4 ms·

But we've only been relevant for ~7,000 and if we do not make the Earth inhospitable ourselves in the next 10k years then the chances of a cataclysmic event are

by ProAm 10y ago

But we've only been relevant for ~7,000 and if we do not make the Earth inhospitable ourselves in the next 10k years then the chances of a cataclysmic event are ever increasing to assist us. 99.9% of all animals ever to exist on the Earth are extinct, we're not that special.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Perhaps they are extinct because we've been erasing them as we reformat the earth to be more congenial to ourselves? Their extinction is not a signal that we may go extinct ourselves; just the opposite. Mesopotamian Ziggurat, Teppe Sialk, dates from around 2900BC (~5000 yo). Gobekli Tepe 12,000 years old?
- pedrosorio 10y ago
  The 99.9% has nothing to do with humans. He was probably referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinct...
  - ProAm 10y ago
    Yes, pretty much the result of the 5 major (or 9 major) extinction events. I was using this [1] it's a number frequently used when referring to whats been and whats left. It's really an extraordinary number when thinking about it. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/stateme...
santoshalper 10y ago
We're pretty special, at least in the context of this planet. Science tells us that we are by far the most intelligent creatures to live on Earth in its observable history, and the only ones to meaningfully modify it. In the very least, we are the only creatures to inhabit Earth, that if we become extinct, it is somewhat likely that we are both the victim and the perpetrator.
- Terr_ 10y ago
  > and the only ones to meaningfully modify it. The first oxygen-excreting algae may have a prior claim...
  - rev_bird 10y ago
    I'm not sure this is relevant. I mean, yes, they most certainly changed the planet itself, but it wasn't really to benefit themselves, was it? We build skyscrapers and Howitzers for intentional purposes, not because we excrete them.
    - Terr_ 10y ago
      > but it wasn't really to benefit themselves, was it? Well, their descendants are pretty much everywhere you see something greenish, so it seems to have worked out. > We build skyscrapers and Howitzers for intentional purposes, not because we excrete them. We also emit pollution for intentional purposes. They might not be particularly noble purposes, but they're 100% intentional by each of humanity's individual parts. I think you're confusing "the tools we use" versus "the ways we change the globe". Most of the worldwide changes we cause are not explicitly planned or built, but side-effects of the "metabolism" of our civilization.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Intelligence is not a indicator of survivability, and if it somehow was, we found ourselves on the completely wrong side of the argument. How many other planet-altering intelligent species do you see around you ? Do you think that is a good indicator of survivability ?
  - rev_bird 10y ago
    This seems fallacious, but I can't put my finger on how. Yes, there is currently a lack of "planet-altering intelligent species," but, as far as we can tell, there has always been a lack of planet-altering intelligent species. We don't have any evidence of a being with human-level capabilities than then died out.
Hondor 10y ago
We're hoping to start a colony on Mars. How could we possibly make Earth even remotely as inhospitable as Mars? Do you expect us to remove all the oceans' water? Remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere? Kill all plants? I don't think we have much hope of making Earth inhospitable to us even if we tried. Perhaps we somehow contaminate it all with nuclear waste. Even then, there'll be safety underground for long term living, relative safety even in contaminated areas for short term work, and radioactive water can be cleaned by distillation, mechanical or chemical means. We might have to set up a lot of infrastructure to do all that, but we've done a good job of setting up far more complex infrastructure already. It took only a couple of hundred years since the beginning of powered machines to get to where we are now. We could do it all again many times over in the next 10,000 years.
- rev_bird 10y ago
  "Keep Earth hospitable" and "Colonize Mars" have very different goals, though. It would likely be humanity's crowning achievement to put a permanent outpost on another planet, but it would be, what, 15 people maybe? The other planet we're talking about has to support at least 7 billion.
  - VLM 10y ago
    I'm so old I remember we only supported 4 billion people. Even pessimistically over one human lifetime I bet that "15 people" turns into at least 30. You get gene pool and interbreeding issues with too small of a pool, then again you'd be amazed what you can store in liq nitrogen for a long time. Also looking at the temporary and limited mineral and energy requirements, the earth isn't going to support 7B or 9B or even 1B for much longer, on a geologic / radiation timescale. For awhile you can turn mined petrochemicals and chemical fertilizers into lots of human biomass. The key is for awhile, temporarily.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      It's amazing to think the earth's population doubled between 1960 and 2000

by ProAm 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Perhaps they are extinct because we've been erasing them as we reformat the earth to be more congenial to ourselves? Their extinction is not a signal that we may go extinct ourselves; just the opposite. Mesopotamian Ziggurat, Teppe Sialk, dates from around 2900BC (~5000 yo). Gobekli Tepe 12,000 years old?

pedrosorio 10y ago
The 99.9% has nothing to do with humans. He was probably referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinct...
- ProAm 10y ago
  Yes, pretty much the result of the 5 major (or 9 major) extinction events. I was using this [1] it's a number frequently used when referring to whats been and whats left. It's really an extraordinary number when thinking about it. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/statement_03.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/extinction/massext/stateme...

santoshalper 10y ago

We're pretty special, at least in the context of this planet. Science tells us that we are by far the most intelligent creatures to live on Earth in its observable history, and the only ones to meaningfully modify it. In the very least, we are the only creatures to inhabit Earth, that if we become extinct, it is somewhat likely that we are both the victim and the perpetrator.

Terr_ 10y ago
> and the only ones to meaningfully modify it. The first oxygen-excreting algae may have a prior claim...
- rev_bird 10y ago
  I'm not sure this is relevant. I mean, yes, they most certainly changed the planet itself, but it wasn't really to benefit themselves, was it? We build skyscrapers and Howitzers for intentional purposes, not because we excrete them.
  - Terr_ 10y ago
    > but it wasn't really to benefit themselves, was it? Well, their descendants are pretty much everywhere you see something greenish, so it seems to have worked out. > We build skyscrapers and Howitzers for intentional purposes, not because we excrete them. We also emit pollution for intentional purposes. They might not be particularly noble purposes, but they're 100% intentional by each of humanity's individual parts. I think you're confusing "the tools we use" versus "the ways we change the globe". Most of the worldwide changes we cause are not explicitly planned or built, but side-effects of the "metabolism" of our civilization.
ageofwant 10y ago
Intelligence is not a indicator of survivability, and if it somehow was, we found ourselves on the completely wrong side of the argument. How many other planet-altering intelligent species do you see around you ? Do you think that is a good indicator of survivability ?
- rev_bird 10y ago
  This seems fallacious, but I can't put my finger on how. Yes, there is currently a lack of "planet-altering intelligent species," but, as far as we can tell, there has always been a lack of planet-altering intelligent species. We don't have any evidence of a being with human-level capabilities than then died out.

Hondor 10y ago

We're hoping to start a colony on Mars. How could we possibly make Earth even remotely as inhospitable as Mars? Do you expect us to remove all the oceans' water? Remove most of the oxygen from the atmosphere? Kill all plants? I don't think we have much hope of making Earth inhospitable to us even if we tried. Perhaps we somehow contaminate it all with nuclear waste. Even then, there'll be safety underground for long term living, relative safety even in contaminated areas for short term work, and radioactive water can be cleaned by distillation, mechanical or chemical means. We might have to set up a lot of infrastructure to do all that, but we've done a good job of setting up far more complex infrastructure already. It took only a couple of hundred years since the beginning of powered machines to get to where we are now. We could do it all again many times over in the next 10,000 years.

rev_bird 10y ago
"Keep Earth hospitable" and "Colonize Mars" have very different goals, though. It would likely be humanity's crowning achievement to put a permanent outpost on another planet, but it would be, what, 15 people maybe? The other planet we're talking about has to support at least 7 billion.
- VLM 10y ago
  I'm so old I remember we only supported 4 billion people. Even pessimistically over one human lifetime I bet that "15 people" turns into at least 30. You get gene pool and interbreeding issues with too small of a pool, then again you'd be amazed what you can store in liq nitrogen for a long time. Also looking at the temporary and limited mineral and energy requirements, the earth isn't going to support 7B or 9B or even 1B for much longer, on a geologic / radiation timescale. For awhile you can turn mined petrochemicals and chemical fertilizers into lots of human biomass. The key is for awhile, temporarily.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    It's amazing to think the earth's population doubled between 1960 and 2000