Thanks for your article entitled "Endangered Destinations" [May 26-June 2].
I took special interest in the section regarding The Galapagos Islands and found it to be very thought-provoking. However, I must say that it is quite ironic to speak of a ravaging "of the sensitive eco-system" of the Islands that were a case study for Darwin's theory of "natural selection"—commonly known as "the survival of the fittest." Is it correct to speak of "threaten[ing] unique native wildlife?" Isn't that, according to the theory of evolution, evolution at its best? Are conservation efforts preserving or interfering with natural selection?
Tell the dinosaurs about being "endangered." Many a species has come and gone. Many an ice cap has came and melted. Many a hot spring has steamed and froze over. It is sort of funny that you believe a few human beings have anything to do with the galaxies, planets and how they climate themselves!
Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
Isn't an endangered place Earth? And what is the reason? In your article on endangered places, human beings are the threat to those destinations. It is then obvious that the threat to Earth is human beings. How much longer can mother Earth sustain the over six billion and ever growing number of human beings currently using the earth and its resources? The issue of too many human beings, using the finite resources of Earth is skirted in every solution to global warming, supplies of food, water, oil, and so on.
Global temperature changes have been happening for several hundreds of millions years with much greater swings in temperature than any humans have measured in last few hundred years. Temperature changes of the earth are directly related to the amount of radiation from the sun. The earth is not in a heating stage at this time and it is impossible for humans to heat the earth. One of the laws of physics (called "conservation of energy") explains why. I hope your magazine will continue to report news in the future and stop being used for political purposes.
Daniel J. Dekowski