Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

? asked in EnvironmentConservation · 7 years ago

Am I the only one to consider deforestation as even worse than any other environmental problem?

I feel like the only one to really care about it. The medias are always talking about the global warming.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Take your pick:

    •       deforestation

    •       conversion of land to monoculture croplands

    •       humans+domesticated animals ≥ 99% of land based vertebrate mass

    •       criss crossing land with fences, roads, etc.

    •       acidification of oceans

    •       climate change

    •       using renewable ecologies at 150% of their annual renewal rate

    •       loss of fresh water storage in glacier systems

    •       rapid reduction in size of remaining wildlife "islands"

    •       pollution of tropospheric air affecting all life

    •       exponential population growth unchecked and uncheckable

    •       6th extinction event now in place and proceeding faster than ever

    But ultimately, all of it is hinged upon an unchecked human population explosion and societies that can only function with the age and labor distributions built from such assumed exponential human growth. We don't know how to function with stable populations. And there is no way we can learn in time, either. There is only one possible outcome of such exponentials -- catastrophic changes.

    Fixing deforestation won't, by itself, resolve anything. Neither will "being more energy efficient." Neither will "a shift to renewable energies." No matter what you do, how you do it, etc., it is all going to amount to essentially linear changes. Too few understand the power of exponentials in their bones. But the fact is that in time exponentials always win out over pathetic linear changes. Just on the basis alone that we are using ecologies up at about 1.5 times their renewal rates means that it will only be a few decades hence that there will be little left to support our burgeoning population. Even if it stabilized today (which it won't.) Besides, the carrying capacity itself is being demolished -- it's not fixed -- and we are consuming it rapidly.

    Deforestation is a consequence, not a cause.

    Collectively, humans will not follow a rational, evidence-based course in the future. And in the near future you will see much increasingly unwind as a consequence of us behaving no smarter than bacteria. If you are young enough, you will manage to live through an interesting future.

    See video below by Dr. Tom Murphy, Associate Professor of Physics at UCSD:

  • 7 years ago

    I also dislike deforestation.Its not good for living organisms. I think its a great loss for human kind. Well, its my point of view.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.