SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (312516)11/27/2006 9:27:57 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) of 1572542
 
I don't define equilibrium in the exact sense of a system's integrity being akin to balancing on a knife's edge. Rather, the earth's ecosystem is in equilibrium when it is ocillating between habitable bands of global warming and cooling. The ocillation would be caused by normal ebbs and flows within the ecosystem.

However, when externalities are introduced that throw that ecosystem outside the normal bands, then the very real risk exists that the earth's ecosystem may not be able to recover. There may be a point of no return, just as there is with a blackhole's event horizon. The other possibility is that the earth's ecosystem can bring things back in balance, but it may take so long that most species may not survive the intervening period.

Proof of this exists in our earth's history. When the earth reached extremes of warming or cooling, mass extinction events did occur. Some of these extremes were caused by natural earth processes and others by externalities such as meteors. But the fact remains, they caused mass extinction events.

So if we know that actions of humans are pushing the earth's ecosystem towards a global warming extreme, even though we may think the earth will eventually adjust, do we really want to take the risk that the human race may not survive the adjustment period?

Since it's the only world we have, I for one would prefer that we take steps to be more responsible. Long term, use of renewable fuels rather than fossil fuels will be much better for our economy, environment and national security. It's such a no brainer. Why on earth should we persist in the use of oil and coal when better alternatives exist? Makes no sense.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News