2006-09-05 03:28:02 · 10 answers · asked by ross 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
i think the loss of 70 percent of the world's forest would be devastating enough to cause big health problems and death to some. thank goodness amazon forests are still alive to sustain us all.
2006-09-05 03:37:31 · answer #1 · answered by portivee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Loss of woodland is not a terminal disease, surprisingly. There is no evidence to suggest that population is proportional to the amount of worldwide forest; if there was a connection the population would have been falling over the last thousands of years, rather than increasing exponentially.
Are you worried about the oxygen producing aspect? Don't be. The world's vegetation is responsible for 20% of oxygen production; 80% comes from algal activity etc in the world's oceans. An ancient wood, whose boundaries are fairly constant doesn't contribute to the oxygen balance because it produces as much carbon dioxide from expiration and decay as it takes in through growth.
There is no result whether in atmospheric balance nor climate change that could result in the human race being wiped out, that is pure hysteria and fatally weakens the case for preservation.
What it would result in is a world with a greatly reduced variety, interest and beauty and sufficient climate change in parts of the world to make life intolerable there. These are the reasons why forests need to be protected.
2006-09-08 18:38:28 · answer #2 · answered by narkypoon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why shouldn't we be able to survive without forests? Sure, a lot of land will be turned into desert but those who are rich enough will still be able to bye food no matter how scarce it becomes.
Besides, only tropical forest will disappear. I think Canada and Russia still have forest 200 years from now, maybe even 500 years.
2006-09-05 10:34:54 · answer #3 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We could probably survive without the earths forests, not that I would want to yet, there is probably more forests in North America than when Columbus landed in the Carribean.
2006-09-05 11:31:20 · answer #4 · answered by JimZ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of them. Forests are not the only plants on the surface of the earth
2006-09-06 04:02:24 · answer #5 · answered by DaGetz 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well not everyone! a select few would have been transported to an alternate planet to preserve the continuity of mankind and once the world has regenerated itself again they'll come back to visit!
2006-09-05 10:51:21 · answer #6 · answered by ley_dd 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of them. The ocean provides oxygen too.
This is a sad state of affairs. Life means little to the almighty dollar it seems.
POWER TO THE GREENIES!
2006-09-05 10:34:02 · answer #7 · answered by mrscmmckim 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
100%
2006-09-05 10:33:50 · answer #8 · answered by Dr M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not much, i think we are killing ourselves slowly without realising it.
time to use alternat was to support our lives.
2006-09-05 10:31:06 · answer #9 · answered by welshwife 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
none if my arsonist sons got enough matches!
2006-09-05 10:32:38 · answer #10 · answered by dreadedsilvo 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋