This is raised to those who care to give an expression as to what makes this world breath...


Is it solely humans, or are we a factor amoung the Nile and Amazon? For starters, I think that the Amazon adn the Nile rivers are the lungs of this planet. They pump and give life for our exsistance.

Discuss this topic..

What do you think are the lungs to our planet?

Well, everything that respires would be considered the lungs for our planet. Animals breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide, while plants do the opposite. We're dependent on each other. The Nile and the Amazon are part of the lungs of the planet, and not the lungs themselves. They give out oxygen and give us life, while we give off carbon dioxide to give them life.

Well, everything that respires would be considered the lungs for our planet. Animals breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide, while plants do the opposite. We're dependent on each other. The Nile and the Amazon are part of the lungs of the planet, and not the lungs themselves. They give out oxygen and give us life, while we give off carbon dioxide to give them life.

You know, plants do actually respire. In times of low sunlight (ie night time) plants will revert to an aerobic respiration pattern.

Regards,

Spero

blah blah blah the amazon......everyone forgets the biggest oxygen producer in the world....drum roll please.....the ocean! Everyone forgets my precious algae. Algae is the true underrated species of the world. Go hug my unicellular friend today!

You know, plants do actually respire. In times of low sunlight (ie night time) plants will revert to an aerobic respiration pattern.

Regards,

Spero
Riiiiight, thanks. Damn, I just took Biology and these things are slipping my mind! It's not that I didn't know (I mean most elementary school kids would know this) but I just couldn't think of it at the time. (But ask me anything about protein synthesis, I aced that part in Biology! :p) Sorry, off-topic.

Bogs and swamps are also major producers of oxygen. So are some types of bacteria.

But like I said, EVERYTHING that respires or uses photosynthesis would be considered the lungs of the planet. Cellular respiration and photosynthesis are basically opposite chemical reactions, and therefore depend on each other's products for its own reactants.

By the way, what do fungi do? I think they're anaerobic, but I'm not sure.



ps. Is there an actual point to this debate? We can argue about what the "lungs of the planet" are, but in the end, that's pretty pointless isn't it? We're debating an abstract idea, and with nothing to follow up the debate.

yeah i didnt get the point of this thread either but there isnt any good debate thread going on right now and im in an agumentative mood.

blah blah blah the amazon......everyone forgets the biggest oxygen producer in the world....drum roll please.....the ocean! Everyone forgets my precious algae. Algae is the true underrated species of the world. Go hug my unicellular friend today!


go algae. useless info: My avatar was made by kaleidescoping a picture of this really cool algal formation that I saw last year during my plant tissue culture class. :cool:

Riiiiight, thanks. Damn, I just took Biology and these things are slipping my mind! It's not that I didn't know (I mean most elementary school kids would know this) but I just couldn't think of it at the time. (But ask me anything about protein synthesis, I aced that part in Biology! :p) Sorry, off-topic.

Bogs and swamps are also major producers of oxygen. So are some types of bacteria.

But like I said, EVERYTHING that respires or uses photosynthesis would be considered the lungs of the planet. Cellular respiration and photosynthesis are basically opposite chemical reactions, and therefore depend on each other's products for its own reactants.

By the way, what do fungi do? I think they're anaerobic, but I'm not sure.



ps. Is there an actual point to this debate? We can argue about what the "lungs of the planet" are, but in the end, that's pretty pointless isn't it? We're debating an abstract idea, and with nothing to follow up the debate.

Fungi can be both anaerobic (eg rumen sp?) and aerobic (eg chytriidomycete sp?) so both. Hope that helps.

Regards,

Spero

Absolutly everything has its purpose in the chain, if one group dropped out the rest would die out. Its amazing the way the world is all so integrated, humans are the only exception. (fungi, fun-guy, he he!!)

Absolutly everything has its purpose in the chain, if one group dropped out the rest would die out. Its amazing the way the world is all so integrated, humans are the only exception. (fungi, fun-guy, he he!!) Can you explain how humans are outside the chain of interdependence?

Can you explain how humans are outside the chain of interdependence?
I'm guessing that it's because we tend to destroy things a lot. :rolleyes:

If the Nile and Amazon are the lungs, does that make volcanos like... the zits?

Ew. :p

If the Nile and Amazon are the lungs, does that make volcanos like... the zits?

Ew. :p
Volcanos are awesome!

Why hasn't anyone suggested that the rainforests are the lungs of the planet? (I guess that was an '80's issue).

well, the anatomy of a lung has many individual parts that each performs specific function. Put them all together and you have a self sustaining, working and amazing thing. So I guess you could say that the rainforest, volcanoes and ocean(bodies of water) are individual parts that form the lung of the world. (i.e the capilaries, valves, muscle, etc).
eh, just a thought :p

I just finished writing a report for my university class about the brazilian rain forest. My researsh found that the Amazon produces 20% of all the world's oxygen (more than any other single cause). But the alarming thing is, if we carry on clearing the forests at the rate we are now, the Amazon rainforest could be destroyed in as little as 40 years. I think I also found that 173 plant, animal, and insect species go extinct each day with the loss of rainforest (this incorperates the African rainforests too). So, the question is: do we have the right to destroy the forests so that we can live in luxury?

plants are the lungs of our earth... plants and trees.

Can you explain how humans are outside the chain of interdependence?

well everything else living on our earth depends on each other to live right? the ecosystem is all perfectly balanced except for humans, does anything depend on humans to survive??? (yeah okay, prove me wrong straight away probably.)

plants are the lungs of our earth... plants and trees.



well everything else living on our earth depends on each other to live right? the ecosystem is all perfectly balanced except for humans, does anything depend on humans to survive??? (yeah okay, prove me wrong straight away probably.)

The link on the end of the chain is also part of it. What would we do without the things under us?

The link on the end of the chain is also part of it. What would we do without the things under us?

ahh yes, we depend on them, but does anything else depend on US? all other living creatures play their role... except us. humans destroy, not create harmony. we are at the end of the chain. there can be no more links, we are the vital final link at the moment, we are not contributing to the chain, but destroying it.

ahh yes, we depend on them, but does anything else depend on US? all other living creatures play their role... except us. humans destroy, not create harmony. we are at the end of the chain. there can be no more links, we are the vital final link at the moment, we are not contributing to the chain, but destroying it.

Things don't have to depend on us. Every chain has 2 ends. There's a bottom and a top, and if you remove either then the thing that was adjacent to it will now be on the end. There's no getting around it. So we're on top. That's good for us.

We are living off of our environment, as we were meant to do. Yes, we could be doing it more efficiently, but that's just the way it is. The world isn't about to have an evironmental collapse anytime soon. We got here naturally just like every other living thing and we have a right to use our environment to reasonably sustain ourselves.

ahh yes, we depend on them, but does anything else depend on US? all other living creatures play their role... except us. humans destroy, not create harmony. we are at the end of the chain. there can be no more links, we are the vital final link at the moment, we are not contributing to the chain, but destroying it. Oh, spare me. What do you think a lion is? Nothing relies on a lion as a food source. Wait, there's fungi that eat them when they die.Oops, that happens to humans too. I guess you could argue that humans can treat a lion as prey, but they can easily do the same to us. We are what's called the dominant species; a group that I'd rather be in than any other. I'm not saying that we're without responsibility to our help preserve our world, but we're far from a negative factor.

Things don't have to depend on us. Every chain has 2 ends. There's a bottom and a top, and if you remove either then the thing that was adjacent to it will now be on the end. There's no getting around it. So we're on top. That's good for us.

We are living off of our environment, as we were meant to do. Yes, we could be doing it more efficiently, but that's just the way it is. The world isn't about to have an evironmental collapse anytime soon. We got here naturally just like every other living thing and we have a right to use our environment to reasonably sustain ourselves.

what do you propose is the bottom link to the chain? water? oxygen? hmmm but everything else sustains itself and then stops destroying. we sustain ourselves and then cant help but continue to kill every other living thing, regardless of whether we need it to survive or not. but then again, heres another idea, that there is no end to the chain, cause when we die we go back into the earth and the worms eat us... unless we get burnt :rolleyes:

what do you propose is the bottom link to the chain? water? oxygen? hmmm but everything else sustains itself and then stops destroying. we sustain ourselves and then cant help but continue to kill every other living thing, regardless of whether we need it to survive or not. but then again, heres another idea, that there is no end to the chain, cause when we die we go back into the earth and the worms eat us... unless we get burnt :rolleyes:

You ever taken any biology courses in college? The bottom of the chain consists of the plants/plankton/algae/etc that get energy from sunlight and grow with it. They are then consumed by something else, and on up until you get to us.

We are not set out to destroy our environment mailiciously as you seem to believe. I assure you we could have wreaked catastrophic global havoc if it had been our goal to do so. We have environmental regulations that allow us to maintain our standard of living without sending the planet into oblivion. Some people would like them to be stronger I know, but the current settings are only getting tighter generally, and I don't see the sky falling. Would you care to explain just how horribly we're destroying the world beyond repair?

We are not set out to destroy our environment mailiciously as you seem to believe. I assure you we could have wreaked catastrophic global havoc if it had been our goal to do so. We have environmental regulations that allow us to maintain our standard of living without sending the planet into oblivion. Some people would like them to be stronger I know, but the current settings are only getting tighter generally, and I don't see the sky falling. Would you care to explain just how horribly we're destroying the world beyond repair?

as has already been pointed out we are slowly but surely destroying the rainforests: 149 acres (60 hectares) per minute globally, 5.4 million acres per year in brazil alone (facts may be wrong, havent had time to search up everything). Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day. HUMANS are doing this, no other animals! if we were not here would this be happening? do LIONS destroy the rainforests? also, global warming, name one other species which effects the ozone layer like humans (if you want to bring cows and methane gas into this... :p ) what else... ummm pollution of waterways. theres this interesting thing, i cant remember it exactly but its something like "humans are the only ansimals which soil their own nest" or something along those lines. anyway, my point is, we are the only species which is not playing its role... and if you dont take my examples for meaning an ounce of anything ummm... yeah, pass.

as has already been pointed out we are slowly but surely destroying the rainforests: 149 acres (60 hectares) per minute globally, 5.4 million acres per year in brazil alone (facts may be wrong, havent had time to search up everything). Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day. HUMANS are doing this, no other animals! if we were not here would this be happening? do LIONS destroy the rainforests? also, global warming, name one other species which effects the ozone layer like humans (if you want to bring cows and methane gas into this... :p ) what else... ummm pollution of waterways. theres this interesting thing, i cant remember it exactly but its something like "humans are the only ansimals which soil their own nest" or something along those lines. anyway, my point is, we are the only species which is not playing its role... and if you dont take my examples for meaning an ounce of anything ummm... yeah, pass.

So I have to ask... does our historical research support the idea that any animals or plant life ever went extinct in ancient history before humans were as industrialized as they are now? Do we know for a fact that there were species that went extinct far before we were any more advanced than a caveman? I think you know the answer to that. Was it our fault then? It's quite illogical to assume that every extinction or similar thing today is a direct result of our irresponsibility. It's possible that we would have prevented some, but certainly not all.

as has already been pointed out we are slowly but surely destroying the rainforests: 149 acres (60 hectares) per minute globally, 5.4 million acres per year in brazil alone (facts may be wrong, havent had time to search up everything). Experts estimate that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day. HUMANS are doing this, no other animals! if we were not here would this be happening? do LIONS destroy the rainforests? also, global warming, name one other species which effects the ozone layer like humans (if you want to bring cows and methane gas into this... :p ) As for the rainforests, policies are being made and governments are working together to help prevent their destruction. As for global warming, humans can't touch the amount of damage volcanos do to the ozone. Prove that humans are the reason species are disappearing. Millions of species became extinct because of predators long before humans were capable of causing such an occurrance.

man im getting myself in too deep here. no we cant prove that any less animals would be extinct if humans werent around, only my speculation, and noticing the rate at which species are becoming extinct... lookes awfully high. but wasnt the start of this debate what are the lungs of the earth? i just stand by the fact that humans are NOT the lungs, as nobody needs us to survive. and bluesdealer, those policies, are they working? rainforests are still being cut down at an alarming rate, correct? and even if they are working, can the damage (yes even you must admit that there is a lot of damage) ever be reversed? anyways my eyes are falling out of their sockets, happy debating.

Ok first of all, Its not like people on this board are all frigin poachers and loggers. Were not responsible for anything like that. Sure, a few people may be concerned, but were getting better at protecting stuff. 99% of all types of plants and animals are extinct. Get over it. Its not like were gonna go round killing the rest off. Anyway, who cares? Environmentalists. Thats what theyre theyre for ok? Go on some other board that cares. Sure, I support Free The Bears, but its not like I post a whole thread on it. Goddamn. When will you learn?
Ok Ill take some Prozac and be happy soon
Kittencat

man im getting myself in too deep here. no we cant prove that any less animals would be extinct if humans werent around, only my speculation, and noticing the rate at which species are becoming extinct... lookes awfully high. but wasnt the start of this debate what are the lungs of the earth? i just stand by the fact that humans are NOT the lungs, as nobody needs us to survive. and bluesdealer, those policies, are they working? rainforests are still being cut down at an alarming rate, correct? and even if they are working, can the damage (yes even you must admit that there is a lot of damage) ever be reversed? anyways my eyes are falling out of their sockets, happy debating. The Earth changes. The rainforests haven't always been there. The policies are improving the situation. No, the damage can't be reversed. Neither can the damage caused by a natural forest fire. Our climate and environment are cyclic.

True. this wasn't the point of the thread, but you said that humans aren't a part of the foodchain. Uhm, ok.