2006-07-29 02:23:33 · 6 answers · asked by Nothin 2 in Environment
Whether or not they are more or less dangerous depends upon the disturbances and hazards included in the comparisons. A natural hazard, allegedly a meteor, destroyed the environment without human assistance to the extent most life disappeared at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. Either may result in the extinction of humans and potentially provide the opportunity for evolution to give rise to a new ecology and new dominant species.
2006-07-29 03:41:59 · answer #1 · answered by Ray 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most human environmental disturbances are more dangerous because there is a lot of ignorance about the environment.
2006-08-01 06:00:08 · answer #2 · answered by Nightstar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The ecology of Earth has evoled over billions of years to mitigate and sometimes even thrive upon "natural disasters" We on the other hand, add our own damaging events to the ecosystem on top of those that already exist, meaning that the homeostatic balance that has evolved is becoming upset. In effect we may be the "straw that broke the camel's back"
2006-07-29 10:01:09 · answer #3 · answered by Jason 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess becos d human Environmental disturbances lead 2 d spread of more serious diseases and also mutation of genes.
2006-07-29 09:34:30 · answer #4 · answered by funmzire 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Environmental disturbances end naturally.
Human enironmental disturbances end when humans end.
2006-07-29 09:48:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are not, but some might find that they deserve more attention because something can be done to prevent them.
Someone said "Why bother about the weather when we can'd do anything about it anyway?"
2006-07-29 10:20:32 · answer #6 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋