10 ms·

Sounds a lot like destroy the ecosystem for short-term gains to me. The geothermal features were exploited early on in the history of Yellowstone and that explo

Sounds a lot like destroy the ecosystem for short-term gains to me. The geothermal features were exploited early on in the history of Yellowstone and that exploitation resulted in impacts to the geyser basins that can still be seen today. Why we as humans seem to think that life can't possibly continue without us has always boggled my mind. Edit: Here is some backup to my claim about messing with the geysers: https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/yellowstone-geysers-trash-garbage https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/yellowstone-geysers-tr... 2nd Edit: Here is an article about tapping into the geothermal waters around Yellowstone. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/17/us/feud-over-geothermal-water-rights-pits-yellowstone-against-a-church.html http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/17/us/feud-over-geothermal-wa...

sliverstorm 9y ago
Why we as humans seem to think that life can't possibly continue without us It's obviously not about protecting nature from herself, it would be about protecting us from nature.
- takk309 9y ago
  Why? We are only a little blip on the time scales that nature works in. Why are we so arrogant as to think that we are the only life in the universe? It is very likely that we are not and even if we are, there is always a chance that life will arise again.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    Because like all life, we have a survival instinct?
    - takk309 9y ago
      I am a nihilist and don't really think that this will affect my life. I suppose that is most of my reasoning in not worrying about things like this. Edit: Messing with it now will affect my life due to the proximity in which I live to Yellowstone. If the park gets messed up and tourism declines, my local economy will take a huge hit. That is something that can happen in my lifetime.
      - davesque 9y ago
        If you're a nihilist, then why do you care enough to even comment here on this matter?
      - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
        You live near the park, then? If you don't think getting buried under 10 feet of molten ash will affect your life, I really don't know what else to say to you.
  - drharby 9y ago
    >Why Never thought of it that way. Shedding all survival instinct nao /s
gooseus 9y ago
Terrestrial life can't possibly continue without us is the only logical conclusion I can come to, knowing what we know. A super-volcano won't end life on Earth, but unless some other life-form evolves which can carry life to another planet, we are the only guarantee that life can continue beyond whatever timeline the solar/galactic system has in store for us... which we know definitely means our star exterminates all life on this planet at some point in the future. Honestly, I don't see we can see ourselves as anything but Life's only hope of continuing. Sure, we're doing a shitty job right now, we should do better, but honestly, if we fuck up, life will find a way too... that super-volcano is going to erupt and destroy way more species and ecosystem than a couple holes and geothermal plants will. If we can help delay/prevent that, I think it'll be a step toward making up for at least some of the damage we've done.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- takk309 9y ago
  I have to agree with you on the point that life will find a way regardless of our meddling or not. However, I feel like the Yellowstone super volcano bogeyman is not worth the effort. It is like worrying about an asteroid hitting the planet, there is nothing we can do about it so why worry?
  - jostmey 9y ago
    The volcano erupts every 600,000 years or so. It has been 600,000 years or so since the last eruption. I don't think there's any evidence that it will happen in our lifetime, but it is due to happen soon on the geological timescale
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      I live near a few volcanoes on the Pacific rim and I have visited a few more. I’m yet to visit any that aren’t classed as overdue for an eruption. The continual stating of ‘disaster is around the corner’ immunises rather than galvanises most people.
diego_moita 9y ago
There is a lot less ecosystem destruction than not doing it. First, you need to consider that, in the long run, that thing is going to explode and will certainly destroy a lot of ecosystems around the world. Second, the only ecosystem that depends on the heat are the archea on the geysers and hot vents. But the heat loss along years would be so small that their ecosystem can endure for a lot more centuries. Third, it is very hard to find a way to generate so much energy without increasing carbon footprint and generating even more ecosystems destruction.
- sliken 9y ago
  On what terms? Sure many trees, plants, animals, and humans will die in a super volcano eruption. But the resulting ash will help enrich the soil for a decent fraction of the entire country. There will be a huge carbon sink as entire forests are buried in ash, soil will receive additional minerals, and a light loamy soil will result. California for instance has excellent soil (class A good enough for even more challenging crops like strawberries) because of a large previous eruption. So sure in the short term (years) no eruption is good. But in the long term there will be poorer soil, or a huge amount of energy/chemicals consumed to keep the soil usable. It's far from clear that it's better for the ecosystem to stop a volcano (or supervolcano). What's next stopping earthquakes? Keep plates from moving? Stopping erosion? Preventing rivers from migrating? Mucking with nature to prevent the natural cycle of life has gone pretty poorly so far. Floods are getting worse, rivers are moving faster, coastal cities are losing their marshes, cities on rivers are at a higher risk than ever of flooding. Check out the updates on Mt Saint Helens area in the post eruption documentary. It's quite vibrant and recovered much faster than scientist expected.
  - diego_moita 9y ago
    There are 2 big flaws in your argumentation: 1) Tell humans their suffering doesn't matter. 2) A super-volcano eruption is several orders of magnitude worse than St. Helens, a scale that human history has not seen yet. It would affect the whole planet and wreck ecosystems in the whole planet, far beyond North America. We're talking about likely end of civilization. You don't have logic against that.
throwanem 9y ago
We might not be able to have it both ways. The geysers and other unique features of Yellowstone are epiphenomena of the supervolcano they overlie. It may be that a method exists by which we can both preserve those epiphenomena, and prevent catastrophic damage to ecologies across the continent or even the world. But if we can only do one of those, then I know which one I'd choose.
davesque 9y ago
The linked article doesn't say anything about messing with the geysers. As far as I can see, it's talking about drilling separate shafts down into the Earth and harvesting heat energy via pumped water. > Why we as humans seem to think that life can't possibly continue without us has always boggled my mind. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment. Care to clarify? If you're suggesting that any attempts to prevent an eruption would be too disruptive to the ecosystem, imagine how disruptive 8 ft. of volcanic ash would be if it were to blanket most of the western United States. That's not even mentioning the millions of tons that would end up in the atmosphere for years, blocking out the sun, and killing off a substantial amount of plant and animal life world wide.
- takk309 9y ago
  Life will go on if the volcano erupts. It may not be human life, but it will still be life. The Yellowstone volcano is just another bogeyman that is not worth stressing over. It will happen or it won't and realistically there is nothing we can do about it.
  - awakeasleep 9y ago
    What I don't understand.. the continuation of non-human life is an asterisk that is of no importance to us, right?
  - ericd 9y ago
    I happen to prefer that our species not go extinct. We spend a lot of effort on much less important things, we can afford to spend some here.
    - tonysdg 9y ago
      We spend a lot of effort on much less important things <-- someone (not me, but someone) might argue that's exactly why our species should go extinct ;-)
      - ss248 9y ago
wincy 9y ago
This is basically a genocidal comment and totally shocking to me. As far as I’m concerned speech like this is advocating for the destruction of humanity and is evil. It boggles my mind someone would hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it.
- gnulinux 9y ago
  > It boggles my mind someone would hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it. Not arguing in favor of OC; but it's not that they hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it; but instead, they don't love humanity enough to do everything in our power to preserve it. There is a difference.

sliverstorm 9y ago

Why we as humans seem to think that life can't possibly continue without us It's obviously not about protecting nature from herself, it would be about protecting us from nature.

takk309 9y ago
Why? We are only a little blip on the time scales that nature works in. Why are we so arrogant as to think that we are the only life in the universe? It is very likely that we are not and even if we are, there is always a chance that life will arise again.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  Because like all life, we have a survival instinct?
  - takk309 9y ago
    I am a nihilist and don't really think that this will affect my life. I suppose that is most of my reasoning in not worrying about things like this. Edit: Messing with it now will affect my life due to the proximity in which I live to Yellowstone. If the park gets messed up and tourism declines, my local economy will take a huge hit. That is something that can happen in my lifetime.
    - davesque 9y ago
      If you're a nihilist, then why do you care enough to even comment here on this matter?
    - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
      You live near the park, then? If you don't think getting buried under 10 feet of molten ash will affect your life, I really don't know what else to say to you.
- drharby 9y ago
  >Why Never thought of it that way. Shedding all survival instinct nao /s

gooseus 9y ago

Terrestrial life can't possibly continue without us is the only logical conclusion I can come to, knowing what we know. A super-volcano won't end life on Earth, but unless some other life-form evolves which can carry life to another planet, we are the only guarantee that life can continue beyond whatever timeline the solar/galactic system has in store for us... which we know definitely means our star exterminates all life on this planet at some point in the future. Honestly, I don't see we can see ourselves as anything but Life's only hope of continuing. Sure, we're doing a shitty job right now, we should do better, but honestly, if we fuck up, life will find a way too... that super-volcano is going to erupt and destroy way more species and ecosystem than a couple holes and geothermal plants will. If we can help delay/prevent that, I think it'll be a step toward making up for at least some of the damage we've done.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
takk309 9y ago
I have to agree with you on the point that life will find a way regardless of our meddling or not. However, I feel like the Yellowstone super volcano bogeyman is not worth the effort. It is like worrying about an asteroid hitting the planet, there is nothing we can do about it so why worry?
- jostmey 9y ago
  The volcano erupts every 600,000 years or so. It has been 600,000 years or so since the last eruption. I don't think there's any evidence that it will happen in our lifetime, but it is due to happen soon on the geological timescale
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    I live near a few volcanoes on the Pacific rim and I have visited a few more. I’m yet to visit any that aren’t classed as overdue for an eruption. The continual stating of ‘disaster is around the corner’ immunises rather than galvanises most people.

diego_moita 9y ago

There is a lot less ecosystem destruction than not doing it. First, you need to consider that, in the long run, that thing is going to explode and will certainly destroy a lot of ecosystems around the world. Second, the only ecosystem that depends on the heat are the archea on the geysers and hot vents. But the heat loss along years would be so small that their ecosystem can endure for a lot more centuries. Third, it is very hard to find a way to generate so much energy without increasing carbon footprint and generating even more ecosystems destruction.

sliken 9y ago
On what terms? Sure many trees, plants, animals, and humans will die in a super volcano eruption. But the resulting ash will help enrich the soil for a decent fraction of the entire country. There will be a huge carbon sink as entire forests are buried in ash, soil will receive additional minerals, and a light loamy soil will result. California for instance has excellent soil (class A good enough for even more challenging crops like strawberries) because of a large previous eruption. So sure in the short term (years) no eruption is good. But in the long term there will be poorer soil, or a huge amount of energy/chemicals consumed to keep the soil usable. It's far from clear that it's better for the ecosystem to stop a volcano (or supervolcano). What's next stopping earthquakes? Keep plates from moving? Stopping erosion? Preventing rivers from migrating? Mucking with nature to prevent the natural cycle of life has gone pretty poorly so far. Floods are getting worse, rivers are moving faster, coastal cities are losing their marshes, cities on rivers are at a higher risk than ever of flooding. Check out the updates on Mt Saint Helens area in the post eruption documentary. It's quite vibrant and recovered much faster than scientist expected.
- diego_moita 9y ago
  There are 2 big flaws in your argumentation: 1) Tell humans their suffering doesn't matter. 2) A super-volcano eruption is several orders of magnitude worse than St. Helens, a scale that human history has not seen yet. It would affect the whole planet and wreck ecosystems in the whole planet, far beyond North America. We're talking about likely end of civilization. You don't have logic against that.

throwanem 9y ago

We might not be able to have it both ways. The geysers and other unique features of Yellowstone are epiphenomena of the supervolcano they overlie. It may be that a method exists by which we can both preserve those epiphenomena, and prevent catastrophic damage to ecologies across the continent or even the world. But if we can only do one of those, then I know which one I'd choose.

davesque 9y ago

The linked article doesn't say anything about messing with the geysers. As far as I can see, it's talking about drilling separate shafts down into the Earth and harvesting heat energy via pumped water. > Why we as humans seem to think that life can't possibly continue without us has always boggled my mind. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this comment. Care to clarify? If you're suggesting that any attempts to prevent an eruption would be too disruptive to the ecosystem, imagine how disruptive 8 ft. of volcanic ash would be if it were to blanket most of the western United States. That's not even mentioning the millions of tons that would end up in the atmosphere for years, blocking out the sun, and killing off a substantial amount of plant and animal life world wide.

takk309 9y ago
Life will go on if the volcano erupts. It may not be human life, but it will still be life. The Yellowstone volcano is just another bogeyman that is not worth stressing over. It will happen or it won't and realistically there is nothing we can do about it.
- awakeasleep 9y ago
  What I don't understand.. the continuation of non-human life is an asterisk that is of no importance to us, right?
- ericd 9y ago
  I happen to prefer that our species not go extinct. We spend a lot of effort on much less important things, we can afford to spend some here.
  - tonysdg 9y ago
    We spend a lot of effort on much less important things <-- someone (not me, but someone) might argue that's exactly why our species should go extinct ;-)
    - ss248 9y ago

wincy 9y ago

This is basically a genocidal comment and totally shocking to me. As far as I’m concerned speech like this is advocating for the destruction of humanity and is evil. It boggles my mind someone would hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it.

gnulinux 9y ago
> It boggles my mind someone would hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it. Not arguing in favor of OC; but it's not that they hate humanity so much they wouldn’t want to do everything in our power to preserve it; but instead, they don't love humanity enough to do everything in our power to preserve it. There is a difference.