Can we posit a Law of Conservation of Life, as we have laws of conservation of Matter/Energy?

Question

I was considering the "hot" issue [excuse the pun] of Global Warming and Climate Change.

I learned from meteorologist Tom Skilling that just 1% of our atmosphere consists of "greenhouse gases"--they are: H2O, Co2, HC4, and O3.
[water vapor; carbon dioxide;
methane; and ozone.]
{Chicago Tribune, 6-3-06}

Further, that CO2 accounts for 63% of the warming effect, while methane supplies 23% of it. That's 86%, with the last 14% shared by ozone and water vapor.

But the point is this: ALL mammals breathe, exhaling carbon dioxide.

AND, that the more successful a species is, its number increase, while the numbers of other species declines.

Considering the Gaeia hypothesis, could we say that in terms of energy consumption ( not sheer numbers) --that the TOTAL amount of Living Beings on this planet is somehow fixed and constant?

(I'm not suggesting how we could measure that)

And could there be a combined
"Law of Conservation of Life and Death" ?

Most people are missing a simple point, based on Empiricism..

We POSIT [my word] the conservation laws.

We haven't proven them.

To my awareness, NO one has measured the total amount of matter and energy in the Universe..

So, don't we just A-S-S-U-M-E
that it's all somehow constant?

Are not the Laws of Conservation merely Axioms, unproven, and unprovable
(Godel's theorum)??

Can we not posit, i.e further assume, cosmic laws, which appear reasonable, without firm scientific proof?

Answer 1

To impose such a law would be difficult at best. There would be laws within laws, as you have already discovered. Further to that who would regulate or adjudicate when someone contravenes these laws. Would there be a retro-active clause that would be enforced for all of the damage done previous to the passing of this law. While you say that you aren't suggesting a measure, you are already posing possible restrictions. That means that someone out there has to decide who has disrupted that balance and to what degree. Expanding on that, what would be the disciplinary measure for such an offense?
For example: If a farmer kills a coyote to save his sheep from being attacked, he disrupts the ecosystem by eliminating a predator. Gophers proliferate and consume the farmers crop. The farmer lays traps and puts poison in the holes. Gophers die and scavengers claim the reward. Some being birds of prey. This, in turn, renders the eggs sterile or deforms the young, decreasing the population of predators and further disrupting the natural balance between predator/prey. The coyotes are left without food and they again seek out the lambs and the vulnerable sheep in the flock.
It is a vicious circle that began with a farmer who only tried to save his sheep. Would he then be guilty of breaking "The Law of Conservation of Life and Death?"
With all of that in mind, it is difficult to ascertain what the biotic potential of a species is until you eliminate all of the factors that prevent it from proliferating.
As our population rises we explore different solutions to increase our accomodations. In doing so we violate a series of these basic laws by encroaching on existing habitats. How would we go about rectifying that?
I agree that we should be more mindful of the residual affects that our actions have on this delicate ecosystem. However, at this point, it is more an act of your will and conscience.

Answer 2

If you are asking for a Man imposed law then at the very best it would undoubtedly be inadequate to the needs of the entire ecosystem because Man tends to think of current needs first, needs within their own life time second, and future generations last but only 2 or 3.

As intelligent as we are in many areas we really have no clue on how far reaching our decisions are both in the time-line and how our decisions affect all other matter.

If you are asking if there is a Natural law of Conservation..., then there already is. The amount of matter on the planet is finite, it can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted into other forms of matter.

Worth considering in my opinion, comepare the population cycles of each living entity we know about to their typical lifespan. You may just see a pattern there that may give some indication on how long the Human cycle is.

Answer 3

I think you are overstating it when you say the Gia hypothesis means that "that the TOTAL amount of Living Beings on this planet is somehow fixed ". The Gia hypothesis only says that life takes an active role in shaping the environment, rather than the traditional view that it just benefits from the environment which exists separately.

Answer 4

i like Tesla. even though, i think of he replaced into incorrect. He replaced into working with primitive radio and close to-field outcomes. He theory resonance could enable instant transmission of ability. i think of the impediment is the clever rules of physics. The inverse sq. regulation: Transmitted over any important distance, the quantity of ability attainable to a resonant receiver could be very small. this is why cutting-element radios are energetic receivers. They require some greater ability source and energetic gadgets (transistor) to boost. Tesla replaced into working with resonant circuits. A passive resonator looks to pay interest or boost, yet extremely all you may get is way less useful ability out of the resonator in comparison to the ability this is put in on the antenna. (conservation of ability).

Answer 5

Well, if we must have this law, then we should do some SERIOUS changes in the way that we are learning now in our lives. Here are the rules for which this law needs to ensure that we have this "Law of Conservation" if this natural "Law of Conservation" is not adequate enough to preserve this world.

1. We must become better with recycling glass, paper, and other materials in proper recycling facilities.

2. We must make more of these facilities available to the common person.

3. We must redesign trash cans to facilitate this change so that we can seperate our trash into different places in this new style of can.

4. Houses must be redesigned in order to accomodate the change that is described in rule number three.

5. We must outlaw euthanasia and all forms of assisted suicide. If we are going to save the world, then destroying ourselves is not the way to do so in life, for, logically speaking, there needs to be people who can preserve the world.

6. We need to quit polluting the air with numerous chemicals. Would you like it if someone destroyed YOUR house? God feels the same way about His planet that He created for us to live on in this lifetime. I could care less if you believe in God or not, He is a constant that exists whether you believe in Him or not and He is NOT mythological in form, so quit saying those lines of bull caca.

7. We must eliminate racism, and not just the madness of white supremacists, either, but other so-called "minority power" movements that act no better than their former oppressors. It is sad that, over forty years later, the only thing that has changed is that the white supremacists no longer have a monopoly of the market of hatred but now everyone wants their piece of the pie and, eventually, they will want a larger and larger piece of the pie and after that, they will want the whole pie. Like it or not, this IS the way that it is in life.

8. We must eliminate sexism.

9. We must eliminate other forms of hatred, such as homophobia and heterophobia, a.k.a., "homosexuality." I could care less how you feel, axe murderers have feelings, too. Do we make their feelings law simply because some nutjob feels sorry for them in their lives? You could care less about how the rest of humanity feels and as for your partners, given the chance, you would sell each other out for SOME kind of price. Humans are also like that in general nine times out of ten, too, which is really sad but it is the truth. Also, do THEY care about how the rest of humanity feels in THEIR lives? I am not a homophobe but if a lifestyle that is solely based upon fear and xenophobia and pride is telling ME that I am a hatemonger, then is that not the pot calling the kettle black? Hypocrisy leaves such a bitter taste in my mouth and that is why I avoid that substance at all costs in my life.

10. We must not needlessly slaughter animals, plants, and other forms of life. This is not to say that we should become vegetarians or have special diets, though SOME humans could most certainly USE a diet, rather, it is we should quit killing things for sport.

11. We must cease overproduction and overexpansion of urban sprawl for making new developments for housing, businesses, suburban areas, and even new cities. If we plan on expanding humanity, then we should build cities that are underground so that the impact of the environment is minimalized and that we build our new cities with strict environmental codes of living.

12. We must eliminate abortion. I could care less if it is your right to choose, axe murderers also have a right to choose, too. They have a right to choose the laws to break and the right to kill people. Do we support them because they break the law, whether it is a human made law, Divine law, or a law of natural order? We most certainly do NOT support their alleged rights to kill another human being in cold blood, yet here we are promoting the same thing and those who do not fall in line are seen as antiquated, narrow minded, Bible-thumping, sexist bigots. I have learned a few things from the results of abortion. The victims of an axe murderer usually can, nine times out of ten, fight back and at least HAVE a chance with living but an aborted BABY (NOT fetus, you mooks) has absolutely NO chance AND, unlike most murder victims, are always killed in a co-conspiratorial manner. What do we do to stop abortion? Well, for one, we could stop believing in this line of caca called "free love," for there is no such thing as a free lunch or a free ride and like those things, love always has a price in life. Also, condoms are nothing more than glorified balloons, so do something smart, keep it in your pants (that goes for men AND women), and wait UNTIL you get married and THEN be responsible and have children! Yes, I said ABSTINENCE! Do you have a problem with abstinence? Perhaps you also have a problem with saving the environment? All of these things are interlinked and if we do not do something about it, then we are all dead.

13. Like it or not, we must repent of our sins and give our lives to Jesus Christ, who is our only true hope for reclaiming our planet. After all, our Father wrote what we should do to ensure that this planet is taken care of properly in life. Genesis 2 in the Bible clearly states that we must both procreate AND maintain care of this planet in a proper manner, which includes proper ways of recycling and he advocation of such principles. The Bible also teaches us to not live in ways of life that are bad or do things to do harm to the world and to ourselves. If we are to have ANY chance of HAVING a planet, then we must lower our egos and do this NOW!!!!!!!!!! If you do not like these rules, then tough caca, I will not be mean and say "I told you so, people," I will simply let you learn the truth too late in your lives.

Jesse Long