Wolfgang wrote:



Man has been around for awhile but his impact on the world's environment
has been anything but constant during that time. Man has made more
changes to the world's environment in the last 200 years than the rest
of the time he has been on this planet.


Well, maybe. I mean, I guess it depends, at least in part, on how you
define "more changes".....or who does the defining, for that matter. I've
been meaning to ask that very question of the Pleistocene megafauna......but
they never return my calls.

Then too, there's that distressing business of grazing animals and deserts
and all that ****.


Give me a break. That's pretty weak.


However, I don't think either method can produce
native plants or animals.


Human chauvinism, no different than that which informs the biblical
imperative to subjugate the Earth and its multifarious inhabitants. From a
geological perspective the difference between natives and invaders doesn't
amount to half a jar of cold ****. Or, to put it another way, what
you....or I....think is less than irrelevant absent a consensus....or....to
put it yet another way, see the paragraph immediately below.


Not sure why one should take a geological perspective. From a geological
perspective, the extinction of man wouldn't amount to half a jar of
****. It may be human chauvinism, but we're talking about the definition
of human words. (at least I think we are)

Willi