3 ms·
I'd say it's more like we can change now or adapt later. And I mean adapt in the most Darwinian fashion. It looks like we've already picked the latter. Shame as
by noonespecial 10y ago
I'd say it's more like we can change now or adapt later. And I mean adapt in the most Darwinian fashion. It looks like we've already picked the latter. Shame as the former would hurt a lot less.
The earth has been through huge changes before. I've still got my money on humanity to figure it out. We just passed up the early booking discount and are gonna hafta pay full price for the ride.
- chadgeidel 10y agoI think there's a good case to be made that "adapt in a Darwinian fashion" will mean "humanity doesn't continue to exist on the planet in any meaningful numbers". I prefer to address the problem in a more timely manner.
- epistasis 10y agoThe problem with Darwinian evolution is that it takes a long long long time. Humanity has never faced climate change so quickly before. So what will actually happen is that large chunks of the world will become unlivable. As in, if your plane crashes in that section of the planet, you will die. Mammals all have a very similar limit here, the idea that we will quickly evolve around that is ridiculous. http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimi... We will adapt, and not in the Darwinian fashion, by becoming a much smaller population, living in very different parts of the world, farming in very different ways. The economic destruction in such an adaptation will be immeasurable, even if we somehow do it without causing all sorts of wars and revolutions from resource shortages where people are dying of thirst and starvation.