2007-01-12 19:23:31 · 21 answers · asked by screaming frenzy 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Saving earth - this is inevitable - Mankind like all other animals and organisms are merely residents of Earth with a much lesser life expectancy.
Should there be a neuclear holocaust of major proportions where every bomb was used i believe the "Earth" will take hundreds of years to heal but WILL survive however, mankind would not.
On the other hand, should mankind strategically place 100 neuclear bombs (or less) "inside" the Earth (i.e. along the fault lines) we could crack this puppy in two along with it, also ourselves
Since it will take many years for mankind to learn to live in peace together, it would therefore be quicker and easier to destroy Mother Earth
2007-01-12 19:31:08 · answer #1 · answered by Truth D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't it seem human nature always complicates its own problems by trying to take the easiest way out. It would be really easy to save the earth, all we would have to do is run out of oil. But then I think modern day convenience has taken such a grasp on all of us that the thought of relinquishing the power that once was would be completely asinine even when it is thought to be attainable. So, yeah, maybe we will accidentally save the earth, but we'll probably just turn it back to **** afterwards. I mean, what else do humans do other than forget what is important and suck resources dry. At least I'll be a fine ride down to Armageddon.
2007-01-13 04:45:51 · answer #2 · answered by geystin 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying Earth is easier until we begin to get destroyed with it. Saving the Earth may be the real easy way .... except for one thing... we have global warming and global cooling... that means that as the earth heats up with ozone holes and pollution we need to cut down on the gas that we send up there... however.. because of the haze and the pollution we also have global cooling... I really get in a dizzy trying to think of ways we can save ourselves from freezing to death in a new Ice age or burning up and losing our green earth. We have really got to start thinking clearer!!!!
2007-01-13 05:54:16 · answer #3 · answered by Miz Phoenix 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll say Destroying Earth
2007-01-13 03:32:01 · answer #4 · answered by Jenne 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying the earth is obviously easier because it's what we are doing right now.
2007-01-13 03:26:24 · answer #5 · answered by Jeffrey 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
we as humans can not save nor destroy any thing.on this earth. anything that appears to be saved or destroyed, appears so only in the time frame it exists in. If the time frame is either increased or decreased the state may not be the same.
We can only recycle the products of earth (Yajna), all the acts performed by us are a process of re-cycling the products of earth (Yajna).
2007-01-13 03:44:58 · answer #6 · answered by mr.kotiankar 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
saving earth is easier because it shows our attitude,
destroying the earth in minutes by wepons or any other reason is not actual fact because it also take some time ( to make a wepons people expend many years).
2007-01-13 03:57:40 · answer #7 · answered by vm_h2002 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it take 1 minute to destroy the earth when u cut a tree, n need 10 years to wait it to grow..... so should we save the earth now?
2007-01-13 03:31:35 · answer #8 · answered by JC8577 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thats easy ........just keep on as we are and eventually this planet will be unhabitable for humans .
Tho that will not destroy the planet , when we are scoured from the earth the planet will recover and some other species will emerge .
The human race is the worst disaster that has happent to this world .
2007-01-13 03:34:36 · answer #9 · answered by shannow5858 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying...it's already happening right now. So far, the entire world sucks at keeping the Earth safe no offense. Sooner or later, because of us not keeping good care of it, the human race will eventually die.
2007-01-13 03:28:56 · answer #10 · answered by Shoop 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋