CompuServe Thread

#Eaten by wildlife

7 messages in this thread
#178886From: Eulogio (DJ) GarciaDec 18, 1994 11:38 PM
Michael, Believe me, the last thing I want is what's on anybody else's plate 🙂 Besides, I don't condemn people who don't share my views. I have no idea what I would be like if I had gone through your same upbringing, cultural background, experiences, etc. The rest of my immediate family are meat eaters. I don't love them any less for it. My basic view stems from how I feel about life in general. Obviously, a gardener has to trim the hedges or they'll run the yard over. There is truth in what you say. But the "meat eating civilization" in general is not really as concerned as you appear to be. Cattle, to take your example, are basically business to those who slaughter them. We all know the bottom line rules the majority of these places. Not to say there are no people in that industry who may actually care about them, as creatures we should be grateful to. I say, if you must kill to survive, then kill but do it with full concience of what you are doing, with feelings toward the life you take, and with an effort to avoid it if possible. But unfortunately, I am probably a rather small minority. Most people don't really think about it – it's all done for them far away from their daily life. It's how they are brought up. It's the way things are. But we are thinking animals, perhaps the only ones, or the most advanced ones. But infortunately we tend to be very selfish with our knowledge, both as individuals and as a species. Knowledge is a huge responsibility, one too many knowledgeable people don't take seriously. As we evolve as a species, we will increase our wisdom, as we slowly have been doing (I hope). Some day we'll use our knowledge wisely, but in the meantime … As to destroying the earth, I guess it depends on how we define destroy. I guess you are refering to blowing the whole thing up to bits, in which case I agree with you. But to me destroying the surface and making it uninhabitable for any length of time so that the people I know, the fauna and flora, the geology, are all deeply affected, mutilated, and mutated, well, that fits MY definition of destruction, and we could do a very nice number, indeed 🙁 Happy holidays! DJ On AP from Queens, the thrill and excitement of the Big Apple Where the ice cream truck plays Helter Skelter …
#178913From: Michael SheaDec 19, 1994 2:47 AM
>As to destroying the earth, I guess it depends on how we define destroy. >I guess you are refering to blowing the whole thing up to bits, in which >case I agree with you. But to me destroying the surface and making it >uninhabitable for any length of time so that the people I know, the fauna >and flora, the geology, are all deeply affected, mutilated, and mutated, >well, that fits MY definition of destruction, and we could do a very nice >number, indeed 🙁 Obviously we can't blow the earth to bits, but although I think we could be responsible for a mass extinction, I don't think nuclear war would destroy all life. It might screw up a lot of things for a long time, but only a long time in terms of human lifespans. In the long run, life, if not humans, would recover fully. I am interested in your statement that "geology" could be deeply affected. How could that happen. ._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu | | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
#179038From: Kent S. LidkeDec 19, 1994 9:11 PM
>Obviously we can't blow the earth to bits…< What, you've never heard of the Eludium 236 explosive space modulator?<g> Kent
#179069From: Michael SheaDec 19, 1994 10:25 PM
>>Obviously we can't blow the earth to bits…< >What, you've never heard of the Eludium 236 explosive space modulator?<g> "Where's the KABOOM? The was supposed to be an Earth shattering KABOOM!" 8^)… I actually do a pretty good impression of the martian.
#179046From: Eulogio (DJ) GarciaDec 19, 1994 10:01 PM
Oh, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc. I imagine would have impact on geological formations, not to mention the radiation affecting the soils, mineral deposits, etc. Am I way off base here? DJ On AP from Queens, the thrill and excitement of the Big Apple Where the ice cream truck plays Helter Skelter …
#179070From: Michael SheaDec 19, 1994 10:25 PM
DJ, >Oh, earthquakes, tidal waves, etc. I imagine would have impact on >geological formations, not to mention the radiation affecting the soils, >mineral deposits, etc. Am I way off base here? I don't see how a nuclear exchange could possible set off earthquakes and tidal waves and radiation in the soil is nothing new and the increases you would get from a nuclear exchange would not be great. The only way radiation in the soil could affect geology would be if there were enough to heat it up to the melting point, which the diffuse radiation nuclear scattered by nuclear bombs could not possible do. ._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu | | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360
#179507From: Eulogio (DJ) GarciaDec 23, 1994 1:40 AM
Obviously, you didn't watch Superman, the movie B^). A couple of well placed 400 megaton bombs can definitely do a job on a fault. As for the rocks, I was thinking more of chemical mutation than melting. But hey, this is all speculation, and hopefully will remain so.