Environmentalists~Treehuggers Unite!

2004-10-08 [Ilivethelushlife]: this wiki is kool but u just need like a member list and banners and stuff but once ya do all that ill join!!!!

2004-10-08 [Icetigris]: Well, I DID just start it yesterday...so technically I don't have any members. Would you like to be the first?

2004-10-20 [hippychick]: oooo count me in, i'll be seccond!!!!

2004-10-27 [Nee'lahn]: I'll be third..can we just put are names down?

2004-10-27 [hippychick]: wohoooooo yay, icetigris, this page cud be excelent, iv got a load of mates who'd join aswell

2004-11-15 [Lady Erunáme]: As do I! May I join in the fun too?

2004-11-16 [hippychick]: yayy!!!! *runs off to hug a tree*

2004-12-17 [rinaweeena]: hey

2004-12-17 [hippychick]: heya, and how r u fellow tree hugger lol

2004-12-17 [rinaweeena]: lol im good...how about you?

2004-12-19 [hippychick]: im okay thanx, so what u been up2 l8ly?#

2004-12-19 [hippychick]: im okay thanx, so what u been up2 l8ly?

2004-12-19 [rinaweeena]: meh..noth much...u?

2004-12-20 [hippychick]: same, just gcse mocs wohoo! lol

2004-12-20 [rinaweeena]: lol

2004-12-21 [hippychick]: yup yup, im tired lol we brak up 2day tho wohoo!

2004-12-31 [bluewolfgirl]: I'm joining! The way the world is today is sad and sicking!

2005-01-01 [hippychick]: yay!!!!!! goodo another soldier at our side wohoooo lol, :)

2005-01-19 [Pet Rock]: Can I join? I had a best friend for decades that I used to talk to until someone cut him down for firewood. Bastards!!!

2005-01-19 [Lady Erunáme]: Oh, that's sad! I'm so sorry!

2005-01-19 [rinaweeena]: *hug*

2005-01-19 [Pet Rock]: ah, I'd hug you back I really don't have any arms

2005-01-19 [hippychick]: oo, conversation killer lol, *look there goes the tumble wead* lol, so how u all anyway

2005-02-24 [Talk Southern To Me]: Oh may I join! I have been waiting to meet people who care about the earth as much as I do! Everyone thinks I am nuts for thinking Landfills are terrible. Can anyone relate here?

2005-02-24 [Pet Rock]: well landfills do keep a lot of the waste contained. It would be better if people were less wasteful, recycled, and didn't buy stuff they didn't need or that creates a lot of trash, thereby reducing the amount of trash and the number of landfills needed to contain that trash.

2005-02-24 [Lady Erunáme]: I can't understand why everything needs a package! Can't we just but the item? Does food have to be served in individually wrapped containers?

2005-02-24 [Pet Rock]: well, it's often a matter of sanitation. All the packaging needs to be made either biodegradable (and I mean it biodegrades in a month tops, none of this century crap) or recyclable.

2005-02-25 [Lady Erunáme]: I'm kind of an idealist, so I think we should grow and hunt our own food...

2005-02-25 [Pet Rock]: there's nothing wrong with idealists, and there's nothing wrong with your idea, except that 80% of the world's population would have to go away before that could happen.

2005-03-01 [Lady Erunáme]: They'd better change, or else they're going to have to grow their own livlihoods when nuclear weapons destroy their lifestyles!

2005-03-01 [Pet Rock]: provided pollution, disease, or mother nature doesn't do it first.

2005-03-06 [Pet Rock]: interesting story on fish populations http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/01/cod.stocks.reut/index.html

2005-03-18 [challie]: hollo everybody

2005-04-10 [undeadmary]: Pet Rock, you seem to have a answer for everybody. Whats your feelings on the destruction of the rainforest to make cheap livestock feilds? Is there any hope left in the world or are we all going to slowly kill ourselves in the process of filling up our wallets?

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: Well I'll start with the first one. It is absolutely critical to keep those rainforests intact and to recover forests that have been destroyed, not because of the endangered habitats or potential medicines, but because of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. These gases are for the most part carbon based. Plants and phytoplankton have the ability to take these carbonated gases and covert them into organic material and oxygen. The problem is, disrupting the plant portion of the equation significantly decreases the amount of carbon absorbed in the biosphere. A recent study showed that scientists' original hope of making up for the rainforest disruption through phytoplankton

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: has proven false. Phytoplankton only have the ability to temporarily remove carbon from the atmosphere. The carbon does not filter down to lower parts of the ocean and become "trapped." Effectively, phytoplankton are about as good as sinking carbon as your lawn, which releases carbon everytime it's mowed. Forests, on the other hand, with their trees have an increased ability to trap carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere. But the increasing devastation of forest tracts worldwide negatively affects the ability to sink carbon in this manner.

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: For those who are not aware, the biggest threat of global warming is the rising of the oceans. Even though the raise will only be a couple of feet, that will cross a critical threshold that will cause flooding worldwide, precipitating worldwide humanitarian and economic disasters.

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: As for the second question, will we kill ourselves in the process of filling our wallets? I would say it is possible, but improbable. Despite the climatery changes humanity might effect upon the planet, it is unlikely those will be sufficient to destroy the species, with the sole exception of some sort of nuclear armageddon taking place as a result of resource shortfall.

2005-04-12 [Pet Rock]: Anyways, if you want to follow the global warming debate, go here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/08/earth.science/index.html

2005-04-22 [undeadmary]: Wow. thanks for the info. So you think its more possible for natural disasters to end human life? Like astoriods, or yellowstone? I live in eastern washington and am a easy target if that thing erupts like they predict it to. Have you heard about that yet? Well, if it does do a super eruption we won't have to worry about global warming since it will block out alot of the sun. I never knew looking on the bright side could be so depressing.

2005-04-23 [challie]: i think that as humans we are our biggest threat to our existence

2005-04-23 [undeadmary]: I don't necessarily think that we will end human existance but I sure as heck think that we're shorting the path to certian destruction.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: well, the last volcanic eruption powerful enough to signficantly alter the level of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere would have been Krakatowa in 19th century, but even that wasn't really significant enough to cause crop failure or dangerously extended winters. While the Cascades, including Mt. St. Helens and particularly Mt. Ranier (which is really close to Seattle) are still pretty active, but not to the degree where there would be a "super eruption." The bigger danger of a super erruption, if I understand what you mean, would come from the vicinity of Yellowstone National Park, which I believe is in Wyoming, but I could be wrong on that.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: Geologists discovered evidence of a super erruption originating from there (I don't recall when, but at least several tens of millions of years ago). Basically, that part of the continental plate is thin, meaning the mantle was closer to the surface of the earth. Apparently too much pressure had built up, and the resulting explosion covered most of what was Wyoming with molten lava and spread several feet of volcanic ash as far as Colorado. I don't know what kind of an affect that would have on the atmosphere or the ability of sunlight to reach the surface, but needless to say the destruction from such an event would be devastating on an unimaginable scale.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: As for foreign bodies like asteroids striking the earth, that would be a matter of mass and composition. When the Levy-Shoemaker comet broke up in Jupiter's atmosphere, several nuclear explosions were recorded. These explosion, had they occurred on earth, would have been sufficient in wiping out most larger and complex organisms, including us. Such an occurence is extremely rare, however, and with the advent of more complex missle technology coupled with nuclear weapons, the possibility of eliminating such a threat becomes more and more plausible.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: As for humanity wiping itself out...one would think it would be possible to do it with a biological agent, such as a bacteria or virus. I don't believe this to be possible. If the agent kills too quickly, it will die out quickly before it has a chance to spread. If it kills too slowly, then there is a chance of discovering a cure or working around the disease with shortened life spans (remember, humans are able to reproduce in 10-15 years, so anything taking longer than that too kill won't finish us off). Should there be a disease that kills in about 5-10 years, that could probably spread the globe, but its effects would be felt before 100% infection of humanity could occur,

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: so the subsequent breakdown of civilization (i.e. the global society by which the disease could spread so easily) would allow pockets of population to survive uninfected and eventually grow once the threat has passed. Of course, this is assuming the disease is 100% lethal. Humanity consists of 6 billion people, which makes the gene pool incredibly deep. It is highly likely that certain humans would be immune, and by Darwinian natural selection aka survival of the fittest, their immunity would be passed on to future generations, assuming a serum couldn't be developed from that immunity to protect those not immune. Read Jack London's "Red Plague," to see life after this latest scenario.

2005-04-23 [Pet Rock]: The number one biggest threat humanity presents itself would be nuclear weapons. A catastrophic nuclear war, especially one combined with biological and chemical attacks, would not just be limited to destroying the participants. It is highly likely that the radiation could spread via ocean and air currents to the rest of the globe, effectively extinguishing all human life (unless some sort of "Fallout" shelter scenario were to occur). To see how a nuclear holocaust would look like, read Nevil Shute's On the Beach.

2005-04-23 [undeadmary]: Well, you were right on how you could be mistaken since yellowstone is a national park that goes through wyoming, montana, and idaho. From what I've heard there has been 3 super eruptions in the past. They say that a super eruption is comparable to a 1km astriod hittng the earth, and 5-10 times more likely to occur. Differant geolagists say differant things but they all say that it will be devistating, to north america and globally. But you are right in saying that the chance in that happening is low. Still, it makes you wonder....

2005-04-25 [Pet Rock]: I haven't been there, only the CA, AZ, NV, and UT national parks, so I had a feeling I might have to qualify my information there. Of all the superdisasters, that one probably has the most credence, since the technology necessary to prevent it from happening is probably centuries away.

2005-05-17 [MagpieWisdom]: I saw something on tv about yellowstone, it said that the eruption would release loads of co2 in the atmosphere which is what would kill of most of humanity globally, the ash flow would wipe out most of the USA in a matter of a few days.

2005-05-17 [MagpieWisdom]: oh, and it also said that it was overdue for an eruption, and was meant to go off years ago, but it was on TV

2005-05-17 [challie]: are there any good site you would recomend for some one who wants to get more involved with environment stuff?

2005-05-17 [Pet Rock]: [MagpieWisdom] - all that disaster stuff is supposedly overdue. Whether it is or not is another question. [challie] - I would recommend the Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/). They are one of the more responsible lobbies in the United States and don't have some of the associative stigma that Greenpeace and PETA have with eco-terrorism.

2005-05-21 [undeadmary]: Maybe the time span between natural disasters becomes longer after each occurance. You never know. Your words, Pet Rock?

2005-05-23 [Pet Rock]: Mmm...that's assuming it's all cyclical or patterned, and that's assuming it's in cycles and patterns we can understand. There's a lot of missing information in this puzzle that we need to accurately predict such cataclysmic events.

2009-11-25 [Mortified Penguin]: Is it too late to make fun of you global warming believing hippies?