#Eaten by wildlife
7 messages in this thread
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 …
>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
>Obviously we can't blow the earth to bits…<
What, you've never heard of the Eludium 236 explosive space modulator?<g>
Kent
>>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.
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 …
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
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.