View Poll Results: Does human malevolence or natural predation have a more lethal consequence to life? Human malevolence and ignorance 6 100.00% Natural predation and randomness 0 0% Both are equally lethal 0 0% Neither is significant 0 0% Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

## The great destroyer: human or nonhuman nature?

Is human malevolence or natural predation more destructive to life?
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> Leading 3-D printer firms to merge in $403M deal (Update)>> LA to give every student an iPad;$30M order>> CIA faulted for choosing Amazon over IBM on cloud contract
 Malevolence in response to malevolence in response to predation. nuke holocaust because terrorists nuked a city because US imperialism. that's the "end-times" scenario i see most likely to happen. what would result from a sudden mushroom cloud over NYC or DC? it would get crazy and i could see many nukes going all over the place.....
 i think i misunderstood, overall life? predation is more destructive..

## The great destroyer: human or nonhuman nature?

I agree with the malevolence part, but not the ignorance part. Ignorance is defined as unaware. Humans are perfectly aware of the dangers involved with recklessly cutting down trees and stuff. A better word to use is obstinate.
 i agree... human cant always find a reason for the wrong thing they do
 Loren Booda, as usual you have come up with a very thought-provoking poll. I chose Human Malevolence. I did so because nature seems to keep itself in check, and maintain homeostasis, until the introduction of Humans. In fact, the second stage of the developement of an environment is caused by either natural disasters or human intervention (which is practically the same thing anyway[;)]).

 Similar discussions for: The great destroyer: human or nonhuman nature? Thread Forum Replies General Discussion 2 General Discussion 22 General Discussion 3 General Discussion 12 General Discussion 22