Would the world’s ecosystems (coral reefs, rainforests, etc.) be significantly different were it not for the detrimental effects of the war, specifically World War II? And how so? Would the effects of climate change not be such a problem / hasten the process? Would we have less extinct and endangered species?
50.000.000 victims, nuclear bombs and their eternal effects on environment, countries destroyed with their ecosystems, no war has any benefits to humanity, humans, and the biosphere..
Disaster of nuclear bombs. perhaps countries should be careful in near future. Countries wish winning war at any cost
No winners at all if it goes nuclear, let me remind this part of Jacques Brel's song "Seul". " We were 1000 against 1000 both thinking to be the stronger, one moment of stupidity the result was 2000 Dead...
Yes. You are all very correct. Thank you for sharing your insights on the subject. There is much I must read on. You have given me a number of things to consider and thoughts to ponder on. There is certainly no war that may benefit anything and anyone.
Every bad solution after a war is the starter key for the next coming war. if we want to stop the war and save the nature, environment, and human lives we should find a real, honest, and sustained solution.
In the Pacific, rats were introduced to Midway, causing the extinction of Laysan rails, transplanted there; Palmyra Atoll, Baker Island. Brown tree snakes were accidentally released on Guam, extinction followed for 13 spp. Defoliation on other islands, and re-seeding created plant diversity loss. Introduction of African snails as starvation food caused local land mollusk extinctions, etc. See Isles of Amnesia, my 2016 book on these factors.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology