list are endangered due to human-caused situations such as loss of their natural habitat due to deforestation.  It isn't appropriate to say that they would have died out anyway if humans are to blame for their predicament.

Your dinosaur argument reflects a very common error in people's thinking on this subject.  You assume that humans are better than everything else and therefore more entitled to survive.  I say all species have a right to live because they're all part of the ecosystem that keeps this planet healthy.  Take away one link in the food chain and many others would die too.  If intelligent dinosaurs had survived and there were no humans, who is to say that the world would be any worse off than it is now?  For all we know it might be better.  We may be the most evolved species on the planet, but we've done a lousy job of taking care of it.  

To clarify what I said about the food chain, let's take a very simple example.  Let's say there's an island with just three types of life on it: grass, rabbits and wolves.  The rabbits eat the grass and the wolves eat the rabbits and everything is in balance.  Now, what do you think would happen if a boatload of people came along, killed off just one of those species, and left?  If all of the rabbits were gone, the wolves would have nothing to eat and they would die too.  If all of the grass were killed, the rabbits would starve to death and the wolves would too and there would be nothing left.  If the wolves were killed off, the rabbits would have no natural enemies and would multiply out of control.  They would eat up all of the grass and starve, and again there would be nothing left.  That's three possibilities, and two of the three would leave nothing but a lifeless rock.  The other would leave only grass.

Of course, real-world ecosystems are far more complicated, but that doesn't make the consequences of human interference any less severe.  It just makes it more difficult to say how many more species will die if one is killed off.  Like it or not, we're part of that food chain too, and we'll suffer for it if we do too much damage.