Though yes, at the moment it is a necessity, things considered "natural" can all be replaced within a hundred years, so unless we attempt genocide on every species then we will be fine by the time the "nature" was destroyed. I feel like natural things are mostly a tool to earn money at the moment, for many "green" products cost more, are less effective, and do little in the means of helping the "environment". People should stop worrying about problems that are not problems that are not problems and focus on things that matter. Money being spent to research said "green" attempts should be redirected to robotics, as robotics can mimic and even improve upon "natural" things. So, why are so many people obsessed with "natural, Nature, green" things? (I would have to guise propaganda. PS, please keep flaming to a minimum since someone is probably going to flame me...)
Let's propose a senario. One hundred years from now a nuclear war begins and destroys much of the planet; all computers are gone, all advance technology is gone, all robots are gone. The fallout has serious ramifications for all life but, as it has in the past, nature will move on; but only if it was there previously. Any artificial life will quickly die off due to lack of genetic variety and all other artificial technology will either be destroyed or rendered worthless.
The nuclear winter would kill everything that survived, witch wouldn't be much.
ecosystems are never artificial, they're simply moved. If such a thing were to happen odds are that most if not all life on the planet would be wiped out by the extreme conditions. Lack of food, would cause riots killing even more.
A submarine or space station are two examples. If we can live in space, we can live on a barren planet. Food can be cloned with the right chemicals.
Recent data shows that women who were exposed to DDT before they reached puberty are five times more likely to develop breast cancer. link.
All I have is:
Don Roberts - Professor of Tropical Public Health "Many, many studies were conducted to confirm that relationship DDT caused breast cancer. The end result was that association was disproven. Disproven, but was a powerful motivating force throughout many years."
A submarine or space station are two examples. If we can live in space, we can live on a barren planet. Food can be cloned with the right chemicals.
As of yet we have no idea how to clone food, in a space station theres maybe going to be 30 people at most, trained to be there, plus they're constantly working they don't go there to relax. As for a submarine, what're you even taking about?
As of yet we have no idea how to clone food, in a space station theres maybe going to be 30 people at most, trained to be there, plus they're constantly working they don't go there to relax. As for a submarine, what're you even taking about?
Currently so, but I stick to my hundred year theory. Submarines, as you may have guessed, can not get air from the.... air. They separate water and hydrogen to breath under water.
Sigh... nature already knows how to clone food, it's called seeds. And, it's had (G?)(T?)(B)millions of years to figure out the best way to do it. I think it's a little arrogant of humans to think they can do it better. It may be faster, but not better. The ultimate arrogance of humans is that we have ANY effect on it whatsoever. Yes, we are capable of making nature inhospitable for HUMAN life. But, in order to destroy all life on Earth forever, we would have to eradicate all traces of rock, dirt, ice, water, bacteria, carbon, single cell organisms, cats, dogs... the list goes on. The fact is that we should NOT be worried about nature. Because nature isn't worried about us. What we should be concerned about is how nature REACTS to us. Nature doesn't serve us, it tolerates us. If we go beyond the point of toleration, then it will no longer tolerate us, plain and simple. Even if we were to nuke the planet, if so much as one bacterium survived, then life would go on. Destroy the planet? Arrogance, nothing more. If we should be worried about nature, then it is for our own benefit. Otherwise, nature doesn't give us a second thought. I promise you that.
Don Roberts - Professor of Tropical Public Health "Many, many studies were conducted to confirm that relationship DDT caused breast cancer. The end result was that association was disproven. Disproven, but was a powerful motivating force throughout many years."
That's because essentially all of the studies conducted before 2004 just focused on women after they already have developed cancer. Many of these people were not exposed to DDT at a young age, when people are more vulnerable to carcinogens. The most current studies focus on how DDT effect developement in humans during puberty, and it was found that there is sharp correlation between DDT and breast cancer. In light of this recent evidence, most scientists concur that DDT is a "ossible" carcinogen.
A submarine or space station are two examples. If we can live in space, we can live on a barren planet. Food can be cloned with the right chemicals.
neither can sustain life because they both need to be constantly resupplied
...But, in order to destroy all life on Earth forever, we would have to eradicate all traces of rock, dirt, ice, water, bacteria, carbon, single cell organisms, cats, dogs... the list goes on.... What we should be concerned about is how nature REACTS to us. Nature doesn't serve us, it tolerates us. If we go beyond the point of toleration, then it will no longer tolerate us,.... Even if we were to nuke the planet, if so much as one bacterium survived, then life would go on...
If we did make earth inhabitable for human life then most other complex life wouldn't be able to live here too. Also it might take millions or billions of years for nature to remake intelligent life that is as smart or smarter then humans.
Also with the recent earthquakes tsunamis and hurricanes i would thing that we have reached beyond that point of toleration.
Sigh... nature already knows how to clone food, it's called seeds. And, it's had (G?)(T?)(B)millions of years to figure out the best way to do it. I think it's a little arrogant of humans to think they can do it better. It may be faster, but not better. The ultimate arrogance of humans is that we have ANY effect on it whatsoever. Yes, we are capable of making nature inhospitable for HUMAN life. But, in order to destroy all life on Earth forever, we would have to eradicate all traces of rock, dirt, ice, water, bacteria, carbon, single cell organisms, cats, dogs... the list goes on. The fact is that we should NOT be worried about nature. Because nature isn't worried about us. What we should be concerned about is how nature REACTS to us. Nature doesn't serve us, it tolerates us. If we go beyond the point of toleration, then it will no longer tolerate us, plain and simple. Even if we were to nuke the planet, if so much as one bacterium survived, then life would go on. Destroy the planet? Arrogance, nothing more. If we should be worried about nature, then it is for our own benefit. Otherwise, nature doesn't give us a second thought. I promise you that.
True in some aspects, as nature can take care of itself perfectly fine, though I believe we can improve upon it. Take it this way, we have nature as a firm base, basing most ideas off of it. Androids are being based of the human mind. Robots are designed as spiders, caterpillars, and other effective movers. Think of it as a game of poker. Nature has a tone of chips, but we can get more by doing what nature is doing, then once we learned all it knows, improve it.
neither can sustain life because they both need to be constantly resupplied
Not currently, but they prove that human can live without "natural" air. Cloning food or even energy injections could be made within a hundred years.
1)Less trees is less CO2 filtration and that means the oil has to be burned less. Without the trees we will overheat like venus. 2)Wildlife lives in the nature and the only thing i can think of that live at least 100 years are those special turtles that live in the water.
1)Less trees is less CO2 filtration and that means the oil has to be burned less. Without the trees we will overheat like venus. 2)Wildlife lives in the nature and the only thing i can think of that live at least 100 years are those special turtles that live in the water.
1. Co2 filtration can be done by machines, actually making us able to do more not less. 2. Man will one day be able to live on average a hundred years, not to far in the future.
And at our current rate we are doing we wouldn't have 100 years
Also solar flares or an EMP could easily stop those air filtration machines and kill us all.
I doubt solar flares would have a large enough effect to shut down all of earths land and see air filters for long enough to make a noticeable impact, and any fool who would EMP the air supply would kill everyone in the process, and it would have to be a HUGE EMP to cross all of earth. At our current state, we will easily survive a hundred years. And, As I have said, it is within a hundred years. It may be less, especially if the need drives us.
I find it a little weird and unreliable that your basis for argument is what will happen in a 'hundred years'...
It is within a hundred years, and that is just an easy time frame to say. And, in that case, I will take it unreliable and weird that the bases of tree huger arguments is "In a little while"
