English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wht will destroy earth first from both of the above options?

2006-11-14 20:28:15 · 17 answers · asked by CB 2 in Environment

17 answers

Global warming has already started affecting us withthe melting snows and warmer seasons. But it is a long drawnout process . It may destroy us from the present form(as dinasaurs were) but may transform us into another (and we hope better)creatures.It is a primaordial process and while we can certainly delay it by judicious use of fuels or going in for clean fuels it is only delay we can do not reverse it. In fact, if we try to reverse it the consequeces may be quite unforeseen. The biologists say that had the dinasaurs used the existing trees and vegetables more judiciously they could have slowly evolved into men and then we mammals would never have been on the scene. Some evolved dnasaur of a Darwin would have brought our an Evolution of Species which would have been noisily contested by the evolved dinasaur-men as some dino-preachers would have propounded a Theory of Divine Creation refusing to believe descent from lowly creatures.

Our destination or rather denoument would be falling for the Global Warming. After the devastating effect of the World War II I do not feel that there ever would be an Armagadon despite all the fumble and bluster in the world. As good sense in the form of the Democrats has prevailed in USA over Bushism the war clouds have receded and even if they crowd the skies again the world wouild manage to dissipate them. This is not empty prophesy but the trends in the shape of things to come evolving .

2006-11-14 20:47:23 · answer #1 · answered by Prabhakar G 6 · 1 0

Marty K must watch Fox News...

Really, it can be a race between the two. Yes, we ARE already seeing and feeling the effects of global warming, and the signs are undeniable, in spite of Marty's feelings. Anyone who ignores global warming is like an ostridge sticking their head in the sand. As for world war, well, we face that every day, but Americans have faced it in the past as well. Truth be told, any country with nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction can attack another country, but then what? They risk recieving the same treatment. After all, what has the country who is getting bombed have to lose, right? And...the country who first bombs, well, what are they gaining? A wasted land that nobody can live on for 50 years? Hmmmm...not a good plan either, don't you think? So. I have hopes that UN peacekeepers will keep doing their jobs to keep the world a safer place.

Otherwise, it is a toss up. But my vote is for global warming.

2006-11-14 20:41:19 · answer #2 · answered by Barbara W 3 · 0 0

World war could be anytime,the weaker and defeated will die while the strong and vicious will survive but Global warming is everybody's curse and will happen unless something is done about it.

Even the victorious will be affected. Even now as we type our messsages,global warming has set in and it effects are already felt this minute all over the world.

2006-11-14 20:43:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Earth goes in a cyclic period of warming and cooling so there are limits to which humans can interfere, whereas wars are caused due to undue interferences (Eg. US in Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Israel in Lebanon, Pakistan in Kashmir, etc.)
World War is a human-made disaster. Global warming is a natural disaster aggravated by humans.
I certainly trust humans more..there isnt dearth of stupidity.

2006-11-14 20:52:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Seeing as how global warming is already having huge effects on the planet, including the melting of the polar ice caps, changes in ocean currents and therefor in ocean life numbers, etc., I'd definately have to say Global Warming is the bigger threat which already HAS started effecting us first... hopefully neither will need to destroy the earth before people wake up to the needs for change.

2006-11-14 20:33:10 · answer #5 · answered by Apple A 3 · 0 2

Already BIO-WAR started to destroy earth in the form of new diseases
so either global warning or world war will be secondary !!!

2006-11-14 21:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by king 3 · 0 0

The US has caused the death of at least 600,000 people in Iraq, mainly in the name of securing oil supplies (great success there then). And this is before supplies start to run out.

The developing world is now lifting its oil consumption towards Western levels - and why shouldn't they.

It is hard to see how wars over oil can be avoided given present attitudes and actions.

The upside is that if we kill ourselves off fighting over oil there will be fewer of us to burn it, and we will avoid global warming.

2006-11-14 21:10:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i think its global warming bcoz its happening now, though america may deny it it is feelin its effect in the form of hurricanes like katrina, the temparature has gone so high tht in a few more years more people will die thn wht wny war can do

2006-11-15 04:40:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

World war.

2006-11-14 20:36:44 · answer #9 · answered by JawharaTrekkie 1 · 2 0

World War most likely.

2006-11-14 20:30:33 · answer #10 · answered by Sigurros 5 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers