Nature is: more fragile than we think or more resilient than we think?
Agree w rand
Nature is resilient. Individual species may not be. Whatever we do will not destroy the biosphere of this planet. HOWEVER. We can certainly kill ourselves off.
Nature is resilient that's why things go extinct !duh
True we are destroying our own world like fat fucks
Grocker- the thing is, we have created tools such as factories and cars that do affect those warring insects. We tear down forests where animals and plants live and we think everything is ok. That is a major problem.
Sindri: i have learned this in 3rd grade! Ever heard about something called the BIG BANG THEORY???? It happened and the Earth is about 3 billion years old...
Technically we are nature. And we and created a very diverse ecosystem from all other living creatures but we are the ones most greatly affected by change. Our entire race could be wiped out in an instant and no other creatures would care. I think in the near future the human race will be eradicated
Its only a little more fragile but its still tough
Sindri, sounds like you haven't been through a science class. Which has left the inside of your skull arid.
We have thumbs. We have self-awareness, intellect and free will. We have the ability to mow down the rainforests beyond recovery and render extinct animals that we badly knew existed. We can also build the most magnificent structures and invent the most fascinating things. My dog doesn't care about
@ncbuc the earth has never been through a nuclear holocaust. And that would destroy the atmosphere and all air the earth would be an arid rock it would take millions if not billions of years for the earth to recover... If it recovered.
The rule comes down to this: adapt or die.
Nature as a whole is resilient, individual species of life are often fragile. Life will go on long after the human virus is finished ravaging this planet.
I was hoping to read HolyBabble's comment... It's obviously more fragile. They need to teach ecology in high school.
Spray carcinogens in the air for the next 100 years and the earth will still be here and life will still exist in some form. But we will not. Earth day is not about saving earth but our own habitat. She's resilient. We're the fragile ones.
Ignorant idiots. It's fragile. On it's own, it takes care of itself and reaches a balance, but not an equilibrium because it's dynamic. Humans can't get it through our heads how much we damage it.
Lmfao @ sindri...that kind of superiority complex makes me laugh. Earth has been through alot worse than us. And will be alive and well 'when' we are gone.
Or the ability to decide that we aren't responsible.
Grocker, where does that belief system come from? From man, obviously. The only thing in the natural world capable of have a believe system. Or the ability to worry. Or a sense of responsibility. Or the capability to consciously change the environment for good or bad.
@frank I think you under estimate man over billions of years no organism has became as powerful as man. Hurricanes, floods, tornados, have done little damage to human population. Man could destroy mother nature this very minute... Both are resilient.
Mother nature fights back everyday with hurricanes, tornados, floods, etc. eventually, she will unleash a virus on us that will eliminate 90 percent of the population and relieve her of the stress we've put on her. She's very resilient. We are not.
Ask the people in Pompey if they felt like a threat to mother earth. Eventually, she'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. Yeah, we're probably contributing...but the earth will be fine. The people are f****d.
My dog doesn't worry about responsibility and respect to nature. Nor, does it seem, does anything else in the natural world. Why, then, do humans have that mandate? Where does that belief system come from?
The problem is in thinking its resilient. Then we lose our awareness of our responsibility in treating nature with respect.
Man can't be "the problem." There is no problem, simply natural occurrences. We are as much a product of nature as a beaver, or a tree. If we spread disease and war, so do some types of insects. Why would you believe that we have some sort of inherent stewardship mandate? Where does that come from?
And regarding how important we are: We are an integral part of nature, but that doesn't mean nature needs us. We should keep that (and our continuing ignorance) in mind as we tromp around beating our chests.
Nature always has surprises in store for us. One of the most interesting is how rapidly nature is recovering from the Mount St. Helens eruption. It is at odds with biologists' most optimistic predictions.
No matter how smart we think we are, we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of nature. Sure, many causes and effects are pretty damn obvious, but most of our understanding we've teased out with great difficulty.
Nature is both extremely fragile and extremely resilient. There seems to be no end to our surprise at how easy it is to kill life, and how easy it is for life to flourish in spite of our clumsy efforts to wipe it out.
My point is don't mess with nature, just let it all flow and we must follow through with its flow.
Some of lab procedures consist of destroying unwanted tiny organisms in my sample, but what is so annoying is that they spring back up within 12 hours of incubation, no matter how much i get rid off they seem to replicate even more.
Remember this: what goes up must come down.
Nature is resilient in that there will be other organisms that survive no matter what we do (short of nuclear holocaust) but we can't make our lives harder with climate change, over fishing, deforestation, etc.
At some point, key organisms are not going to be able to support other organisms and the web collapses. Sure, eventually new organisms evolve to fill those ecological niches, but for a species to do it to itself when it's aware it's doing it is a shame.
I'm quite surprised no one has brought God/religion into this whole debate. :-) it has been quite entertaining though. I typically don't follow a question for this long (blame my ADHD for that). Please, continue the madness!!!
Gawd I love tripping on acid
The point is catastrophic changes in the environment have resulted in mass extinctions. A bunch of key species die off and other systems collapse. We are REALLY good at altering our environment....and doing it really quickly I geologic terms.
could it be argued that its natures resiliency, to evolve humans to the point where we self-eliminate ourselves?
And then we'll get in to ecology, systems biology, etc.
Btw, you might want to take a basic biology class first before thinking you know something about this subject. It might help.
Earth's history, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job driving the one we will be going through next.
The earth is a planet. It will continue to exist for another 4 billion years. What's on this planet is constantly changing. In geologic terms, we haven't been here long. And judging by the fact that we are losing species now at a rate comparable to the other mass extinction events in
and the earth continues to exist
I votes resilient, but that's not to say most people should try to live greener!
99% of the organisms? You mean species? You mean 99.9999% then (at least).
This seems to be a fairly open question. "Nature" as in life? Fragile to me. 99% of the organisms that ever existed are extinct. "Nature" as in what, systems? Laws? Resilient.