Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[ConcinusMan]

i don't think it will matter what laws are made until EVERYONE follows them, and thats not going to happen until there is someone to monitor everything people do and even after that i have my doubts.

I'll say it again. The rule of natural law is the the only true authority and only true laws that ever did or ever will exist. We won't have to monitor anyone or anything. Nature will do it for us. We either align with the order of nature or "she" will take us out (eliminate us as a species) and restore order. It's that simple. In the long run we won't have any choice. We will be forced to align with the order of natural law. If we do not, we go extinct.

[Stefan-A]

You sound pretty confident about it being two different causes when not many can even agree what the causes are.

At least two different. One caused by the climate drastically changing after the last ice age and one caused directly by human activity.

You even expressed doubt about the current warming cause before

Yes, what was it, 5 or 6 years ago? Fact of the matter is that there is more than one factor affecting temperatures and over the last century, we've finally grown big enough to be one as well. Although at least one researcher believes we started it a few thousand years ago when we started growing rice, which produces one of the worse greenhouse gases, namely methane.

so how can you say it was 2 different causes?

Because it was at least 2 different causes and the point of contention was then the physical properties of CO2, which are undeniable and easily testable.

So I guess it's my imagination that the ice age ended, all the ice melted, save the caps and also my imagination that the caps themselves are melting too. Warming is the cause. I don't much care about what caused the warming and I don't have much confidence that anyone really knows. The fact is it warmed up causing the extinction of many species and it's still warming and causing extinctions.

The species that died out due to the end of the ice age, were species that had evolved under those conditions, which ended some 10 thousand years ago. The one you are seeing now, is a direct result of human activity.

Sure it is. The ice is still melting

Again. It's melting again.

A pause or even a swing back to somewhat cold for a few thousand years before continuing does not constitute an end to the warming which started long before we had the ability to affect it if we indeed affect it at all.

Yes, it does. Especially when there's an Episode II to the saga.

Bull ****. We only helped to accelerate what was already happening.

Now THAT'S bullshit. Again, separate events with different causes.

If the warming continues so will the extinctions.

Sure. What's your point?

Even if doesn't warm anymore they will continue still because of the warming that has already happened.

No. At least not due to what has already happened. It's the change that kills off species, not relatively stable new conditions.

Explain to me how it is you think we can stop that. Even if we did start it can we really stop it now? One can only speculate.

You're asking me to defend something that I don't even agree with.

I stand corrected. It was neither good nor bad.

No, it was bad.

It just was. "good" and "bad" are purely a matter of perspective. "Good and bad is always good and bad for someone in particular. In that sense they are relative"

Fine, it was bad for everyone involved.

It's only a biggie if you happen to be one of the species that cannot adapt and end up extinct.

No, it was a biggie to everyone else, too. Barely surviving a disaster that kills everyone else renders it neither "good" nor a "non-biggie".

What I mean is that it's no biggie in the bigger picture and context of geologic time.

There is no bigger picture and geological time is irrelevant. We're talking about something that affects lives. That's the frame of reference. It doesn't matter what might be one day. You, me and every other living organism on the planet are living in a short period described inaccurately as the present, not geological time.

It's not like it's going to end life on earth. It will just change life on earth.

You do realize that continued existence is preferable to extinction, at least in the eyes of those involved?

Don't be naive. What was left surviving after snowball earth? Not much. How does that compare to life found to be flourishing during later epochs?

What's the relevancy here? What was there before snowball earth? What does it matter what was there after? Again, change only matters from the perspective of those who are experiencing it and we're about to start experiencing a big one.

cost? what does that even mean?

You do know what the word "cost" means. Now apply that to "98% being killed".

My entire point from the beginning was, how much effect do you really think a few laws are going to have in determining the course of extinction

That depends on the laws, the people who should be following them and the people enforcing them. All can be affected.

and emergence of new species later.

Not our concern. There's not even any need to take them into consideration, because ideally, there wouldn't be any.

In the long run, none. They all go extinct eventually including ourselves.

So what? The "long run" doesn't matter, not in the sense you're using it. Geological time does not matter.

[ConcinusMan]

Sure. What's your point?

I told you already. A few laws and the protections afforded species on the endangered list aren't going to amount to squat when climate change is going to wipe them out anyway. If the equatorial rainforests continue shrinking it doesn't much matter what we do, or don't do anywhere else. We'll all (species) be in big doo-doo.

[Stefan-A]

I presume you concede my other points, since you only responded to that.

A few laws and the protections afforded species on the endangered list aren't going to amount to squat when

That's wrong...

climate change is going to wipe them out anyway.

...and that's wrong.

If the equatorial rainforests continue shrinking it doesn't much matter what we do, or don't do anywhere else. We'll all (species) be in big doo-doo.

They're not that important.

[ConcinusMan]

I presume you concede my other points, since you only responded to that.

Not entirely. I'm just lazy and have other things to do today.

But honestly many of your responses sound like opinion and I'm not going to argue against opinion. You're entitled to your point of view which is neither wrong nor right necessarily even if I don't hold that same point of view or agree with it.

We obviously have differing perspectives on some key points but both points of view are valid.

[Stefan-A]

But honestly many of your responses sound like opinion and I'm not going to argue against opinion.

Well, I was arguing against your opinions. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[ConcinusMan]

Agreed but where's the evidence that suggests the equatorial rainforests "aren't that important" when all I've heard scientists saying about suggests the opposite? Same goes for the fact that climate change alone is enough to wipe out many of the species that are now in danger of extinction. At one point you say that's wrong and at another point you acknowledge that the changes do drive species to extinction. Mainly I didn't argue these points because I'm getting mixed messages as to exactly where you stand on the matter.

It's wishful thinking and not very realistic to think the endangered species act will make one bit of difference in anything but the very short term. The only thing that will have a significant impact is our absence from this planet.

[Stefan-A]

Agreed but where's the evidence that suggests the equatorial rainforests "aren't that important"

Emphasis on the word "that".

when all I've heard scientists saying about suggests the opposite?

And what exactly have they said? Are they endorsing your interpretation?

Same goes for the fact that climate change alone is enough to wipe out many of the species that are now in danger of extinction.

You've basically gone from all to many.

At one point you say that's wrong and at another point you acknowledge that the changes do drive species to extinction.

Context + nuance.

Mainly I didn't argue these points because I'm getting mixed messages as to exactly where you stand on the matter.

Complex issue, complex answers. Avoid oversimplifications, is the lesson to take home.

It's wishful thinking and not very realistic to think the endangered species act will make one bit of difference

It's not wishful thinking, or unrealistic and if you have a solution that will yield better results, do share.

in anything but the very short term.

Short term meaning what? Are back on geological time now?

The only thing that will have a significant impact is our absence from this planet.

Incorrect. It would have a significant impact, but mass suicide isn't going to be a solution.

[ConcinusMan]

Short term meaning what? Are back on geological time now?

Damn right I am. If the goal is to delay extinction a few decades or maybe even a few centuries then fine. It can be, although it's often not, very effective. But if that's the case, then, to what end? and at what cost? I see how it's working out for the San Fransisco Garter Snake. It looks to me like endangered species list or not, they aren't going to make it then all we've managed to accomplish is to delay the inevitable for what? a few generations?

It's not wishful thinking, or unrealistic and if you have a solution that will yield better results, do share.

Not having a better solution doesn't make the current one any less ineffective. I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just don't think what we are doing is enough or going to make anything remotely resembling a dramatic impact. Might as well be swallowing a spider to catch the fly.

It would have a significant impact, but mass suicide isn't going to be a solution.

Yeah I know. I guess it's a good think we won't have to do that because at some point "nature will make that decision" and "pull that trigger" for us.

[Stefan-A]

Damn right I am.

Then snap out of it.

If the goal is to delay extinction a few decades or maybe even a few centuries then fine.

Prevent. As in indefinitely, not eternally.

It can be, although it's often not, very effective.

More effective than doing nothing.

But if that's the case, then, to what end?

We're doing it for selfish reasons. It's the whole "don't **** where you eat" thing.

and at what cost?

No significant.

I see how it's working out for the San Fransisco Garter Snake.

They're still around. Without a system of protection, they'd be long gone.

It looks to me like endangered species list or not, they aren't going to make it then all we've managed to accomplish is to delay the inevitable for what? a few generations?

Since when is buying time a bad thing?

Not having a better solution doesn't make the current one any less ineffective.

Actually, it does. Effectiveness is relative.

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just don't think what we are doing is enough or going to make anything remotely resembling a dramatic impact.

At least we agree on that point.
However, you should lower your expectations. While Earth isn't going to turn into Pandora anytime soon, it's not LV-426 either.

Might as well be swallowing a spider to catch the fly.

How do you figure?

Yeah I know. I guess it's a good think we won't have to do that because at some point "nature will make that decision" and "pull that trigger" for us.

Yeah, and we're all going to die one day, so why even try to stay alive?