Cogsci - you say that the process of evolution is flawless, and yet humans could destroy all life on earth to prove you wrong. Although you could say that evolution could restart again (but not if we blow the earth to smithereens), but really evolution should be taken in a human context - if we don't want to preserve the planet to ensure the survival of our species, then some species will survive without us - but if we want to ensure our survival, we should maintain the equilibrium roughly as it is (if nature has adverse effects in the future by its own ends, we could alter it, but in the course of events (the universe) it's irrelevant.

You say that evolution has given us the human brain - but without a context that doesn't matter - if evolution was consciously driven by me, I dare say it would do a better job. Three billion years? That sounds about right to me. Not too fast, not too slow. What planet\process are you comparing it to? Evolution isn't perfect, and humans have the benefit of hindsight and the analysis of their actions.

In your previous post you said what right do humans have to take over mother nature, and yet you admit we can both destroy it and maintain it - You are saying that we should do a bit of this and a bit of that with no objectivity in what we do - a bit like the evolution process you say is better. Homo sapiens has been around for a few tens of thousands of years and yet we already have the power to manipulate evolution through selective breeding of animals and genetic engineering - things that evolution cannot do - although the product of that process can.

Niffweed - I know that technology can restore the balance - but it won't easily restore extinct species, ancient rainforests, coal supplies, the icecaps etc.. You might say this is irrevelant, but I think we should use the benefit of the doubt - the technology isn't here yet and people are dying now.

Ultimately, evolution carries on regardless of what we do to the earth - but if we care about our species and the survival of individuals, the health of the earth needs to be addressed now, rather than in the future

S-A-M: yeah, but shouldn’t we stop famines and increased numbers of hurricanes etc. Plus, if there is large-scale uncontrolled global warming, there could lead to mass desirtification. Some people we have already go past the critical point. I know they can't agree on how bad it'll be, but it makes sense to minimalise damage by keeping the climate to what we know.