Here I refer to the discourse of paragraph 1 and 5, starting from the beginning. For cha scientific knowledge we have today, we can say that changes, for example, position of objects, are in need of energy. To put an apple on the table there 'need someone or something put it there, or that someone or something using a portion of stored energy available to move the apple. This' true for any actions we do, in fact we say that man burn energy by the mere fact of being alive. How this works better than I could explain it a doctor, but in short we say that man builds up energy they need through food, then re-used for biological processes and to "move things" and 'also demonstrated that a very important part of the energy is used for processes that occur in the brain. So we take
our fuel (but also the building blocks that constitute us) from food, plants, minerals, animals. What we consider food (the cow as less intellectually developed, I do not consider food), to be able to power it has accumulated in some way. Once again to simplify, we say that plants take energy directly from the sun, while the animals, take the stored energy from plants and even the stored energy from other animals. You will notice 'that if there were no plants that are able to directly use the energy source of the Sun, the animals could not exist. The amount 'of stored energy from plants and' lower than the quantity ' energy accumulated by the animals and this explains why a lion (which eats mainly meat) eat a couple of times a week and a cow (which eats mainly plants) eat almost constantly. Apart from the energy stored on the ground (which as we know and 'a quantity' over), the whole 'the world's plant and animal lives the sun's energy. The sun's energy and 'a quantity' defined from solar radiation multiplied by the earth's surface, in other words, 'a quantity' fixed day.
Why 'I say this to explain something at this point seems trivial, but when you talk to people sometimes make you account that is not 'so' much. Every living thing uses a certain amount 'of energy and then takes it to the rest of the ecosystem, however, every living being transformed in a way that the ecosystem to a certain point he had a sort of balance. To say, if I have a man who breathes oxygen and spits out carbon dioxide and a plant that does the opposite, the amount 'total carbon dioxide and oxygen does not change. In a large scale and the balance is' maintained for many millions of years, although we must also remember how the atmosphere changes' radically from the original one, to become what it is' today, thanks to the "pollution" produced from tiny primordial bodies. Returning to the present, is called "ecological footprint" of man (simplifying) the amount of pollution it produces for its own existence, a small footprint can 'easily be balanced, a great mark needs to have more' time and energy. Coming ecological footprint of humanity 'as a whole, there are some who suggest the possibility' of a decrease in the size of each footprint would be a solution to the imbalance, regardless of the number of people, while still others suggest that the number of persons can not exceed a certain amount '. I would like to point out that no matter how small might be the ecological footprint, can not 'never be reduced to zero or not (as some believe), because as mentioned above, we are thermodynamic machines, which use energy for their own survival and that they need other machines (plants) in turn use a portion of the available energy. So each of us will 'need a minimum of energy that is not' not so little, that gave himself just vegetate there, we want to move and can travel, if possible we want to have the computer and so on. I think therefore clear that an increase in the number of people can not 'make that an imbalance in the system and this' apparent when we realize that part of the ozone hole and 'caused by gas produced by cows in Australia, bred to be our "food." However, if it 's true that we gain access to a more energy' concentrated eating other animals, and 'true that to feed the animals we have to produce a quantity' of plants vastly superior to that which would give the same energy directly man, and that the 'obvious given that the animal not only accumulates but used to live a large amount' of energy. The framework, therefore, and 'this: The world population is increasing and the footprint label of all the people is increasing, with an enormous development of the ecological value. I addressed this topic from the political point of view, but now I want to do in terms of "scientific", if we do not reverse both of these routes, will be 'impossible for the system return to equilibrium, this will trigger' a series of events aimed at restoring a different balance to be catastrophic for us, of course, also will be 'inevitable lack of food for everyone that will create' periods of instability 'policy more and more' relevant, and our society based on technology and the intensive use of energy and implode must 'deal with a new era, that now we can not' comment ('cause we do not know, and therefore 'Needless to say better or worse), but that will' certainly very different from what we live today. This is true 'in a short time, something else after the first, but over a few generations. Sorry to be a child born in an era where history seemed to have stopped, now I do not think it can be very happy to realize to live in reality 'in the middle' between two completely different eras and exactly when the change will occur, 'even though Maybe if I had asked about the time I wanted to live: I probably would have chosen this, I would have chosen to be one of the last generations before the time change and one of the first period after change (which however will not see 'never complete).
The debate between environmentalists
http://www.oilcrash.com/italia/ritiro.htm
Men
thermodynamic machine etc. "History of Abundance" by Luigi Sertorius
Footprint
http://it.wikipedia .org / wiki / Impronta_ecologica
Calculate your carbon footprint
http://www.wwf.it/ambiente/sostenibilita/calcoloimpronta.asp
