Monday, November 07, 2005
Pollution...
And "ecosystem" is nothing more than and equilbrium between flora, fauna, and resources. It is not nearly so well defined as a chemical reaction for a couple of reasons. For one thing, no ecosystem is truly "closed." That is to say you cannot draw a boundary around it, thus you cannot always identify what factors shift it. Second of all, it is so comlex in comparison to a chemical reaction that you may not be able to identify all the factors inside the arbitrary boundary you draw.
In something as dynamic as this planet, the fact of the matter is there are always factors being introduced into an ecosystem, thus the equilibrium is always shifting. Thus things always change. So, when you read all these breathless stories about how things are changing, all you know is that someone has observed and described a specific process that is on-going. Consider
- Mapping damage to African lakes
- New Study Warns of Total Loss of Arctic Tundra
- Prince Charles: Climate change is 'terrifying' (oh yeah, he's an expert)
- Climate response risks to nature
Which makes stories like these somewhat irresponsible
- Dire Future if Fossil Fuel Use Not Curbed, Scientists Say
- Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs
- Green Extremism (actually this is Cheat Seeking Missles debunking such a story)
The key question when reading about change is not the change itself, but Why the change? and Is the change bad? That second question is really loaded. If change is constant, if it has always been a part of the mechanism of the planet, how do we know if it is good or bad? Just because it's based on human action? But are we not part of the planet as well? Get's a little tough, doesn't it?
Speaking of those questions, what about when one part of nature just does it to another part. Consider
Finally, let's close today with some genuine news -- Here's one about real pollution handled well and here is a story about justice realized.
