sen-no-sen wrote:Exnihiloest wrote:...
Who were the other five extinctions from ?!
It's anything but a solvent remark ...
Let us admit that we observe the death of 10 people over a year (in a village for example), according to exnihilian "logic", we should deduce that the eleventh is necessarily attributable to the automobile?
What you infer from my words is delusional. It's amazing how you reject a taboo subject. Nature is at the origin of the first 5 "extinctions" but shhh, we must not say it, it could harm his image while it is the man we want to discredit, so silence!
That said, your remark does not fall completely flat, because man is indeed part of nature, so it would be one more extinction of nature.
What I mean is why to make a fuss about a possible "extinction" of anthropogenic origin, which we are careful not to define precisely and which for the moment is not one according to the definition (disappearance of 75% of animal and plant species), when five of natural origin preceded it without making it worse?
Unlike you, I trust my species. It will adapt, and even create new animals if necessary, provided that ecological obscurantism does not prevent GMO research. And all this if this extinction were to happen, which is certainly not the case due to the decline in world demography from the end of the century. Of course, it will be necessary that the ecologists leave the peace to the developing countries by letting them exploit their own resources and oil, because the decline in demography is the corollary of the improvement of the standard of living. The risk of extinction is the counter-productivity of ecological ideology. Nature does not need them to organize itself, and man even less.