Ok then, I'm always glad to supply information when it's asked for.
First, you have to look at this from both a physical, and philosophical point of view.
Philosophically, you're assuming that conditions that harm us or some animals, are the same conditions that harm the "earth." Since we all think that life is a beautiful thing, I'm assuming that "earth" refers to not only the planet but life on this planet. However, even if you
"chops down more trees, burns more tires, throws away more garbage, takes away animals environments" you're not even making a scratch in the variety of life on the planet.
Don't think that if we humans, or even every complex organism on the planet dies off, that life will not bounce back. Our egos just trick us into thinking that we're the most important organism on the planet.
Also, remember that even a single species, can branch out into vast variety. All mammels have a common ancestor according to the fossil records. Give 1 species a chance, and life can flourish anew.
I'll use these examples you're giving me as my own examples, mostly from the physical perspective.
First, "chopping trees." Trees are essential to humans, and many animals because of the oxygen they generate. Rigt now we have an oxygen rich atmosphere, and life
todaydepends on that atmosphere for respiration. However, this wasn't always so. The first organisms did not respirate, they were anaerobic bacteria.
Photosynthesis emerged in evolution before respiration did, and as photosynthetic bacteria and new primitive plants spread over the land, they generated huge amounts of oxygen. Now remember at this time, respiration wasn't used commonly! Meaning, Oxygen was a POISON to most of the organisms at this time! Plants were using up valuable CO2 and releasing huge amounts of poison into the atmosphere! This did cause a huge die out in anaerobic organisms, and the proof is with us today. The majority of the world's bacteria today can respirate, and purely anaerobic bacteria have taken only to dark and hidden environments where plants could not spread to.
The lesson? Organisms can quickly adapt to new conditions, even something as drastic as a complete atmospheric change. Right now, our waste is breaking down oxygen, and causing more radiation to flood the planet because the oxygen was also the shield that plants erected to protect the earth from it. In truth though, life could not have started with out radiation, and the first organisms emerged partly because of direct radiation from the sun. Life can continue without oxygen or protection from radiation; especially since photosynthetic cells have already evolved. If humans
were to destroy almost all the atmosphere (which I don't even think we're capable of) and then die out, I garantee that some photosynthetic bacteria and plant species would survive, and would begin to rebuild the oxygen rich atmosphere. It would take a long time, but there is plently. Ten, twenty, a hundred million years to rebuild the atmosphere and repopulate the land with plants to make way for new animals is not so long for the Earth.
Next, "Burns more tires." Well, I can't really imagine a bunch of lemurs getting together to light up some tires.
Anyway, same point here. Rubber, when burned, releases fumes that are toxic to humans, and other organisms. Besides, introducing new gases (even if not toxic), makes it much harder for organisms to respirate or use photosynthesis. Yet, these fumes are not toxic to all life, and the evolution process can find a way to use a new substance as easily as it learned to use oxygen. Many insect species respirate at a much slower rate than we do. They don't need an atmosphere that's perfect. Even humans can survive in places like LA with heavy smog. We just don't live as long. The length of time an organism lives is really in consequencial even to its survival as long as it successfully reproduces in the shorter amount of time. Organisms can and will adjust their bodies to worse conditions even without a change in DNA. Many will adjust better than humans do. Once again, if anything can survive, life will continue and flourish.
Third example, "Throw away more garbage." Ok, so what happens when I toss out garbage? There are serious reppercussions for many species, especially sea life. Birds, turtles, and sea mammels are caught or choked or strangulated by debris. More delicate species of fish and invertabrates die out from bad water conditions. Coral weakens from being blocked from the sun by garbage water born, or settled on its skeleton. However, it does not pause life for a second in the open water. Most species of deep sea fish are completely unaffected by our inability to clean up after ourselves. Whole ecosystems live around sea vents deep below that could care less about what happens to our garbage. These organisms can spread and adapt to conditions as well as any other, and are probably earth's last stand in case or disaster. Even if a meteor wiped our all terrestrial life, these ecosystems independent of photosynthesis would continue. There is a huge variety of life there; crabs, worms, fish, an abundance of life ready and waiting to create an entirely different world of life. This is speaking purely about aquatic life. Rats, insects, raccoons, and countless other species have already proven their ability to thrive amongst our garbage.
Fourth example, "destroy more animals habitats." Are you aware that ecosystem types are in constant combat? If one type of habitat is destroyed, a new one will appear. Take forest vs. flat lands. In several places on earth, the ration of forest to flat land is constantly fluctuating. Some organisms thrive in one, some thrive in the other. Both develope ways of life that try to strangulate out life necessary for the other.
Flat lands develope grass with tight roots, that try to choke out any chance for trees to grow. Furthormore, herbivors like buffalo, zebras, rabbits and ground hogs that have adapted to eating short vegatation. The grass has evolved so that it can survive even with its leaves being frequently ripped off by these herbivors, while the shoots of trees or other forest plants will be ripped up and killed under the same treatment. Flat lands will even produce creatures like elephants that will tear whole trees down if they do manage to grow. In fact, the large heards that destroy trees that try to grow in flat lands are a result of living in the flat lands. Hearding is the defense mechanism created by animals unable to hide amongst trees.
Forests also fight against flat lands. Huge trees block out the sun at lower levels, and choke out room necessary for grass. Some trees have even evolved poisons that will spread into the dirt and kill off the seeds of grass and weeds. Trees evolve to hug tightly, and thus choke out space needed by the large herding animals that are allies of the flat lands. Large herding herbivores unable to run easily between trees are easy prey to arboreal predators and predators adapted for the forest like jaguars, tigers, pythons, lynx, and even golden eagles. Thus herbivors in forests must be slim, quick, solitary; a life style that cannot cause large scale damage to trees. Such creatures, will furthor prevent invasion by larger herbivores by consuming much of the edible vegitation.
This exchange occurs even without human intervention. As humans cut back forest, grass spreads, and we move our cows in. A host of other herbivores and plains predators will also thrive as the jungle is cut back.
In Hawaii, where I live, rats and pigs cause serious damage to native life. The mongoose we introduced to kill the rats don't really harm the rats but instead have found a taste for native birds and their eggs. Even so, the pigs plowing through native plants will make way for new species, introduced or evolved, to take the place of the old. New birds will arrive, or evolve from the old, with defense mechanisms to fight against the mongoose' invasion. We don't want our native life to be destroyed, but there is no question that even if it is destroyed this island will still flourish with life because other species will replace the old.
Basically, when you destroy the environment for one species, you make way for the environment of another. No individual species, or even community of species, is crucial for the continuance of life on earth. Thus, an exchange of environments cannot be said to be "destroying earth."
I'll brb and finish writing, but right now I have to take my sister to ballet. seeya.
)
