Talk:Human impact on the environment

Enviromental Colonisation?

Caan this be under human affects I know that it would be similar to invasive species but i think the distiniction is releavaant. 1.Almost always intentional the results are not however for example colonial japan would use afforestation in korea,israel banned herding of black goats which are native to palestine till there was a realisation that they reduce the risk of wild wires, 2.Unlike which overshooting it's usually done for social/asthetic reasons not functional 3.It takes many forms some that seem benign and some clearly malicious 4.Theres an effect it has on local populations. 5.Would probably be documentable in a lot of countries histories. everything from normans putting salt in the land to JNF afforestry to palm trees in cali. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv12sdxbf new here Any good in this is from Allah and his mercy and grace and any bad is from me and shaytan and Allah and his messenger are free from it. 92.21.246.85 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Making an impact

Impact is a trite buzzword in this instance, apparently used by those who can’t tell the difference between effect (noun) and affect (verb). Whatever the harm it’s doing, humanity isn’t somehow collectively striking the planet a violent blow, and there are better, less slangy words to describe the effect it is having. (Worse, to impact has come into related use as a verb, where its proper customary meaning is simply to "to wedge into place.")
I suggest altering this article’s title to the less overstated, more conventional "Human influence on the environment." Any argument to the contrary? Mucketymuck (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)