Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Biodiversity thread Pt. 2(merged)

Biodiversity

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 04:59:58

On another thread, I proposed that biodiversity advocates adhere to the following principle:

Scientifically, their position seems to be this, and it is falsifiable: Any closed and sealed ecology (like Bios-3, or Biosphere 2), comprised of a limited selection of species, and cycling in isolation from the general ecosphere, will die.


This premise seems to be at the bottom of concerns about loss of biodiversity, extinction of species, loss of habitat and loss of natural capital (or ecological services). The fear seems to be that even the loss of a few species can severely disturb the web of life, and perhaps even lead to the extinction of mankind. And that is why maintaining biodiversity is so important.

But is the premise true? Here are my thoughts:

1) There is life at hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, feeding on hydrogen sulfide, which does not even need the sun. These colonies appear to be self-sufficient, and making no draw off the ecological services of other species. Therefore, it is possible to live without services from the general ecosystem. Similarly, we might find self-sufficient life on other planets, like Mars.

2) "There have been many attempts to construct small, closed ecosystems. For example, Clare Folsome sealed small aquatic ecosystems consisting of algae, brine shrimp, and other organisms in glass flasks (Folsome and Hanson 1986). Although the flasks were prepared in the 1950s, some of them still retain fuctioning mini-communities (Nelson et al. 1993)."
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscien ... ext.html#1

3) Previous mass extinctions have not caused the extinction of life itself. Therefore, even verterbrates can survive despite wholesale destruction of ecological services.

4) It's really hard to kill versatile, omnivorous animals by depriving them of ecological services. How much of the environment would you have to kill in order to exterminate all rats?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby smiley » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 05:55:30

I guess that all depends on adaptability. A species will become extinct if the environment changes faster than the species can adapt.

Most species depend on genetic changes to adapt to a changing environment. This is a slow process so most species are easy to kill by changing their environment.

Humankind is different in a sense that they can shape their environment. We don't need to grow fur to survive a colder climate, we make warmer clothes and houses. We can thrive on many types of food and we can even cultivate our food ourself. This has enabled us to occupy every place on this globe, from desert to Arctic. If there was a need for it we could probably even design a sustainable colony in the deep sea.

Because of this flexibility I think that humankind is the hardest species on this planet to kill. We can outsurvive any other species. Therefore I'm convinced that. If the humans were to become extinct it would be caused by an event which would kill all lifeforms on this planet. Although our actions could trigger famines, diseases, and die-offs, I don't think that we could completely destroy humankind.

However my question is: We know we can adapt, but do we want the change? Would it be fun?

The knowledge that I could survive living on the North-Pole does not mean that I see the North-Pole as my habitat of choice For me it would be like living next to a sulfur vent in the sea floor. I'm quite happy with my temperate climate and my current food selection. I'm extremely pleased that we still have an ozone layer, so that I don't have to grab the factor 35 each time I go to the store.

I have no doubt that by our actions we could seriously affect the quality of living, or what I consider "fun". And for that reason alone we should be extremely cautious in our interactions with nature.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby Doly » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 06:04:38

smiley wrote:Because of this flexibility I think that humankind is the hardest species on this planet to kill. We can outsurvive any other species.


I agree we are a tough species to kill, but the toughest? People have starved to death in environments that weren't entirely barren from all other life. A bit of grass and a few insects is just not enough to sustain us.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3882
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Biodiversity

Unread postby 0mar » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 08:56:42

JohnDenver wrote:On another thread, I proposed that biodiversity advocates adhere to the following principle:

Scientifically, their position seems to be this, and it is falsifiable: Any closed and sealed ecology (like Bios-3, or Biosphere 2), comprised of a limited selection of species, and cycling in isolation from the general ecosphere, will die.


This premise seems to be at the bottom of concerns about loss of biodiversity, extinction of species, loss of habitat and loss of natural capital (or ecological services). The fear seems to be that even the loss of a few species can severely disturb the web of life, and perhaps even lead to the extinction of mankind. And that is why maintaining biodiversity is so important.

But is the premise true? Here are my thoughts:



1) There is life at hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, feeding on hydrogen sulfide, which does not even need the sun. These colonies appear to be self-sufficient, and making no draw off the ecological services of other species. Therefore, it is possible to live without services from the general ecosystem. Similarly, we might find self-sufficient life on other planets, like Mars.


We don't know much about the deep hydrothermal vents, but topside, just about every species depends on certain functions that can only be carried out by bacteria. On top of that, we are reliant on plant crops, insect pollinators, predators/prey interactions, and other ecological happenstances to help us survive.

Self sufficent multi-cellular organisms are few and far between. We are not one of them.

2) "There have been many attempts to construct small, closed ecosystems. For example, Clare Folsome sealed small aquatic ecosystems consisting of algae, brine shrimp, and other organisms in glass flasks (Folsome and Hanson 1986). Although the flasks were prepared in the 1950s, some of them still retain fuctioning mini-communities (Nelson et al. 1993)."
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscien ... ext.html#1


What works for small, single celled organisms can not be extrapolated easily to large trillion celled organisms like us.

3) Previous mass extinctions have not caused the extinction of life itself. Therefore, even verterbrates can survive despite wholesale destruction of ecological services.


True, I don't ever see life being wiped out unless we have a full out nuclear war. A 100,00 megaton exchange would utterly devastate the ecosystem.

4) It's really hard to kill versatile, omnivorous animals by depriving them of ecological services. How much of the environment would you have to kill in order to exterminate all rats?


True, but this is not about survival in our case. It is about maintaing our lifestyle.

There is no way around it, we are dependant on far too many species, probably many dozens we aren't even sure exist. To summarily dismiss the whole of ecology and other species is the height of ignorance. We are not seperate from the ecosystem, but are wholly dependant on it.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby oowolf » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 15:31:34

The less diverse the system, the quicker entropy increases to crisis level.
User avatar
oowolf
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Big Rock Candy Mountain

Re: Biodiversity

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 22:17:54

0mar wrote:We don't know much about the deep hydrothermal vents, but topside, just about every species depends on certain functions that can only be carried out by bacteria.


Very true. Even at the hydrothermal vents, all life is dependent on the bacteria which conduct chemosynthesis (the chemical equivalent of photosynthesis). So that's what's obviously wrong with Dezakin's idea that we are dependent only on "crops and energy". We are deeply dependent on bacteria and other microbes.

On the other hand, bacteria are way harder to kill than humans, extremely adaptable and mutate quickly, so we probably don't need to worry about the biodiversity (or "potential extinctions") of microbes.

On top of that, we are reliant on plant crops, insect pollinators, predators/prey interactions, and other ecological happenstances to help us survive.


Yes, that's true. But that does not mean we can't live cyclically in a closed environment with a certain selection of species way smaller than the set of all species on earth. A successful, sustainable "Biosphere 3" may be possible. If so, then we can say that humans essentially do not depend on the higher life forms not present in that closed model. This seems to be one of the reasons why the biospherians who lived in Biosphere 2 were so keen to preserve "diversity" and weed out "trash" species. It was a form of species brand snobbery, or political correctness, where an "elegant finch" was preferred to a "trashy sparrow", or an exotic desert plant was preferred to an urban opportunist like the dandelion, or the rat. It's politically incorrect to say "we don't depend on species X", no matter what the X is.

Self sufficent multi-cellular organisms are few and far between. We are not one of them.


I'm not really talking about self-sufficient organisms, but about self-sufficient ecologies (i.e. cyclic organism communities which are sustainable). If (for example) we discover bacterial life on Mars, that proves it is possible for life to exist outside our biosphere, and live independent of its services. That's what I mean by "self-sufficient". It is the community, not the individuals, which is self-sufficient.

2) "There have been many attempts to construct small, closed ecosystems. For example, Clare Folsome sealed small aquatic ecosystems consisting of algae, brine shrimp, and other organisms in glass flasks (Folsome and Hanson 1986). Although the flasks were prepared in the 1950s, some of them still retain fuctioning mini-communities (Nelson et al. 1993)."
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscien ... ext.html#1


What works for small, single celled organisms can not be extrapolated easily to large trillion celled organisms like us.


I agree. But what does that say about the metaphor that peak oilers favor, i.e. that yeast in a petri dish has something to say about trillion celled organisms like us? Clare Folsome's experiments are very interesting because they show that a closed vessel, like a petri dish, does not necessary suffocate it in its own wastes. In fact, most "baby biospheres" go through a period of oscillation and instability, and then settle into a regular cycle.

Chapter 8 and 9 of the following book give a very interesting history of experiments with life in closed vessels:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php


Check it out. It will open your eyes about really happens when you seal things inside a petri dish.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 28 Feb 2005, 22:21:50

oowolf wrote:The less diverse the system, the quicker entropy increases to crisis level.


Clair Folsome's sealed jars show that systems with very low diversity (i.e. microbes, algae and brine shrimp) can cycle for as long as 40 years with no notable entropy build-up. Entropy is kept in check by the constant energy flow through the system.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Biodiversity

Unread postby eric_b » Tue 01 Mar 2005, 01:02:18

JohnDenver wrote:On another thread, I proposed that biodiversity advocates adhere to the following principle:

Scientifically, their position seems to be this, and it is falsifiable: Any closed and sealed ecology (like Bios-3, or Biosphere 2), comprised of a limited selection of species, and cycling in isolation from the general ecosphere, will die.


This premise seems to be at the bottom of concerns about loss of biodiversity, extinction of species, loss of habitat and loss of natural capital (or ecological services). The fear seems to be that even the loss of a few species can severely disturb the web of life, and perhaps even lead to the extinction of mankind. And that is why maintaining biodiversity is so important.

But is the premise true? Here are my thoughts:

1) There is life at hydrothermal vents on the sea floor, feeding on hydrogen sulfide, which does not even need the sun. These colonies appear to be self-sufficient, and making no draw off the ecological services of other species. Therefore, it is possible to live without services from the general ecosystem. Similarly, we might find self-sufficient life on other planets, like Mars.


Those hydrothermal vents and attendant life are neat. Caused quite
a stir when they were discovered. An rare example of multi-cellular
life forms not indirectly dependent on photosynthesis to survive. Have
you heard of the 'snowball' Earth theory? Some people feel the oceans
of the Earth may have frozen solid in the distant past. It's thought that
eventually enough CO2 builtup in the atmosphere from volcanoes (there
were no plants to pull it out of the air) to cause the ice to melt. In the
case of the snowball Earth the only critters to survive may have been the ones
living off the deep sea vents. Who knows.

Of course it's possible there may be life on Mars -- or even Jupiter
(or one of it's moons). It doesn't seem likely, but we just can't say for
certain yet.

JohnDenver wrote:2) "There have been many attempts to construct small, closed ecosystems. For example, Clare Folsome sealed small aquatic ecosystems consisting of algae, brine shrimp, and other organisms in glass flasks (Folsome and Hanson 1986). Although the flasks were prepared in the 1950s, some of them still retain fuctioning mini-communities (Nelson et al. 1993)."
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscien ... ext.html#1


Well, that's interesting, but I don't know if I'd consider a few decades
long term. And us poeple would probably need (and want) a bit more
diversity than that to survive.

JohnDenver wrote:3) Previous mass extinctions have not caused the extinction of life itself. Therefore, even verterbrates can survive despite wholesale destruction of ecological services.


I don't think thats true. Verterbrates are a pretty new thing as far as life
on Earth. It's thought that for most of Earth's history life was single cell.
Some biologists feel this Earth is really 'owned' by the bacteria, and us
multicelled organisms are just along for the ride. Previous mass
extinctions obviously didn't kill off all verterbrates or we wouldn't
be talking.

I really think the argument here is one of prudence. I mean, the
conservative thing to do would be to hold on to as much biodiversity
as possible until we've got a better handle on things. You've got to admit
that considering the consequences this is probably the way to go. We are
being very reckless currently -- we may end up biting the hand that
feeds us and kill ourselves off.

This really isn't something I know much about. I'll leave it up to other
people (Monte?) to possibly rebut your argument here.

-Eric B
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 03:00:00
Location: us

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 01 Mar 2005, 06:13:03

I really think the argument here is one of prudence. I mean, the
conservative thing to do would be to hold on to as much biodiversity
as possible until we've got a better handle on things. You've got to admit
that considering the consequences this is probably the way to go. We are
being very reckless currently -- we may end up biting the hand that
feeds us and kill ourselves off.


There needs to be no rebuttal but exactly what you've posted above, eric.
User avatar
Ludi
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Unread postby Antimatter » Tue 01 Mar 2005, 08:26:19

oowolf wrote:The less diverse the system, the quicker entropy increases to crisis level.


In my opinion the use of entropy and the second law in this context, and in the wider context of peak oil, is largely irrelevant. Aside from ruling out wacko free energy scams and such of course. Don't abuse the second law or she will come and kick you on the arse! :twisted:
User avatar
Antimatter
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue 04 Jan 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Australia

Unread postby katkinkate » Wed 02 Mar 2005, 07:10:03

The argument to maintain species diversity is not so much in order to prevent the extinction of all life, but to prevent the extinction of humans. We still don't know enough about ecological systems to be really sure how many species and which ones it is safe to kill off before very important ecological process (hydrological cycles, nutrient cycles, waste disposal services, photosynthesis...) are disturbed enough to affect humans. Its an argument for the precautionary principle.
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread postby holmes » Wed 02 Mar 2005, 10:02:44

Knock off biodiversity and the sooner humans will be living in a 3rd world slum then worse. at this rate human extinction is certain or at the very least the quality of life will be worse than 3rd world shanty. worse. Its a shame economics dictate. we got it all fucked up. economics are running into ecological limits. Its only now being seen. cant hold it off much longer. freaks. Must base economics on ecological limits. Must implement system approach to economics. Oops too late. Only freaky people dont understand this. Or maybe just STUPID. More biodiversity higher quality of life. it works that way. as you observe today the decline into hell corellates with species loss? get it? Yeah a world with just PIG humans (cuase they outbred the sane ones) is just what i want. What diversity! Yuck! where my sks. time to clear the goddamn room out.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Wed 02 Mar 2005, 10:53:30

katkinkate wrote:Its an argument for the precautionary principle.


Okay, but what if you were really forced to choose, in a tough case? For example, suppose some country is getting really overpopulated, but they've got a big nature reserve, which they could farm more intensively. On the one hand, you could say: We can't clear the reserve, because people are depending on the ecological services provided by those species. On the other hand, you could say: We should farm the reserve, because those species are consuming ecological services needed by real people. The threat to human life seems to favor farming the reserve. Sure, if we farm the reserve, we might cause a nebulous threat to humankind, but the threat is remote. As far as I know, the destruction of a nature reserve has never caused a single death (or even illness) due to the elimination of ecological services. So what you have is a foggy, unlikely threat to mankind on the whole, versus a real, direct threat on the lives of the people who need to farm the reserve.

So if we must choose biodiversity in this case, why don't the hungry people deserve to live? Surely you and I deserve to live, so why not them?

Also, couldn't you make the argument the other way around? Wouldn't killing those hungry people be an extinction of sorts, which would disturb the fabric of life, interrupt the ecological services those people are providing, and put us all (including the animals in the reserve) at potential risk of extinction? If humans are part of nature, then why shouldn't we preserve them too, in the name of biodiversity?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Biodiversity

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Wed 02 Mar 2005, 13:10:21

JohnDenver wrote:This premise seems to be at the bottom of concerns about loss of biodiversity, extinction of species, loss of habitat and loss of natural capital (or ecological services). The fear seems to be that even the loss of a few species can severely disturb the web of life, and perhaps even lead to the extinction of mankind. And that is why maintaining biodiversity is so important.


The truth is that there is no way to know until it's too late just how far we can disrupt the web of life and live to tell about it. How many times can a breast feeding infant shoot it's mother with a 38 pistol and go on living? Why the heck would you want to find out. The world is amazing. The other creatures on it are amazing. Why is it desirable to test how many of them we can exterminate?

JohnDenver wrote:2) "There have been many attempts to construct small, closed ecosystems. For example, Clare Folsome sealed small aquatic ecosystems consisting of algae, brine shrimp, and other organisms in glass flasks (Folsome and Hanson 1986). Although the flasks were prepared in the 1950s, some of them still retain fuctioning mini-communities (Nelson et al. 1993)."
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscien ... ext.html#1


Too bad we're not brine shrimp. We're 75 kg land mammals with an incredibly narrow range of tolerance for temperature ranges, food choices, and tolerance of the concentrations of various chemicals in our environment. I am sure that you are right that you could really polute the heck out of the world, and somewhere some brine shrimp would survive. Why would you want to do that though?

JohnDenver wrote:4) It's really hard to kill versatile, omnivorous animals by depriving them of ecological services. How much of the environment would you have to kill in order to exterminate all rats?


I find it interesting that you choose to equate rats and humans. Not a bad comparison IMHO. Never the less, rats are smaller, more temperature tolerant, more tolerant of poluted food, and have higher reproductive rates (i.e. greater ability to adapt.) We are big, bald, and fragile.
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby holmes » Wed 02 Mar 2005, 15:27:49

Forget about. if you have or just had kids. Give them an 8 count. theyll need it. face it. the more we "preserve" humans to the detriment of the entire biome the more they will be doomed to slum. Hey personally i would rather be dead than live like most do in haiti, latin america, mexico, etc... They got it bad and when the cheap fuel goes then they will really have it bad. Listen, it all will be exposed as soon as cheap energy goes bye bye. Im so tired of reiteratring stuff. we are not in reality yet. so keep blasting away. Itll be one hellava ride. LOL. Just the haves havent been not. yet.
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby katkinkate » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 06:47:35

[quote="JohnDenver]... suppose some country is getting really overpopulated, but they've got a big nature reserve, which they could farm more intensively. On the one hand, you could say: We can't clear the reserve, because people are depending on the ecological services provided by those species. On the other hand, you could say: We should farm the reserve, because those species are [i]consuming[/i] ecological services needed by real people. The threat to human life seems to favor farming the reserve. Sure, if we farm the reserve, we might cause a nebulous threat to humankind, but the threat is remote. As far as I know, the destruction of a nature reserve has never caused a single death (or even illness) due to the elimination of ecological services. ....[/quote]

Actually that situation has arisen many times throughout human history. Mostly in places where there is now desert and semi arid scrub fit only for goats and olives (eg. much of the Sahara desert, Greece, Middle East and others), because the people thought exactly the same way. "Growing more food is more important so lets cut down these trees .... hey, why hasn't it rained much over the last 10 years... All the crops are dying we'll have to irrigate... What's happened with the ground water? My well's gone dry. ..."
Kind regards, Katkinkate

"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
User avatar
katkinkate
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1275
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread postby Doly » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 10:41:50

John, where are you from?

- North America? Where do you think all those Indians got those fluffy ideas about taking care of their environment? They learned the hard way, you know.

- Southern Europe? Are you familiar with the concept of desertization, that's worrying plenty of farmers?

- Northern Europe? Have you heard about acid rain?
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3882
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 19:43:20

katkinkate wrote:Actually that situation has arisen many times throughout human history.


Yes, I know. But you're not addressing the issue, i.e. the trade-off between preserving biodiversity and providing for the basic needs of people. Do you believe that biodiversity trumps human needs?

You say: We must preserve biodiversity because failing to do so poses an uncertain threat to the safety of human beings. But, in the example I gave, the poor people need to destroy biodiversity in order to live. So what's your solution in cases like this? Make the poor people suffer and die, so that the rich can maintain biodiversity?

If "human safety" is the reason why we must preserve biodiversity, then why don't your care about the safety of the poor people who suffer when you preserve biodiversity?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby JohnDenver » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 19:54:32

Doly,
You're steering more into the area of general environmental issues, but for the moment I'd like to focus just on biodiversity. How do you feel about the trade-off between human needs and biodiversity?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby eric_b » Thu 03 Mar 2005, 21:28:41

JohnDenver wrote:
Yes, I know. But you're not addressing the issue, i.e. the trade-off between preserving biodiversity and providing for the basic needs of people. Do you believe that biodiversity trumps human needs?


Get this through your head, numskull: biodiversity is a human need.
It doesn't trump human needs, except in your myopic point of view.

JohnDenver wrote:You say: We must preserve biodiversity because failing to do so poses an uncertain threat to the safety of human beings. But, in the example I gave, the poor people need to destroy biodiversity in order to live. So what's your solution in cases like this? Make the poor people suffer and die, so that the rich can maintain biodiversity?

If "human safety" is the reason why we must preserve biodiversity, then why don't your care about the safety of the poor people who suffer when you preserve biodiversity?


And why don't you care about the loss of biodiversity and species
extinction? It's obvious you don't give a damn about all the extinctions
occurring now. Soon our kids will only be able to read about things like
Cheetahs, Gorillas, Elephants and such as they'll all be gone shortly
the way things are going. Not to mention all the other 'critters' most
people don't care about

If you're looking for some way to rationalize people breeding like bunnies
and consuming everything they can to survive, you've come to the wrong
place. I don't see why you're so worried as things are going your way.
People currently are consuming everything they can to survive, including
looting any parks and preserves thoughout the world (especially '3rd' world).

Time will tell what comes of this, but it doesn't look good now.

-Eric
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 03:00:00
Location: us

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron