devilgrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:03 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Which is most dangerous to human beings and the planet? |
|
Edited on Tue Jun-27-06 06:10 PM by devilgrrl
Just thought I'd throw this out there :shrug:
|
uppityperson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Flag burners. Or snakes on a plane. |
|
In answer, I don't know but I'm wasting time online so thought I'd answer.
|
serryjw
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
MOST above but you left off something that the corpoctracy calls food.
|
megatherium
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Armed conflict. If by 'armed conflict' you include nuclear war. nt |
MrSlayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:05 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I said Aliens because the planet is in no danger from any of the others. |
|
Human ability to live here might be due to things we have done but the planet itself is in no danger whatsoever.
|
NNN0LHI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:06 PM
Response to Original message |
4. A few weeks ago bird flu was the flavor of the month n/t |
MisoWeaver
(99 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Bird flu is as dangerous as second-hand smoke |
|
Probably less so.
/doesn't smoke
|
3waygeek
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
etherealtruth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. I was thinking the entire cabal and the neocon agenda. nt |
RandomUser
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:14 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Other: Loss of Natural Habitats |
|
From an endangered species standpoint, it's better to focus on preserving the habitats of of the endangered species rather than the actual species itself. If you manage to protect the habitat, you will protect all the species in it, not just the endangered ones. You'll also preserve entire ecosystems with interrelationships that cannot be protected just by targeting endangered species.
Further, loss of habitats eliminates functional carbon sinks, thus contributing to global warming every bit as much as pollution does. In the case of forest decimation, moisture and climate patterns get affected as well. Wetlands help blunt hurricanes, forested slopes help prevent mudslides, etc. There are countless examples of the roles that natural habitats play beyond just looking pretty.
|
devilgrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. I agree, I didn't quite know how to word it. |
Techno Dog
(555 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jun-27-06 06:16 PM
Response to Original message |
10. I don't think it's fair to separate |
|
car exhaust and industrial pollutants.
I think they are the same greenhouse emissions threat.
Can I vote twice?
Side note: How do you do a poll?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:49 PM
Response to Original message |