2007-08-02 13:57:24 · 13 answers · asked by John C 1 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
What if the earth were square?
2007-08-02 15:38:25 · answer #1 · answered by Steven H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There isn't such a thing as a best climate, what suits one species isn't necessarily suitable for another. As the planet has warmed and cooled over millions of years some species of fauna and flora have thrived, some have perished, others have adapted.
By and large those species that can adapt have been able to do so because past climate change has been a very slow and gradual process. Things are different now as the climate has never before been known to change at anything like the rate it is currently changing. Many species that could adpat if the climaet changed naturally will be threatened or become extinct because they're not able to evolve quick enough to keep up with the changing climate.
Fortunately humans are extraordinarily versatile and adaptable and with the right protective equipment can survive in almost all environments on the planet.
Even as a single species there is no ideal condition for humans. Place an Evenk or Inuit in a temperate climate zone and to them it would be uncomfortably hot whereas to an Ashanti or Zulu it would be uncomfortably cold.
2007-08-02 23:41:27 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's not a matter of "best". It's a matter of natural. What man needs to do is return climate to the hands of nature. We don't know enough to mess with it successfully, even if we knew what was "best".
What is clear is that man's present alteration of the natural climate is very bad for man, and we should stop doing that. Then we'll deal with natural changes.
2007-08-02 21:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you consider our inability to locate any star-planet relationships that have anything approaching our current conditions, I'd say that we've already stretched our chances thin. It would be too big of a coincidence that we also share the same "best" climate.
2007-08-02 23:03:12 · answer #4 · answered by 3DM 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then mankind would just invent homes that would adapt. It would be interesting if we all had to move underground to live safely and left the major cities standing empty. Kind of "sci fi" and apocalyptic if you ask me!
2007-08-03 12:35:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
whatever is best for the climate IS best for mankind.
2007-08-02 22:15:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It never has been. Early mankind flourished in a climate that would have killed him without adaptation.
2007-08-02 21:37:43 · answer #7 · answered by Niles 2041 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Very good question. Isn't man just another species in nature? Nature has eliminated many species over the history of earth. Nature has no conscience, and kills at will with no concern for age, race, religion, or gender.
2007-08-02 23:07:45 · answer #8 · answered by GABY 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I doubt the planet itself really cares what the climate is. It is the biomass - plants and animals - that care.
2007-08-02 21:08:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
mankind would either died , or more likely to adapt to the climate.
2007-08-02 21:01:21 · answer #10 · answered by soccerdude 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The optimum climate for man is actually alot warmer than todays temperatures. And global warming is caused by the sun, not CO2.
2007-08-02 21:34:55 · answer #11 · answered by Worldemperor 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋