davd f,
Cyanobacteria aren't animals. They also lack the ability to make choices.
So Paul's claim is correct.

You shouldn't assume what people say should be interpreted in a literal way that defies common sense.

And you seem unable to get your head around your enormous error that I've already pointed out: it's local extinction, not biological extinction, that can be considered an evolution enabler.

___________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
Please tell us more about the infrastructure Queensland has but hasn't used!

Dear Aiden,

You are correct. It is local extinction that is a biological enabler. However, humans with their intelligence seem so far little more able to cope with climate change caused by human activity than cyanobacteria. Some humans recognize the cause but other humans motivated by short term economic interests prevent action.

Cyanobacteria aren't animals. They are living organisms which have made profound changes to the environment.

However, eliminating extinction remains an impossible and questionable goal.

Hi David,

Unfortunately taking a small fraction of Greens environmental policy, without reading all is unfair. I read the Greens environmental policy again, this is your area of scientific contention.

"Stop the extinction crisis through setting a goal of Zero extinction by 2030 and investing in a mass greening and restoration program, to ensure we are protecting habitats for our native animals and plants "

That is certainly aspirational policy directed towards Australians. One could reword it and say "through setting a goal of 50% extinction by 2080", that's too wishy-washy, so for impact you word it like it is.

As for the "cyanobacteria" I fail to see their relevance as well. Their 1.1 billion years and our few hundred years of environmental degradation. I agree with the Christian fundos in one regard, humans have the ability to make choices through rational decisions, something unique to our species.

A challenge David, I invite you to reword that part of Greens policy so it is scientifically correct. The proviso is, it has to have relevance, impact and electoral appeal.

Dear Paul,

It doesn't matter what words I use to change the Greens policy. I can't change it. It doesn't matter whether a part of it is wrong. It should all be right, and that small part betrays a profound ignorance.

Humans have the ability to make choices through rational decisions, something unique to our species. I don't think that any choice that is scientifically correct will have relevance, impact and electoral appeal. That is not how you win elections in our milieu.

I would like to see a population that appreciates scientific correctness. That is not what we have. However, if you want to not only win an election but also to educate the populace you have to be scientifically correct.

We can only hope. My present hope is that the war in Ukraine will not lead to a greater nuclear war.

I am not sure if your are confusing a poor understanding of science with rhetoric. For example few would deny that the earth orbits the sun yet we still refer to sunrise and sunset. We regularly use non scientific language to describe the world. That language then gets adopted in the way we write policy.
The real danger with using non-scientific language to describe the world is that we confuse that description with reality. As you rightly point out we find that ideologies ie religion, party policy platforms fail to distinguish between our understanding of the world and the way we choose to describe that understanding.

Dear BAYGON,

Political parties regularly use rhetoric to rouse voters. It is part of the game. However, I am a Green. I feel that the Greens have an obligation – not only to win the next election but to educate the voters to the dangers that threaten life on the planet – climate change, loss of biodiversity, sea level rise, over population etc.

Other parties appeal to sections of the electorate – business, unions, religious interests etc. They use rhetoric appropriate to those groups and hope enough others can join them so that they win elections. Their rhetoric is appropriate to their base.

However, I feel that the Greens constituency is not only the voters but the planet itself. I feel the Greens function is not only to win elections but to educate people to the threats to the continuation of our life on the planet.

In the United States the Socialist Party under Norman Thomas was concerned with worker’s rights. They never won a presidential election, but they educated people to think of worker’s rights. When Roosevelt won the 1932 election he took many of the ideas concerning unions and worker’s rights into the New Deal.

I don’t expect the Greens will ever win government, but I hope some of their concerns will be adopted by the major parties. If the concerns are expressed by such nonsense as zero extinction I certainly would not want that adopted as a policy by another party.

The Greens must eschew rhetoric for rigorous science