The biosphere is the portion of planetary layering in which, as an animal species, we have enjoyed a fairly stable cycle state since the time when our population on the planet was negligible. Many of us have begun to wonder if the cycle upon which we now depend as a mass of humanity can be sustained. Sustainability is difficult to predict, but it is a global human conceptualization which should be considered urgently within our electronic mass perception.
Science proves things. For us, proof is too often demanded through empiricism. Sometimes, the rational evidence of the hypothetically obvious is ignored, and empirical scientific proof is demanded in order to prolong comfort and complacency. The battle over the hypothesis that a native animal species may have a significant effect on a planetary biosphere is heating up. Some imply that as our population continues to increase within this biosphere, the freedom of each individual is reduced. Others suggest that it is reckless to increasingly extract chemicals long sequestered in deeper planet layers into the biolayer to suddenly undergo combustion in combination with vital gasses in the atmosphere. As every scientist knows, until a hypothesized event is created or observed to actually occur, we have nothing but experiments and hypotheses. Until a predicted event actually occurs in reality it is not "proven". So, in the bold tradition of Oppenheimer we will march on to our primitive and blind Trinity Test. We don't have the ability to destroy the planet; only the puny biosphere we have struggled for so many millions of years to adapt to. Do you need proof? Hop on a jet airliner, burn some fuel and oxygen and fly across this little planet at night. It is astonishing that we have so covered the lands. Maybe you will feel the burn. It is empirically and logically rational to hypothesize a threat to our great grandchildren's wellbeing. When it comes to the question of whether human activity and population can affect our biosphere, I have no proof. Thank God..
Is the solution to our problem hidden within our increasingly redundant population? Is rational stability a concept that must be vanquished from discussion? Is economic growth the core of reality, and the finite bounds of the biosphere within which we live an illusion?
Ever get the feeling you are looking down on yourself when you look at a fish tank?
Better safe than sorry.
