MANKIND'S FOOTPRINT Going "green" seems to be the hip thing to do these days, and sure I'm all for that because it's a huge step in being more responsible. However, I thought of this little illustration the other day and thought it might provide a better take on an issue I think is even more important than simplistic environmentalism. Feedback is certainly welcome. (I had some pictures here, you'll have to use your imagination until I get those back.) Step One: Snow Falls. Scenario One, Step Two: Natural Thaw. End Scenario 1. Scenario Two, Step Two: Introduce a few people without heads making some footprints in the snow. Scenario Two, Step Three: Oh lookie, even more people trodding the path. No big deal, I guess. Scenario Two, Step Four: It takes a village. Scenario Two, Step Five: Mankind's Footprint is shown. 6 billion people suggesting that "snow is stupid anyway". Commentary: It's not perfect, but hopefully you get the idea of contrasting a natural thaw to the impact mankind has on a simple snowfall. I'm not going to get into technical jargon such as how many days it would take for each because I think it's inherently obvious that not only do the multitude of footprints beat down the snow much quicker than a natural thaw, but that doesn't even include snowplows, snowblowers, sand, and everything else at our disposal in this age of technology. The main thing I hear from anti-environmentalists these days is something along the lines of a sarcastic, "Look, another storm, must be global warming", as they pathetically try to insinuate that the natural flux of weather is no longer being taken into account. We've had glaciers before, we've had record heatwaves, catastrophic earthquakes, hurricanes, and countless other occurrences throughout history. Can we really tell if storms and earthquakes are becoming stronger or are causing more damage? I think that would be extremely difficult to gauge, and so as far as the anti's are concerned, I agree...or more acurately, I don't care. In truth, I would say it doesn't matter and is not even close to being the most important issue. Look again at my extremely simplistic example of a snowfall and the impact that mankind has on it just by walking around. Now, let's extrapolate that example and apply it to, say, "the political dead zone near the center of the (Arctic Sea) is also at the center of a mounting dispute between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark. It is considered significant because of its potential to contain as much as or more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered oil and gas resources, the tapping of which could greatly alter the flow of the global energy market." Whether or not global warming actually exists and that the Arctic glaciers would actually reform in time is IRRELEVANT, because several key nations will very soon be vying to plant their flags in the snow, to begin sailing ships into the Arctic Ocean to obtain other resources, and to once again set mankind's footprint upon the world as the Arctic is completely wiped out (along with several animal species). The glaciers will not be given a chance to reform, and only the cute animals will be put in zoos. So what is the solution? Actually, let's more accurately define the problem first. Back to the snowfall example. Step Two, a few footprints, no big deal. Steps three and four, oh boy. Step five and Earth doesn't stand a chance. Huxley is my main influence, and overpopulation is the world's biggest issue. Period. What's the solution for overpopulation (without becoming China, who brags that its killing of 'x' many people over the years is helping prevent global warming)? Obviously we're not living responsibly as a species, so my best guess is "nuclear war and incurable disease". But you know what -- if you've got a better answer, I'd love to hear it.