Is changing the world to suit one's purposes unnatural?
ofcourse
Side Score: 6
|
 |
no, natural creatures do it
Side Score: 9
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Eclectic choices...I must say! When one changes the world to suit ones purposes and it has a negative effect on anything or anyone it is, of course, time to check if that change is worth the damage it will do. It is not unnatural to want to change the world for we are selfish creatures who need to be continually reminded that the world is in our keeping and not there as something to be jeopardized because it suits our purpose. One must be able to take anything that will alter the world to its logical end to see if that end justifies the means. It is unnatural to upset the balance of the world and the creatures who live here with us and even the lowly termite has its job to keep things in check. See the Methane Chart Below. Side: To everything there is a purpose
2
points
"It is unnatural to upset the balance of the world and the creatures who live here with us and even the lowly termite has its job to keep things in check" I think you will find that when you look at an ecosystem, each organism does not have a defined 'role' as such, rather they function selfishly, however are offset by another organism's selfish act which counterbalanced the initial effect. Evolution 'molds' organisms to take advantage of resources, since waste is a form of produce, then it follows that something opportunistic will consume it. Oxygen itself is a waste product of photosynthesis. Perhaps the question should be, "is it responsible to alter one's environment for industrial purposes," because altering the environment selfishly is entirely natural Side: no, natural creatures do it
1
point
Yes! One up vote. I couldn't have said it better. Now, if we are currently pumping too much green house gases into the atmosphere, then it stands to reason that something should evolve to either take advantage of those gases (although maybe not fast enough to save us) or some natural phenomena will happen to either restore order (unlikely) or force a new equilibrium (more likely, although that new equilibrium will probably not be to our benefit). Chances are that the thing capable of consuming the green house gases already exist (like trees). Maybe we need to plant a ship load of trees but I still opt for human population size reduction. Side: no, natural creatures do it
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
What!?!?! The total weight of termites exceeds the total weight of all the humans in the world by 1,000! Termites produce a lot of methane and methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If you want to lower greenhouse gasses, kill termites...., but you will be harming something else. Side: no, natural creatures do it
1
point
I refer you to the origin of oxygen on earth. The evolution of Cynobacteria from archaeobacteria some 2.7 billion years ago. Up until that point, earth had been largely oxygen gas free. The evolution of photosynthesizing bacteria that produce oxygen as a waste product caused nutrients which had otherwise been aqueously dissolved to precipitate out. Most obvious is the oxidation of Fe2+ by oxygen to Fe2O3(rust). This precipitated out. Denied of their abundant food source, most of the oxygen intolerant archaeobacteria died out. Estimates range over 90%. Obviously this had significant implications for life on earth, illustrating how unwilling change can cause 'ecological devastation' however without such climatic events, change would not have been able to occur, respiration would not have developed and thus the natural macroscopic diversity we see today. So it is utterly natural to change the environment one occupies, and indeed it is only through such processes that life as we know it rose today. Side: no, natural creatures do it
|
