All Games
RPG
Adventure
SIM
Story
Cute
Game Kits
Amaranth Games (games only by us)
Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
« 1 (2) 3 »
| Re: What would you do? | #21 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
Toxic wastes will be diluted with time, or organisms will evolve and adapt to replicate and feed off of the waste. Some toxic wastes organism can't really break down. Quote: There is never an instant in time where it is out of balance. Actually, animal species have gotten unbalanced by over hunting, or just by their natural habitat being destroyed. Quote: We may call it "pollution", but nature just sees it as gas, no different from oxygen or carbon dioxide. We may call it "toxic waste", but nature just sees it as another chemical compound, no different from water or oil. Humans cannot destroy the planet or destroy nature. They can only destroy themselves. Just because nature sees it as just a chemical, doesn't mean it's bad. For example, we've stopped using Freons so much because they destroy the ozone. We destroy the ozone, we destroy life on this planet. Only bacteria and the like would be able to stand the extreme temperatures that would beat down on the earth if the Ozone layer disappeared.
Posted on: 2010/2/13 0:51
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
 |
|||||||||||
 
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #22 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
I have yet to see an exception such as that. Even if they aren't broken down, organisms will grow around them, on them, with them. Quote:
Uh uh uh!  We're not talking about animal species being unbalanced. We're talking about nature being unbalanced. I never said that animal species couldn't be thrown out of balance, they most certainly can. Nature itself and nature as a whole, is always balanced.Quote:
That's right. And this would mimic the very conditions that started earth in the first place. The atmosphere would not have existed, noxious gases would form an atmosphere, oxygen would be released as a byproduct from the bacteria, and the atmosphere would be reformed, giving rise to new organisms. There are organisms that can survive temperatures well above boiling point of water, and natural selection will allow these organisms to thrive in a world where the ozone layer has been removed, only to eventually replenish it several million years later. An excellent illustration of how nature itself is indestructible by man.
Posted on: 2010/2/13 1:15
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #23 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
We're not talking about animal species being unbalanced. We're talking about nature being unbalanced. Nature would get unbalanced too. Do you not remember the circle of life stuff from high school biology? You kill the carnivores that eat the herbivores, that eat the plants, nature gets unbalanced. Quote: That's right. And this would mimic the very conditions that started earth in the first place. You seemed to have missed the point.
Posted on: 2010/2/13 1:26
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #24 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
I think the problem is that you're relying on a high-school level of understanding to illustrate your point Let's take your example then. If we kill the carnivores that eat the herbivores, the herbivores would reproduce massively and bring the plant population down, correct? What then? Of course, the herbivores would start dying of starvation and their populations would dwindle. At the same time their population shrinks, the plants would grow again, until an equilibrium is reached. Like I said, you're only looking at the small picture. If you look at the big picture, you would understand what I am talking about. Nature repairs itself, always. It may not repair itself in a way we like, but it always does, and it is indifferent about it. Quote:
If I did, it may have been because I did not understand it. Please clarify, I'm interested in what you have to say I'm essentially arguing that no matter what the level of toxicity, nature will adapt. All changes are subjective to humans, positive or negative. If you wish to argue this point, there are many things you have to do. First, you need to illustrate an objective scale of how nature is supposed to be. In other words, if I break the ozone layer, why is that OBJECTIVELY bad? Unless you can answer that question, your argument holds no weight.
Posted on: 2010/2/13 10:50
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #25 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
Then the plant population would die out. It wouldn't be able to reproduce because of the herbivore. After the plant was dead, the herbivores would also die. Quote:
No, I'm too tired to clarify and I have no interest in what you say anymore.
Posted on: 2010/2/13 12:37
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #26 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Mopiece: if you're too tired to clarify your argument & too tired to think about what is being said, then take a nap & come back when you're rested. Or at least be nice about dropping out of the discussion. . .
Nature: Nature is never in balance. so trying to restore balance is pointless, and in fact just creates more imbalances elsewhere. (That's why rocket science is so hard even though you're just manipulating different kinds of wind.) That's also why it's so hard to get rid of. it doesn't really need to be in balance. ...actually, if nature were in balance, the entire ozone layer would be on the ground. how's that' for toxicity. & if you think about it, using up fossil fuels is actually helping nature since it creates countless caves for new creatures to live in, while the oil that used to be there was toxic to pretty much everything. (and now it's in our air. woo)
Posted on: 2010/2/13 23:47
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Deal with it; you're tasty! I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. My newly built "abandoned cottage". |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #27 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
I disagree. Recall that plants germinate from roots and herbivores tend to eat only the leaves, and tend to reproduce asexually when they are threatened in terms of population. In short, The plants would not go extinct, there would still be patches here and there, just not enough for a large population of herbivores to survive on. The herbivores would die in number before the plants do, and establish an equilibrium. However, even if what you said is right, take a look at the big picture. The herbivores are extinct, and the plants are extinct. And what of all the other life forms on the planet? Eventually, the ecosystem occupied by these species will be replaced by others. Nature balances itself again Quote:
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I'm not surprised. In fact, you've never really demonstrated any interest in listening to me at all, since every time you respond to something I say, it's usually a short, curt dismissal that doesn't really contribute anything except the notion that you disagree. I hope you don't take any offense, I would still like to be able to chat with you on casual topics, but when I engage in discussion, I really aim to have people rip out my throat and show me just where I'm wrong (Not just have people say that I'm wrong, then refuse to give any argument whatsoever). For example, in trying to keep up with KTC, I've already learned so much more from trying to argue against her than I would if I just sat here assuming that I was right.But perhaps after some rest, you'll change your mind
Posted on: 2010/2/14 1:11
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #28 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
I hope you don't take any offense... In order for me to be offended, I have to care about the person. Quote: Or at least be nice about dropping out of the discussion. . . I'm rather blunt person.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 1:14
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #29 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@mopiece: go bluntness. lol
*takes a peek at the debate going on* hmm could have sworn this topic popped up somewhere earlier or was it in another context? anyways, I think humans should try to save as many endangered species as they can. why? because I'm a selfish person: I like looking at live animals in zoos/parks/conservations/etc. rather than pages in a book or video. Endangered plants and other organisms could also have potentially life saving properties that would prove most useful if we can get them in time. So rather than wait for things to evolve and adapt (which can take a long while) one might as well try to save the organisms we have now to utilize them for pleasure, research, etc.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 1:27
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
 Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #30 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
Good to know. I'm not interested in establishing a rapport with you, I'm just interested in extracting sources of potential knowledge to help myself. If that mine won't yield, then best of luck to you
Posted on: 2010/2/14 1:40
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #31 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@ wolfie -
Quote: Mopiece: if you're too tired to clarify your argument & too tired to think about what is being said, then take a nap & come back when you're rested. Or at least be nice about dropping out of the discussion. . . There was no need for sarcasm.(The way I interpreted your statements). Everyone has their own opinions and it is always interesting to know and understand another person's point of view,including yours. Quote: Nature: Nature is never in balance. so trying to restore balance is pointless, and in fact just creates more imbalances elsewhere. Honestly speaking,you sound selfish and irresponsible there.Everything has to be balanced.Humans can walk and run because they have balance in their body.If you still don't understand why I'm arguing against your statement,watch a jelly.It has no balance.Now imagine our body being constituted of jelly instead of blood and bones.No balance.We won't remain humans. So you see,for every living thing to survive as it was meant to be,balance is required. Nature takes time to heal by itself.So,let me take your point and stop restoring balance in nature i.e. stop planting more trees and poaching of animals.Instead,we carry on with our present lifestyle and absolutely stop taking measures against environmental pollution.The rate of destruction exceeds the rate of replenishment and in such a case,disadvantages are more for humans. I believe that if humans can harm the environment, they should also be responsible for healing those wounds.Or suffer the consequences. Quote: & if you think about it, using up fossil fuels is actually helping nature since it creates countless caves for new creatures to live in, while the oil that used to be there was toxic to pretty much everything. For your kind information,fossil fuels occur so deep inside the earth that it is impossible for any living creature to survive in those depths.And caves??? We don't find caves underground. Or do we?? And extraction of fossil fuels on a large scale creates IMBALANCE in the tectonic plates of the earth which is a cause of earthquakes.As for a habitat for animals,there is enough of that on earth itself if we stop destroying it. So think deeply about what you say before making a statement.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 3:09
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
 ♥ I am going to ride my multi-colored penguin to Never Never Land while it dances to Hip-Hop and poops magical pixie glitter ♥ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #32 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@valky:
balance: mm, depends on what you're talking about. If we're talking about chemical equilibrium and such, all organisms are NOT balanced. The equilibrium state is a dead body. The body works actively to keep the body at a not chemically equal state. as for nature healing itself: you're looking at it form a too human perspective I think. Nature can fix itself given enough time (talking in millions/billions of years). But that doesn't mean we or the present organisms can survive. To save our species, we need to do everything we can to keep the planet hospitable for us. caves: yes, you can have caves underground.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 3:25
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #33 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Okay,I understand that and underground caves too, but even if there are caves underground creatures won't be able to survive in that depth.
The rest of your point I agree to.About the 'too human perspective' part;yeah,I get into Nazi mode when it comes to topics such as this because i'm a nature lover. Quote: Nature can fix itself given enough time (talking in millions/billions of years). But that doesn't mean we or the present organisms can survive. To save our species, we need to do everything we can to keep the planet hospitable for us. You hit the point 
Posted on: 2010/2/14 3:38
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
♥ I am going to ride my multi-colored penguin to Never Never Land while it dances to Hip-Hop and poops magical pixie glitter ♥ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #34 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@valky: where are you getting that organisms cannot live at that depth? I know there are deep sea vent creatures that live way at the bottom of the ocean and survive quite nicely under all that pressure and temperature. It's not too farfetched to imagine a cave system with high pressure tolerant organisms.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 3:47
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #35 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
High pressure tolerant organisms?
hmm..well,at that depth inside the earth,there is deficiency of oxygen and more content of carbon which can cause asphyxiation.It is harmful for any living organism. Or are you suggesting that we make special oxygen-supplied underground habitats for animals (although i have no idea how). Besides that,most of the organisms on earth live on the surface of land.Of course many organisms live underground too but not that deep.Every creature has its adaptations. High pressure tolerant organisms?? are you saying we should modify each and every one of them genetically just so that we have an excuse for depleting our natural resources and make an underground sanctuary?
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:00
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
♥ I am going to ride my multi-colored penguin to Never Never Land while it dances to Hip-Hop and poops magical pixie glitter ♥ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #36 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
you're forgetting anaerobes that do not need oxygen at all. Many anaerobes would die if exposed to oxygen. Anaerobes are quite remarkable for the types of stuff they do use: arsenic, iron, sulfur, etc. Nasty stuff that would kill us but they thrive on.
So no, you do not need a oxygen in order to support life. in fact, the first organisms on earth were probably anaerobes and they are doing quite nicely even now. high pressure tolerant organisms: no, i'm saying they exist in other high pressure systems and its not too farfetched to think of a high pressure system underground where they could possibly exist. *points to deep sea vent creatures* as for excuse: you were the one who said that no organism can possibly live that far deep and I'm challenging that. I never said anything about it being an excuse to waste resources.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:18
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #37 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Okay,alright with the last part.
But like I said before too,anaerobes may exist but most of the organisms on earth need oxygen to survive and do not live underground.Anaerobes are mostly micro-organisms that do not require too much space to live.(Idk,but are there any anaerobes that are not micro-organisms? If so,that's a different case) As for deep sea vent creatures,those are micro-organisms too and micro-organisms only.But if you're referring to whales : they dont live at those depths always.They do come out on the ocean surfaces sometimes for oxygen.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:28
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
♥ I am going to ride my multi-colored penguin to Never Never Land while it dances to Hip-Hop and poops magical pixie glitter ♥ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #38 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@valky: where did I say that the organisms needed to be large? No where. I merely mentioned the possibility of them living there.
Most organisms ARE micro organisms. If you compare the number of bacteria to animals and insects, the bacteria would win many times over. So i do not understand your continuing argument that organisms cannot survive that far down.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:41
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #39 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Well,one reason.
The fossil fuels that are dug out occupy large spaces which are left behind.Thus,if it is only the micro-organisms that can live there,then it is of no big use is it? Quote: So i do not understand your continuing argument that organisms cannot survive that far down. I am merely trying to establish my point like you,KTC.Or are you saying that I should just accept your point of view?
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:48
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
♥ I am going to ride my multi-colored penguin to Never Never Land while it dances to Hip-Hop and poops magical pixie glitter ♥ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| Re: What would you do? | #40 | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
@valky:
As I said earlier, i said organisms can possibly survive in high pressure cave systems and nothing else. I am not providing an excuse to drill for oil so I do not know why you are treating my argument as one. you are not establishing a point by picking at point that YOU made, NOT me. You're arguing against something that I never said. you're direct quote was: but even if there are caves underground creatures won't be able to survive in that depth. and that's all I'm arguing against. Stop trying to spin it into something else entirely. in fact, here's some proof that organisms can possibly live way down there. "Thus our findings present evidence for the existence of deep subterranean pockets of microbial life several kilometers below the surface." And just in case I repeat: I AM NOT PROVIDING ANY EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION FOR DRILLING NOR AM I TOUCHING THAT TOPIC AT ALL.
Posted on: 2010/2/14 4:56
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________
Teijal's Toy |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
« 1 (2) 3 »
   |
Register To Post |
You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.
