3 ms·
That is true, however one argument that can be made is that most of life on earth was nowhere near as smart as humans are and didn't have, for example HVAC. You
by chipperyman573 8y ago
That is true, however one argument that can be made is that most of life on earth was nowhere near as smart as humans are and didn't have, for example HVAC. You could make the argument that humans' intelligence will outweigh nature's attempts to wipe us out.
Of course, that doesn't mean that global warming isn't a massive problem, and HVAC won't save us. It's just important to consider all sides of an argument.
Edit: To be clear I disagree with this argument, it's just the most common one I've heard.
- DennisP 8y agoI would sure hate to live in a world in which most of nature has been destroyed, and the remaining humans huddle in air-conditioned buildings.
- jellicle 8y ago"Humans will try hard to survive", while undoubtedly true, isn't really a counter-argument. As a counter to your "humans are smart" theory, I would point out that we've known about climate change for half a century now and have done absolutely nothing about it: each year we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before. We are accelerating into the apocalypse. If humans were smart as you suppose, wouldn't we have done something other than jam our feet on the accelerator?
- jacquesm 8y agoIt is a complete bogus argument. We need a functioning eco-system to survive.