Other Answers (11)

• While that may be true, you have to consider the 880GTS specification of a Pential cesletial conversion of the 357 CID edelbrock. The philosopher Jean Sartre once said the ministry of industrial divergence sometimes undercedes the krebs cycle of the Z-based budgeting.
  
  Also never underestimate the agnostic way of DISI, or direct gasoline injection of the variable nozzle einsteinian way of supply and demand in contrast to marekting implementation and control.
  
  Now this doens%26#039;t really go into effect once the strategicmassaging of corporate biological enhancements. Cognitive dissonance of the decision making process will ultimtely prevbail in a SWOT analysis type of way.
  
  Any questions? Let me know. 6% 1 Vote 6% 1 Vote
• have know idea 12% 2 Votes
• ADIS huh?? 0% 0 Votes
• To an extent, i would say yes. Human needs must come first. However, we need to be mindful of what were doing. Reasonable efforts should be made to preserve biodiversity when posible, but when the two conflict, human needs should overrule conservation. The grey area here is where %26quot;reasonable efforts%26quot; start and end, but thats another debate.
  
  Just my two cents, hope it helps! 12% 2 Votes
• Well Joey, I think if we just clean out your mind we can have enough manure to fertilize our food supply for the next several years.
  
  We need to learn to conserve what we have, to be mindful ouf our environment, and to preserve what species we have left. Every time we lose a species, humanity is the poorer for it. I don%26#039;t believe we should supercede our wants over the needs of the planet. After all, it is the only one we have, and if we destroy it, where are we going to go? 6% 1 Vote
• I will argue the view opposite to my own. I will argue species redundancy view: that there is absolutely no way of knowing if living things actually need biodiversity or not. The diversity/stability versus species redundancy is a historic and ongoing debate.
  
  Whoa! wait with the thumbs down, read to the end!
  
  Diversity may be:
  Species diversity - the number of different species of plants/animals
  Genetic diversity - the number of different plants/animals
  Ecological diversity - the total number of ecosystems and wild plant and animal species on Earth.
  Cultural diversity - including man%26#039;s activity
  
  Diversity in an ecosystem is determined by the number of NICHES which are filled. A niche is %26#039;career%26#039; of an animal or plant in that ecosystem, how it functions in relation to other species. A niche is filled by one thing, be it plant or animal. The richer or more diverse, the greater the number of niches.
  So diversity and stability tend to go hand in hand.
  
  Species redundancy theory states that only a few species are actually VITAL for the functioning of an ecosystem. Most species could be lost and the ecosystem would recover.
  
  There have been lots of examples of animal extinctions/habitat depletion that have affected the food chains in that particular area and the ecosystem has recovered or will in time.
  
  However, there is absolutely no way of knowing what will sustain life. We are at present doing the experiment by reducing biodiversity. We have no way of knowing the outcome. If species redundancy theory is not correct and living things (including us) do need biodiversity it will be too late, the conclusion can only be that all living things will die off.
  
  So putting it in these terms, human needs ARE reliant on biodiversity, OR are we prepared to continue taking the species redundancy wager, when the stakes are so high? The Earth Care Manual: A Permaculture Handbook for Britain and other Temperate Climates Patrick Whitefield 2004 Permanent Publications. 12% 2 Votes