View Full Version : Views on Environmentalism
Saluki Dave
01-12-2004, 15:58
It's been suggested in another thread that most posters on Whiteblaze are militant anti-environmentalists. I'd like to find out if that's hyperbole or truth.
I believe understanding the Leave No Trace policy That most hikers abide by is appropriate for the trail. I follow it. Right after I drive my SUV to the trail head. If we all do as much as we can within reason it makes a difference.
If some of us are recycling and other are not, and if some drive gas hogs while others take a bike to work and so forth It all adds up in our collective favor. Taking a militant stance toward someone who still does not do all that they could is invasive and unkind. :jump :sun
Kerosene
01-12-2004, 17:18
We should be doing more, but eco-terrorists are a menace also.
We should be doing more, but eco-terrorists are a menace also.
And mostly a rural myth
. Taking a militant stance toward someone who still does not do all that they could is invasive and unkind. :jump :sun
Unnecessarily damaging the earth destroys the world that our children grandchildren and future generations forever will inherit. I'll choose unkindness as the lesser of multiple evils.
Weary
Former Easy
01-13-2004, 00:45
I think the current situation is just fine. I think extreme groups need to look at whats going on in other countries and be happy they live here. I am also a off-roader most my life, I have raced motocross, hare scrambles, enduros and such. And in my opinoin I think motosports are the best sports to get your kid involed with. They will look forward to the adrenline fix every weekend with there father. But what do I know? How many kids hike or look forward to it, maybe later on in life they'll appreciate it. But for now is it better for them to hang out at the moto track all weekend with their dad and friends they meet there, then hang with the neighborhood kids all weekend playing video games and shooting dope, tripping on lsd etc.... (I have been down both roads and am qualified in my opinoin)
. I have never found or heard of an organization involved with the enviroment that accepts these practices. Its your lifestyle how you associate to this stuff. And I think more bong pullers are more concerend with this issue than holeshot masters.
Unnecessarily damaging the earth destroys the world that our children grandchildren and future generations forever will inherit. I'll choose unkindness as the lesser of multiple evils.
Weary
What's wrong with simple power of example?
Blue Jay
01-13-2004, 09:11
What's wrong with simple power of example?
The simple power of example is like looking away when your mother is being violently attacked.
The simple power of example is like looking away when your mother is being violently attacked.
I guess Dave gets his answer, Militant. :datz
Saluki Dave
01-13-2004, 09:56
The question was on environmentalism, not the environment, you'll note. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "menace" and 5 "defender" the average value after 34 replies is 3.34, with a pronounced skew towards the extremist tail in the distribution . It appears that the assertion that most Whiteblaze posters are militant anti-environmentalists is false.
On a related topic: I notice they convicted three Earth First "bigfoots" up in Richmond, VA for spray painting several SUVs (some personally owned, some on dealers lots) and vandalizing some heavy equipment at a shopping mall construction site. Rural myth? My hyperbole detector is smoking...
The question was on environmentalism, not the environment, you'll note. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "menace" and 5 "defender" the average value after 34 replies is 3.34, with a pronounced skew towards the extremist tail in the distribution . It appears that the assertion that most Whiteblaze posters are militant anti-environmentalists is false.
On a related topic: I notice they convicted three Earth First "bigfoots" up in Richmond, VA for spray painting several SUVs (some personally owned, some on dealers lots) and vandalizing some heavy equipment at a shopping mall construction site. Rural myth? My hyperbole detector is smoking...
I stand corrected.
hungryhowie
01-13-2004, 10:10
I think the current situation is just fine. I think extreme groups need to look at whats going on in other countries and be happy they live here.
Umm...coming from an environmentalist that lives in the United States, I can acurately say that the U.S. is the worst poluting and environmentally devastating country on the Planet...PERIOD. No matter if you look at our total consumption or consumption per capita, we abuse the earth more than twice as much as the next largest users. The United States uses more than 47 million barrels of oil EVERY DAY. If you filled milk cartons with this oil and lined them up in a row, it would stretch from Key West, FL, to Anchorage, AK with another 250 miles for good measure.
Our administration refuses to acknowledge that Global Warming even exists and that it is devastating fragile eco systems (such as the tropical coral reef systems that are rapidly disappearing) and has openly done so by refusing to sign the Kyoto Proticall (sp). Our administration has tried repeatidly to open the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the fragile home of the largest US Caribo populations, and an enormous migration site for birds from around the world. This is an area that still bears tread scars from a land survey done nearly 20 years ago and all that was was a vehicle equipped with treads that was searching for possible oil reserves -- This land does not heal quickly. This is an administration whos first act was to repeal more than 50 places that had been placed under protection - to open them to drilling from oil and gas reserves. This is an administration that has proposed such ironicly named initiatives - the "clear skies" initiative that lessened polution requirements, the "healthy forest" initiative that opened previously-unavailble lands to logging and road building.
Our administration purports these ideas and feeds us the terms terrorism and patriotism and the like to justify their actions. Terrorism has become the new scapegoat for anything. Don't get me wrong, I am very interested in National Security and morn the loss of life on that day. At least a part of me sought vengence for their wrongful deaths, and I support many actions taken to increase our nation's safety. In the days following September 11, 2001, however, ANWR came under attack as the miracle end-all solution for America's need for oil. The FWS has estimated that about 10 BBO are located underneath the 1002 area, and the administration wanted it opened immediately. What you never heard (at least not in a voice that made it out to the public) was that it would take more than 10 years from the groundbreaking to when the first drops of oil would first reach the American economy. In our turbulent world, think about how much effect this oil would have on our "current situation" --absolutely none. It has been proven by scientists over and over and over again in studies that the US could lessen its dependency on foriegn oil many times over drilling in the Arctic Refuge by simply increasing the average efficiency of automobiles sold in this country by a couple of miles per gallon over the next 10 years. Why? Because eventhough passenger cars are more fuel-efficient than ever before, the average fuel-efficiency of all consumer automobiles in the US is the lowest that its ever been thanks to the marvelous SUV. (As a side note, for an excellent read of the history of the SUV, how it came to be in American society, etc, read High & Mighty - highly reccomended!). I won't get into the statistics (mostly because I can't remember specifics), but the VAST majority of all SUVS are NEVER used in 4 wheel drive. They're never used for an application where a station wagon or mini-van wouldn't be sufficient. Yet SUVS are allowed to polute more, have less strenient safety standards, be more gas hogs, etc. This is why those SUVs with multiple large Magnetic American flags plastered all over their bodies are so ironic. It is THESE people who are holding the American society hostage to these "hostile" nations. Coming from a person who shares a car with the rest of his family and owns two bikes (one road, one mountain) -- you're doing to yourself people.
The really sad thing is that this is a country that has the technology and the climate to support nearly self-sustaining energy demands - or to at least switch to non-renewable energy production choices such as fuel cell technologies. This is a country that has the technology to cut the world's petroleum demand in half. This is a country that could single-handedly reverse the effects of CO2s impact on Global Warming --this is why the Kyoto Proticall could not work without us --WE ARE THE GAS HOGS.
I have little respect for non-energy concious americans -- Soccer Moms with large SUVS that have been duped into their "safety" (HA! one of my favorite commercials EVER showed a head-on collision between a large American SUV and a small Honda Civic to show how safe they were. While the Honda appeared completely demolished and the SUV only totalled, what they didn't tell you was that the manicans inside the SUV sustained life-threatening injuries while those in the Civic could have walked away!) or (God help us all) their trendiness fall into this category. I have no respect for our current administration -they perpetuate consumption with no regard for conservation or consequences. This is very much like eating eating eating until it is all (or nearly all) gone and you explode while your family survives but starves to death shortly after.
sigh... I suppose I could have susbstituted one world for all of this (though there are some who wouldn't know what it meant anyway...)
RESPONSIBILITY
-Howie
Alligator
01-13-2004, 10:57
The question was on environmentalism, not the environment, you'll note. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "menace" and 5 "defender" the average value after 34 replies is 3.34, with a pronounced skew towards the extremist tail in the distribution . It appears that the assertion that most Whiteblaze posters are militant anti-environmentalists is false.
Sorry Dave, but you cannot average your poll, for two reasons. First, you did not included numbers in the selections. This would indicate to the poll taker a suggested numerical value to each answer. Second, the selections are not calibrated and are not evenly spaced. The second selection is not "one unit" more intense than the first, the third is not one unit more intense than the second, etc. The categories you used are called ordinal, and are not numerical.
From the poll results, there is still support for your contention that the majority of posters are not militant anti-[extreme] environmentalists. Rather, 25% of the respondents have an unfavorable view of extreme environmentalists. Further, a majority of poll respondents feel that we should be doing more for the environment, with almost 1 in 7 supporting extreme environmental action.
Of course this, along with ALL the polls on this site, are completely unscientific and should be viewed as solely for entertainment purposes.
Blue Jay
01-13-2004, 11:34
Unfortunately the alternative to the "kill everything for money" administration is only slightly better. The very day the sex tapes came out during the Clinton Administration more timber and mineral rights from public lands were sold than any single day prior to that time. The whole "scandal" was a diversion scam that worked. However, Bush would sell the very air his daughters breathe if he could make a profit. I will hold my nose and vote for my first Democretin next year, whoever the idiot. By the way spray painting SUVs is so stupidly counterproductive to any type of environmentalist cause, it is hard to believe it's not a plot by someone like Easy.
Umm...coming from an environmentalist that lives in the United States, I can acurately say that the U.S. is the worst poluting and environmentally devastating country on the Planet...PERIOD. ...
Our administration refuses to acknowledge that Global Warming even exists and ... has openly done so by refusing to sign the Kyoto Proticall (sp). Our administration has tried repeatidly to open the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the fragile home of the largest US Caribo populations, and an enormous migration site for birds from around the world. ... This is an administration that has proposed such ironicly named initiatives - the "clear skies" initiative that lessened polution requirements, the "healthy forest" initiative that opened previously-unavailble lands to logging and road building.
Our administration purports these ideas and feeds us the terms terrorism and patriotism and the like to justify their actions. ... It has been proven by scientists over and over and over again in studies that the US could lessen its dependency on foriegn oil many times over drilling in the Arctic Refuge by simply increasing the average efficiency of automobiles sold in this country by a couple of miles per gallon over the next 10 years.
sigh... I suppose I could have susbstituted one world for all of this (though there are some who wouldn't know what it meant anyway...)
RESPONSIBILITY
-Howie
Well said, Howie.
"Become part of the solution....
...NOT part of the problem!"
If we all wanted to do more...we would....drive smarter cars, hybrids or better....recycle, mulch, conserve water, solar power our homes...etc.etc
I AM thankful i live in the good ol' USA...but GOD tells me to be a good steward of this bountiful land that spreads from sea to shining sea too!
see ya'll UP the trail in 2004!
I am not worryed about warming from burning oil. One day oil will be in short supple and not worth the cost. Then we will have to move to cleaner fuels. I also have more faith in the earth and life to survive :cool:
Yo Former EZ:
your PART TRAIL .com link DOESN'T work.... :confused:
need to check on that!
see you UP the trail in 2004!
hungryhowie
01-13-2004, 13:13
I am not worryed about warming from burning oil. One day oil will be in short supple and not worth the cost. Then we will have to move to cleaner fuels. I also have more faith in the earth and life to survive :cool:
DeBare -
May I ask why you're not concerned about global warming from emmissions? Before we run out of oil reserves, global warming will have great effect on humanity (whether you'll still alive or not is certainly a matter of debate). Thousands of species of animals and plants, perhaps varieties that are integral in our diets, will die out; and I assure you, the different parts of an ecosystem are extremely dependent on each other. This point is illustrated beautifully by NASAs ecospheres - completely encolsed glass bubbles filled about 75% by water and inhabited by shrimp and algae - light makes the algae grow and emit oxygen - the shrimp eat the algae and emit carbon dioxide and on and on it goes. One part cannot exist without the other. Life works the same way in a larger environment like the Earth. This is why entire ecosystems have been irrepairably destroyed by excessive hunting of predators or prey, predator relocation, or sudden (even temporary) geological or geographical change.
There is a very delicate natural balance that keeps our world ticking. While screwing with it can bring short-term "positive" results, a vast majority have caused long-term problems that were greater than the first. Ask the Army Corp of Engineers about tampering with the Everglades, for instance.
Your passive neglect will lead to the exponential hike of oil prices, oil and transportation scares, higher chance of warfare and unprovoked terrorist activity, etc. I don't know how many times this will have to be said: The technologies exist to completely transform our world. Japan has long been building hydrogen fuel-cell power plants - the same type used on the International Space Station. Their only emission is 100% pure water. Several car companies are beta testing fuel-cell operated cars in fleets in California. Imagine having a car that ran on something so pure you could actually drink the emissions. It will take between 25-50 years to make the massive industry transformation from "gas" stations to "hydrogen" stations, so in the meantime car manufacturers are screaming to meet competition with hybrid electric/gas autos that achieve higher efficiencies than their solely gas counterparts. European engineers discovered last year that you can actually use recycled coke bottles as a substitute for expensive polymers in Solar Panels, resulting in solar panels that are 50% less effective, but only 1/10th the cost. A US company unveiled the world's first house lit exclusively by LED technology just yesterday, etc, etc, etc. But alas, passive neglect or outright disdain for the earth is all people are willing to do.
All I want is to be able to see for miles and miles when I get to the top of Clingman's dome in summer (a place whose air is currently so poluted, it ranks worse than metropolitan Los Angeles). We have the power and technologies to do this. But unless you get up off of your butt, you'll get much worse.
-Howie
Rain Man
01-13-2004, 13:20
Umm...coming from an environmentalist that lives in the United States, I can acurately say that the U.S. is the worst poluting and environmentally devastating country on the Planet...PERIOD.
Hmmmmm.... I'm a liberal, but even I might ask what you think of the old Soviet Union's environmental record, if you are looking for the worst in the world?
It might be hyperbole to say the US is "the worst," or it might just depend on your definition of the worst.
However, I agree that what the US does is inexcusable.
Now... back to hiking..... :)
Rain Man
.
"Extreme environmentalists" can both be a menace to society and a savior of society. I don't think you can really generalize, but have to look at it on a case by case basis. If someone goes around spray painting SUVs, I don't see how that helps at all. If somebody sits in an ancient tree for two years, until a lumber company agrees to not cut it down, then I have nothing but admiration for that action.
It seems that apathy about the environment is the real menace to society. For me, at least, thru hiking was the catalyst for changing from apathy to wanting to make a difference. After spending that much time surrounded by the beauty of the natural world, I wanted to give something back. :cool:
Lone Wolf
01-13-2004, 14:01
If a hippy tree sitter falls to the forest floor, does anyone hear him, or care? :D
"There is a very delicate natural balance that keeps our world ticking." If that were true life would have died out along time ago. Yes technologies do exist and when the costs come down we will use it. Just because I'm not worryed does not mean I'm passive, I do what I can to help. Life is about learning and right now we all are just children and children make a mess. Like I said, I have more FAITH in what is going to happen here on earth.
Here's a "CURE" for all the problems in the world.-KILL all the humans then nothing bad will ever happen again. :datz
smokymtnsteve
01-13-2004, 14:10
If a hippy tree sitter falls to the forest floor, does anyone hear him, or care? :D
what is the sound of a hippy tree sitter falling??
TIMBER!!! :datz
Alligator
01-13-2004, 14:17
If pointless one-liners are spewed from Damascus, does anyone listen or care? :jump
Lone Wolf
01-13-2004, 14:22
My feelings are hurt Alligator. :(
Alligator
01-13-2004, 14:43
I thought I heard something...maybe a hoary virginia pine tree being cut?
hungryhowie
01-13-2004, 15:13
"There is a very delicate natural balance that keeps our world ticking." If that were true life would have died out along time ago. Yes technologies do exist and when the costs come down we will use it. Just because I'm not worryed does not mean I'm passive, I do what I can to help. Life is about learning and right now we all are just children and children make a mess. Like I said, I have more FAITH in what is going to happen here on earth.
Here's a "CURE" for all the problems in the world.-KILL all the humans then nothing bad will ever happen again. :datz
I realize that we agree about the technologies --they exist and many are already making their way into popular society. My statements are against your aforementioned apathy. If you have no concern for oil reserves, global warming, etc what motiviation do you have to take an active role? If you have no motivation to take an active role, you'll take the easiest road. And without forcing this structual change to occur, we'll run into implementation problems later on. Designing a plan that calls for a certain percentage of all cars made and sold to be hybrid-electric by a certain date, or by requiring a certain percentage of all electricity to be made by sustainable methods by a certain date, for example. If we start planing and transitioning now, not only will they go smoother (because an eminent deadline hasn't been determined yet), but it will be healthier for the earth and and all living creatures that inhabit it.
But no matter how you look at it, there is a delicate natural balance that keeps the world alive. There are many examples of slippery-slope ecosystems - I listed general examples of those in my last post.
-Howie
hungryhowie
01-13-2004, 15:25
Hmmmmm.... I'm a liberal, but even I might ask what you think of the old Soviet Union's environmental record, if you are looking for the worst in the world?
It might be hyperbole to say the US is "the worst," or it might just depend on your definition of the worst.
However, I agree that what the US does is inexcusable.
Now... back to hiking..... :)
Rain Man
.
I agree that the old Soviet Union's environmental record was most likely worse than ours at that time, but currently, there is no question that the U.S. has pulled far ahead in the race to polute. We have, by far, the largest energy demands of any soveriegn nation - either by total or per capita. While we do have environmental protections in place that many underdeveloped countries lack, a simple reduction in waste accompanied with transitioning to more efficient, cleaner, renewable/sustainable powering methods will have a huge effect on polution for the entire world.
-Howie
I would rather build cities up instead of out and have less need for cars.
Here's a few things I do to save the planet:
1: reuse tp.
2: only flush after doing #2
3: When I take a long Sunday drive in my SUV I only take backroads so I can enjoy nature.
armyrugby
01-13-2004, 15:41
Umm...coming from an environmentalist that lives in the United States, I can acurately say that the U.S. is the worst poluting and environmentally devastating country on the Planet...PERIOD....
-Howie
First, to accurately say anything, you should be able to spell the words that you are spitting out one after another. Secondly, have you ever been out of this country? No? Last I walked the streets of most US cities, while there is some trash along the sides, there is not PILES of garbage lining the roads, there is not human feces everywhere. In Kuwait, the electrical plants shoot straight BLACK smoke into the sky, FAR worse than anything in the US. In Kuwait, if someone's car dies, they usually leave it on the side of the road, never bothering with it again. The US has a long way to go environmentally, and is nowhere near the eco-friendly countries of Western Europe, but we are trying and are doing far better than most of the rest of the world.
Blue Jay
01-13-2004, 15:51
In Kuwait, the electrical plants shoot straight BLACK smoke into the sky, FAR worse than anything in the US. In Kuwait, if someone's car dies, they usually leave it on the side of the road, never bothering with it again.
I have a friend that works on the oil rigs in Kuwait. Every single environmental nightmare in Kuwait is caused directly, not indirectly by the United States Government. It is policy, pure and simple. That country is run by us, more than any US State. Clearly living outside the United States has not given you any insight into this problem.
Saluki Dave
01-13-2004, 19:34
I should know better than to start a thread on a topic like this. In addition to whatever errors in my quickie analysis, polls like this invariably draw from the extremes, and in this case start a flame war. So, if I skip a couple of sections in CT can I still get a 2000 miler patch?
Another major polluter is quickly overtaking us-if they haven't done so already. They call themselves Chinese, live on the Chinese mainland, are over a billion strong, make maybe most of the gear we all brag about so much on this forum, and really dont give a darn about any hydrocarbon emissions at all. We, at least give some lip-service to it; but they don't and are doing anything in their quest for your dollar and your job-and even your air, if they can get it!
We signed the Montreal Protocol and abided by its terms. They just laughed at us and then increased their production of the fluorocarbons.
so, if any feel obliged and want to clean the air over the AT, look back over your shoulder to that awakening giant and try and get him to slow down some :(
steve hiker
01-13-2004, 20:29
A couple days ago I posted a news article about a major scientific report finding that 25% of the earth's species may become extinct by mid-century. The replies to that article have been mostly negative. Regardless of whether most Whiteblaze members are pro or anti-environment, I have a few questions which I'd appreciate some feedback on:
1. Given humanity's environmental record and attitude, do humans deserve a place on planet earth?
2. We are currently in the midst of the seventh mass extinction event in earth's history. Do you think humans will survive as a species?
3. If humans do survive the current extinction event, how great a dieoff will we sustain (what percentage of our population will come out on the other side)?
4. If the human race survives the current mass extinction, would you welcome a mutation in our species that will make us more compatible with the earth's ecosystem? In other words, an evolutionary shift from homosapiens sapiens to the next model? Perhaps a type of human that is more intelligent, less emotional and violent, and less destructive to the earth?
smokymtnsteve
01-13-2004, 20:32
" I wished I Loved the Human Race..I wished I Loved It's Ugly Face"
EDWARD ABBEY
Blue Jay
01-14-2004, 08:35
1. Given humanity's environmental record and attitude, do humans deserve a place on planet earth?
2. We are currently in the midst of the seventh mass extinction event in earth's history. Do you think humans will survive as a species?
3. If humans do survive the current extinction event, how great a dieoff will we sustain (what percentage of our population will come out on the other side)?
4. If the human race survives the current mass extinction, would you welcome a mutation in our species that will make us more compatible with the earth's ecosystem? In other words, an evolutionary shift from homosapiens sapiens to the next model? Perhaps a type of human that is more intelligent, less emotional and violent, and less destructive to the earth?
All guesses of course.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes, 60% will survive the Bioengineered Plague (the rich now control our evolution)
4. Mutations are very slow, it will be a very long time till humans develop intelligence.
2. We are currently in the midst of the seventh mass extinction event in earth's history. Do you think humans will survive as a species?
If we are, in fact in the midst of the "seventh mass extinction event", then would you please provide the other six? I'm curious.
I suppose one would be the occurrence which brought about the quick demise of most dinosaurs, ushered in the age of mammals and left us with the parting gift of our new-formed Gulf of Mexico, when the sun finally did shine through again for any of the few remaining things to see it. I want venture a date for that extinction though-it has to many zeros again :D
So, if that one is correct, what are the other five?
steve hiker
01-14-2004, 13:30
If we are, in fact in the midst of the "seventh mass extinction event", then would you please provide the other six? I'm curious.
I misspoke, we are in the sixth mass extinction not the seventh. The previous five are: The Ordovician was the first of five great extinctions in history. The Devonian, 360 million years ago, killed 60 percent of all species; the Permian-Triassic, 250 million years ago, killed 90 percent of all life; the late Triassic, 220 million years ago, killed half of all species; and the Cretacious-Tertiary event destroyed the dinosaurs and half of all other species about 65 million years ago.
IdahoDavid
01-14-2004, 13:38
We need to be doing more than we are. I cannot condemn extremism -- if we are talking about nonviolent resistence. Nor can I condone the wanton destruction of private property. It is one thing to put yourself in the path of bulldozers; it is another to vandalize the property of a working man or woman.
The fact of the matter is there can be no single, simple solution to saving the environment.
We need the radical. If there is noone at the extreme end of the issue, then compromise will mean nothing. When we achieve balance it will be too far in the direction of those who view the world simply as something to be consumed.
We need to demonstrate environmentalism and conservation in our daily lives. If we consume to excess, if we waste energy and resources, if we do not reduce, reuse and recycle ourselves, then we will not be followed. We need to remember, too, that we Baby Boomers are not the first people to be faced with these issues. While you still can, talk to the people who lived through the Great Depression and WWII. They learned a few things about conserving precious resources and using things completely.
We need to educate. Begin at home. What does your lifestyle tell your children? What does it tell your neighbors and community? Does your City Council know how you feel? Your Legislators? Your congressional representatives? You can educate by showing. People need to know that we can live comfortably by living simply. Isn't that what life on the trail comes down to: Doing the most you can with the least?
We need to be listening. It is too simple to ignore the logger -- the working person, not the owner of the company -- when he or she has every right to fear for the security of their families. If we aren't able to offer realistic alternatives, then we only do half the job.
We need to recognize that we have power. Whether or not you buy into the capitalist concept, as a consumer you have a controling influence on the economy. If we demonstrate there is a market for mass transit, low-pollution, hybrid vehicles, energy-efficient housing and renewable energy then someone will try to make money getting it to us. If we are driving our Hummer to trailhead, we have sent another message.
Spock said it best: The need of the many outweighs the need of the few.
If we are, in fact in the midst of the "seventh mass extinction event", then would you please provide the other six? I'm curious.
Found this (with more detailed descriptions) at:
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/extincmenu.html
1. Precambrian and Vendian Mass Extinctions
2. Cambrian Mass Extinction
3. Ordovician Mass Extinction
4. Devonian Mass Extinction
5. Permian Mass Extinction
6. End-Cretaceous Mass Extinction
7. The Holocene Mass Extinction
I misspoke, we are in the sixth mass extinction not the seventh. The previous five are: The Ordovician was the first of five great extinctions in history. The Devonian, 360 million years ago, killed 60 percent of all species; the Permian-Triassic, 250 million years ago, killed 90 percent of all life; the late Triassic, 220 million years ago, killed half of all species; and the Cretacious-Tertiary event destroyed the dinosaurs and half of all other species about 65 million years ago.
What was responsible for these five prior extinctions, since we are causing the sixth?
Idahodavid "Spock said it best: The need of the many outweighs the need of the few."
I prefer the rights of the individual over the needs of the many. Much like I prefer freedom over slavery -example-(few black slaves working for the many whites)
a source for information on mass extinctions can be found at http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event.
Additional links will take you to discussions of the various explanations for each of these events. I'd like to point out that the word "event" only make sense here when seen from the perspective of geologic time. The Perminan-Triassic "Event" lasted some million years and the Devonian some 3 million years....THe argument that the most recent "event", the holocene which began with the endof the last glaical period, has human causes rests on cataloging all human impacts on plants and animals including hunting, agriculture and so forth spanning thousands of years.....