However, judged only in ecological terms, global warming can be regarded merely as a change in the structure of the global ecosystem similar to the warming that accompanies the last postglacial period, albeit more rapid. Viewed in this way, there is no more reason to oppose global warming than to be unhappy about the last ice age and the rise in global temperature that ended it. At its farthest reach, this nonhumanist position becomes antihumanist, as exemplified in an article in the publication of a group called Earth First!, which favored the spread of AIDS as a means of reducing the human population without threatening other animal species. Of course, at the other extreme is the potentially suicidal view that the enormous value of modern production technology to human society justifies whatever damage to the ecosphere it entails.
The ambiguity created by the dual habitat in which we live has led to a very to the ecosphere it entails. wide range of responses. The extreme interpretations of the relationship between the two spheres that human society occupies-and a sometimes bewildering array of intermediate positions-are compelling evidence that we have not yet understood how the two systems have come into conflict and, as a result, are unable as yet to resolve that conflict.
Understanding the war between the ecosphere and the technosphere-as distinct from reacting to it-is the only path to peace. The purpose is less a lament over the war's numerous casualties than an inquiry into how future casualties can be prevented. It is not so much a battle cry for one side or the other, as a design for negotiating an end to this suicidal war-for making peace with the planet.