michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (10/08/85)
[line eater fodder.] > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more > good for the planet and each other than any other race. > > > How does one possibly help a planet? > > I am nonplussed. > > From: kowack@ccvaxa.UUCP I'll give just one example. (It's an example that Ray Frank might not care for.) The help I'm talking about involves saving much of the *life* on Earth, not the planet itself, as Earth will continue along her ponderous course -- with or without the life aboard her. It may seem odd to talk about saving living things from extinction, when humans are killing off species at a high rate. Nevertheless, the opportunity may arrive when we can provide redress for life. There is now strong evidence that 60 million or so years ago an extraterrestrial object, thought to be a small asteroid or comet, struck the Earth and *laid her waste*. Although some still argue that the sudden demise of *three-quarters of all species alive* at the time was mere coincidence, to many the coincidence seems entirely too forced, and the actual impact of the alien object seems to be well established by evidence from all over the world. It was hypothesizing about the effects of this cometary invader on the known extinctions which led to the recent "nuclear winter" theory regarding the cataclysmic effects of a *nuclear* holocaust. An asteroid or comet could well come again. Smaller impacts, which would occur much more frequently, might not do as much damage but could still be massively catastrophic to human society and much of the rest of life. We can see these bodies floating around us -- some come very near the Earth. Periodic impacts are inevitable. There is not much incentive for living things to adapt themselves to extremely rare but totally catastrophic events. The events occur as smashing disasters -- but then, after a period of recovery, the sun shines again, the rain falls, life grows, and the equipment needed to survive during the catastrophe becomes so much excess baggage, which is not only superfluous but actually *must* be discarded in order to compete successfully with other, less encumbered species. It's now thought that the mass extinction some 60 million years ago which is associated with the asteroidal/cometary impact destroyed every living animal species weighing more than some 10 kilograms (22 pounds). If such an impact occurs again, life on Earth is no better prepared biologically, and would die just as mightily. However, now there is us. *Alone* among all life on Earth (at least as far as taking any action is concerned), we humans are capable of recognizing what an asteroid is, we alone are capable of locating the potentially troublesome objects, and we alone are capable of going out there and nudging the offending bodies aside, years before any actual collision with the Earth could take place. So, if we can manage to avoid creating *our own* "nuclear winter," and if we learn to preserve and don't continue to destroy the life that the Earth now has, we may someday perform a service for life far greater than any destructive capabilities we have carelessly exercised. It is a new *constructive* capability, which life has never before possessed, that humans bring to life on Earth -- the ability to detect, predict, and circumvent very rare disasters. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark. But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man. That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely and identically human is likely ever to come that way again. Loren Eiseley, *The Immense Journey*, 1946
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/09/85)
I don't know if this really belongs in all (or any) of these groups but I am at a loss to say where it may belong. Is there a net.philosophy? I don't know about the original postings, which I didn't see, but some things in the follow-up to which this is a follow-up interest me and may form a base for some interesting discussion. Has anyone a suggestion for a good *single* news group in which to do so? > > Ray of Rochester states that humans are capable of doing more > > good for the planet and each other than any other race. > > > > How does one possibly help a planet? > > > > I am nonplussed. > > I'll give just one example. (It's an example that Ray Frank might > not care for.) The help I'm talking about involves saving much of > the *life* on Earth, not the planet itself, as Earth will continue > along her ponderous course -- with or without the life aboard her. > > It may seem odd to talk about saving living things from extinction, > when humans are killing off species at a high rate. Nevertheless, > the opportunity may arrive when we can provide redress for life. As I recall, the greatest single cause of this "killing off" is destruction of habitat. Of course a nuclear disaster or the cosmological disaster (is that the right term?) would certainly leap into the lead but I'm talking about existing conditions. This habitat destruction is largely caused by what we (often, euphemistically) call progress. Every time a piece of vacant land is developed whether for construction of a city, a shopping center, an oil field, strip mining, a private home, a wheat field, etc., habitat is destroyed. The question, I think, is are we willing to limit "progress" so that we may retain some of this habitat and the living things there in? Pollution is another way of "killing off species"; acid rain is a notable example. Again are we willing to limit "progress" and insistence upon adequate pollution abatement equipment is certainly a limit because the more this "progress" costs, the less of it we can have. Many people believe that hunting and fishing are "killing off species at a high rate." I don't believe that this is true. Hunters and fishermen insist upon large game populations. This requires *habitat* for which, directly and indirectly, they provide large sums of money. This habitat is, of course, usable by non-game species as well. The big question, then, is will there be any species left to protect from the colliding asteroid mentioned below? Is the human species willing to practice the self restraint that will be needed to allow other species to coexist with us on this planet? > There is now strong evidence that 60 million or so years ago an > extraterrestrial object, thought to be a small asteroid or comet, > . > . > . > An asteroid or comet could well come again. Smaller impacts, which > would occur much more frequently, might not do as much damage but > could still be massively catastrophic to human society and much of > the rest of life. We can see these bodies floating around us -- > . > . > . > If such an impact occurs again, life on Earth is > no better prepared biologically, and would die just as mightily. > > However, now there is us. *Alone* among all life on Earth (at > least as far as taking any action is concerned), we humans are > capable of recognizing what an asteroid is, we alone are capable > of locating the potentially troublesome objects, and we alone are > capable of going out there and nudging the offending bodies aside, > years before any actual collision with the Earth could take place. > > So, if we can manage to avoid creating *our own* "nuclear winter," > and if we learn to preserve and don't continue to destroy the life > that the Earth now has, we may someday perform a service for life > far greater than any destructive capabilities we have carelessly > exercised. It is a new *constructive* capability, which life has > never before possessed, that humans bring to life on Earth -- the > ability to detect, predict, and circumvent very rare disasters. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa