September 19, 2013 |
Scientists have done the math, and according to their calculations, life on Earth has 1.75 to 3.25 billion years left to thrive. And that's if a giant asteroid or a nuclear war doesn't finish us off first. Yes, there is a big difference between 1.75 billion and 3.25 billion years, but predicting the end of life on our planet is not an exact science, at least not yet. To arrive at that 1.5-billion-year doomsday spread, graduate student Andrew Rushby of the University of East Anglia in Britain created two slightly different equations that estimate the length of time Earth will remain in the "habitable zone" around the sun. A planet is considered to be in the habitable zone when liquid water can exist on its surface.
August 25, 2012
Re "Mars test-drive goes smoothly," Aug. 23 The focus on this ridiculous adventure to Mars while our planet is circling the drain is the height of insanity. Instead of focusing our resources in a last-ditch effort to save our Earth, we are embarked on a fantasy voyage. Maybe the reality of our situation is so awful that our last grasp on our sanity is avoidance. Russell Blinick Encino ALSO: Letters: Exam kudos for L.A. Unified Letters: A worsening political climate Letters: A union's power in Sacramento
December 10, 2012 |
New trailers out this week for two 2013 science fiction epics, "After Earth" and "Oblivion," feature different stars (Will Smith and Tom Cruise, respectively) who have one thing in common: a dire prediction for the future of humanity on our dear planet Earth. "After Earth" is the new film from M. Night Shyamalan, who has stepped away from directing his own original scripts with this project, which is credited to writers Stephen Gaghan and Gary Whitta. It stars Smith as a spacefaring general and his son Jaden Smith playing the general's son, on patrol over the planet Earth 1,000 years after a cataclysmic event that left the planet uninhabited by people.
June 17, 2012
Re "Women greener than men?," Opinion, June 13 Women historically have been the nurturers, the caregivers. Of course they would have greater sensitivity to the environment's effect on humans. Will the caveman macho mentality of most men (and many women) finally mature into responsible stewardship of the Earth? My guess is not until the damage humans have done smacks us more directly in the face. That's a sorry legacy to leave to our next generations. Roy Poucher Santa Ana ALSO: Letters: The bishops' contraception battle Letters: Public and private unions -- they're different Letters: Political money that could be put to better use
August 16, 2012
Re "The Israel factor in November," Opinion, Aug. 12 Dan Schnur ignores the centrality of President Obama's environmental policies to Israel's survival. By advancing alternatives to oil such as wind and other renewables, Obama guts the financial base of Israel's enemies. While Mitt Romney would keep us dependent on fossil fuels, the president is committed to Israel's - and our - energy security. Peter L. Reich Los Angeles ALSO: Letters: It's lion country Letters: Anti-Muslim bias at Disney?
September 20, 2013 |
In "The World Without Us," Alan Weisman took readers for a romp through the misty primeval forest in Poland and splashed into gin-clear waters to gaze upon one the most remote and intact coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean. Besides highlighting a few of the world's last remaining pristine places, the bestseller engaged in a thought experiment: If human beings were suddenly wiped off the face of Earth, how fast would nature overgrow cities with vegetation, reclaim the land, and demonstrate its remarkable resilience?