But I think you're engaging in circular reasoning. If man is part of the ecology, which he is, then, by the argument I am presenting without liking, whatever he does becomes part of the balance. After all, TB claims that 99% of all species which ever existed are extinct. I don't believe it, but certainly a large number of species ceased to exist before man ever came along. Presumably those were "natural" losses and part of the ecological balance, even when major numbers of species died out in a small time frame. And how about the ice ages, when ice sheets covered the island where we just had an 80 degree summer day (at last!). Which temperature is natural and fits in the ecological balance? Presumably both. If such dramatic changes as that are still part of the ecological balance, the amount of change mankind causes (or, in deference to those who don't believe man causes it, I will say mankind is accused of causing) certainly fits within a new ecological balance.
Logically, this makes perfect sense. Commonsensically (if there is such a word, and if there isn't there should be!) it strikes me as highly suspect. But I can't defeat it logically. |
