Earth's Happy Earth -- Day

By the way is it happy Earth day from the Earth's perspective or from the human perspective. I suspect "happy" means different things to Earth than to us! (check out our new experiential conservation - Landicity)

Heavyweights Weighing In with Question of fact?

• If you remove humans from Earth will it survive, thrive or quickly die? What if you remove ants from Earth, will Earth die (as we like to know and keep it)?
• And, if you weigh all the humans and then weight all the ants, which weighs more?
  
• Methane gas releases occur in nature ......well, naturally. Is this gas 10-15 times more lethal to nature (from the human perspective) than carbon dioxin?
• And, does nature inject more of this gas than human-caused carbon foot printing? Does this gas bubble up in huge volumes from the ocean? (the answer is yes)
• So then, what is the ratio of methane gas release coming from the oceans and lakes versus coming directly out of the ground (above sea level of course since I am not sure where "ground" begins)?

For Earth Day, I recommend taking the day off, educate yourself, remove the media-hype as you formulate your own nature perspective, and think about setting your "PRIORITIES of NATURE" and read a good book -- "Last Child in the Woods" by Richard Louv

".....describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illness. Deficit is only one side of the coin. The other is nature abundance...." (I forget who wrote this, but they get credit)

Why Are We Trying To Freeze Nature in This Moment!?

• How long is this current period between ice ages? Has it been the most conducive to human species - ever?.
• Is it Global Warming, or a moment between ice ages? Is Global Warming bad for nature, or just bad for our psychological perspective?
• Humans are animals too. We are a very relative and minor nit in nature time
• Why should we try to "keep things as they are" when nature never "freezes"? Nature just works in a very long time frame
• Why can humans entirely destroy a mountain top in less than decades? It takes nature hundreds, thousands, millions of years to change a mountain top.
• Has nature "killed" more species than humans? Has it "polluted the environment more, or less?
• Humans are animals too.
• Nature will survive. And, "survive" may mean a roving black hole come near Earth and naturally, sucks it in and alienates it -- in our view (but not nature's)
• It is humans who may not like how it evolves?

Earth Day -- Learn The Facts, Stop the Hype!

Tomorrow is Earth Day. Here is my "hype"

Humans are a part of the ecosystem just like the frogs, birds, whales and all other animals on Earth. Animals "destroy" things. Not really, they do what they do and Earth, nature and the universe does what it does. It creates, destroys and is ever changing. We put the words to nature. What are whales saying about it? Changing is where humans seem to not like things!

I notice phrases "man vs nature", the "wrath of nature", "we must stop the extinction of... and "we must guide and help nature". This bothers me since many times it implies an adversarial perspective, let alone an implied attitude that nature is here for us to "control, manage, guide...". Nature is here because it IS.

Our entire "wealth" as well call it, is derive from nature. Green is green, money is green, our "wealth" comes from and leads to green. Most other animals depend upon nature for survival, not "wealth". But, humans are a minuscule component with maybe a disproportion impact - too much "wealth"?

Nature is just nature, it should not be defined as part of our evolution, but it is the evolution of space, planets, ever-changing dynamics. Who are we to suggest we can "manage" nature, stop extinction, and think we even should? Extinction and the dying out of species is a natural part of nature's evolution. Humans, just like any other creature are a part not separate from this process. We should manage our behavior, not nature, in this process.

Bob with an Attitude!

I watched Adventure Alaska yesterday. I thought it was a fantastic adventure with great photography. I am envious I was not out doing awesome adventure like that. But I noticed a call to arms about global warming in a slightly "alarming emotional" media-hype way. Even I felt like we all must stop in our tracks and act now; we must not let the polar bear (which one scientist suggested should be the poster child of global warming) perish, Maybe we should! Think deeper.

Global warming is real; humans have and are playing a significant role in it and so is nature. But a majority of informed, hope full unemotional scientists also know a bigger nature panorama is occurring. They realize one major factor is that "nature" is between ice ages and that man has come about in period very favorable to humans.

This "gap" as some scientist term it, has been ideal to our species. So, does that mean:

"We should freeze it that way"? Keep it in this period? Save any species that may perish due to global warming? Including humans? I believe we should not.

I believe we should change ourselves, change our behavior. We should not succumb to "the sky is falling" and go out and build some thing to hold up the sky -- an un natural thing?