3 ms·

Do you think that the average earth ecosystem is better or worse off with modern human civilization?

• dragonwriter 9y ago
  I don't think it makes any sense to anthropomorphize ecosystems. “Better or worse off” only applies to things that have utility functions.
• brownbat 9y ago
  It depends what you value. Measured by capacity for processing information? Much better. Measured by incidence of cholera and dysentery? Much better. Measured by the net increase in sublime human experiences minus human suffering? Much better. I know a lot of people don't find these values very satisfying and are looking for something else though. When you imagine a world untouched by humanity, what is the foundational good, the bedrock value that it represents? Stability? A dead rock is stable, I don't think that's it. Biodiversity? Biodiversity is just correlated with heat, highest around the equator where there's more abundant energy for systems to incorporate into replication. I don't think you just want a warmer planet. Maybe sustainability? To preserve a habitat for humanity? I just suspect inventiveness is more helpful for humanity's long term survival, of the sort you get from an abundance of people so that we can put some to work not just on farms, but on space stations.