Top Ten Outrages of the Past Half Millenium

[Kuciwalker]

Women getting the vote was a tragedy?

[JohnT]

I'll do it so others won't have to...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Women getting the vote was a tragedy?

You beat me to it .

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker

The "harm" done by those bacteria was FAR worse than any "harm" we've done.

Just you wait. We're not done yet - we're still in the process of exponential growth.

[Kuciwalker]

You think we can match the extinction of nearly every lifeform on the planet?

Even with nukes, I doubt we could be as thorough.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
You think we can match the extinction of nearly every lifeform on the planet?

We probably won't, only because there is so much more biodiversity then there was then.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Osweld


We probably won't, only because there is so much more biodiversity then there was then.

Which is not to say we won't kill alot. We're already killing things off at a rate that could qualify as another period of mass-extinction.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Osweld
We probably won't, only because there is so much more biodiversity then there was then.

I would seriously doubt this.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker


I would seriously doubt this.

You would? That nearly all life was dependent on the same chemical in the air should make it pretty obvious.

[Kuciwalker]

So? By that definition, we're just as biodiverse as they were.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
So? By that definition, we're just as biodiverse as they were.

Uhm, no.

We breath oxygen, exhale carbon dioxide, plants take carbon dioxide and create oxygen. If this example of biodiversity existed then, there would not of been the mass-extinction that there was.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes.

We're dependent on water.

One chemical.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
Yes.

We're dependent on water.

One chemical.

So that negates all the biodiversity? There aren't billions of different species of animals and plants and the dozens of sub-categories, because everythign requires water? Life isn't nearly as fragile as it was then, and water is not a depleatable resource, anyways... Well, clean water is - but biodiversity takes care of that, and water is purified through swamps and forests.

[Kuciwalker]

My point is that we aren't really more biodiverse than they were.

Remember, they were all bacteria back then, and bacteria breed mutations like crazy.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by skywalker
My point is that we aren't really more biodiverse than they were.

Remember, they were all bacteria back then, and bacteria breed mutations like crazy.

Bacteria still exists. Along with all the mammals, reptiles, plants, birds, insects, fish, ect... You're an idiot if you think there is no more biodiversity then when life was limited to bacteria.