Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA:utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa
From: mouse@uw-beaver.arpa
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Silent Running and loss of oxygen
Message-ID: <1164@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 06:31:01 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1164
Posted: Wed Apr 10 06:31:01 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 01:38:29 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 29

From: utcsri!mcgill-vision!mcgill-vision!mouse@uw-beaver.arpa (der Mouse)

> sad  if these things were gone.   Friend, it wouldn't be sad  'cause you
> need oxygen to  be sad.  You ain't got oxygen, you ain't gonna be around
> to miss the chipmunks.
> ....
> (I really expect someone to pop up at this point and say  that maybe the
> Earthlings are getting their oxygen from moss or something.

You are correct.  I believe something like  80-90% of  the O2 production
at  the moment  is due  to green stuff in the oceans.    Not  moss,  not
anything else on land, there isn't enough of it  (though for sure, every
bit will help if  things get  iffy  -- as in ORA:CLE).   But  there is a
*LOT*  of plankton  and  similar beasties  out there.   Remember,  about
three-quarters (is  that the right  ratio?) of  the Earth's  surface  is
ocean rather than land.

> Even  in the dubious possibility that a  stable  eco-system  is possible
> based on other sources of oxygen, you can't get  there from here without
> a whole lot  of disruption that  would probably kill  off  old Homo Saps
> anyway.)

Well, as I said, I don't  think it's that dubious.  But I have to agree.
Removing forests  will cause us to lose a lot of topsoil immediately and
knock great gaping holes in the ecosystem in  other ways I'm sure  -- is
there an ecologist out there who can elaborate for us?

					der Mouse
			{ihnp4,decvax,...}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse