4 ms·

How are humans not part of the animal kingdom? What are we if not a specialized animal? Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other

How are humans not part of the animal kingdom? What are we if not a specialized animal? Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. Almost all the species that ever existed went extinct without the help of humans.

titzer 8y ago
> Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. No, not really. These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. They also don't have a tendency to cause mass destruction that takes down the environment around them. The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. If birds and ants had the same cycle, they would not have survived hundreds of millions of years like they have. People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet. So, no, this is not "normal" or "natural" IMO.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. It is very anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Yes, we have a drive to consume and exploit but our desire to preserve what we see as beautiful is no different - it's all just a product of our desires. I am not opposed to environmentalism - but we shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species long before humans ever showed up. Just like the stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons.
- LMYahooTFY 8y ago
  >These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. This is closer to what I meant to say, and the term "exhaust" was a poor descriptor. However, the way in which species encounter barriers that define the carrying capacity of an ecosystem are not commonly gentle. >The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. I'm still uncertain at what point in our evolution you draw the line that cuts us out of the animal kingdom. I see your point, but you seem to be implying that the way you're using "equilibrium", and "natural" is rooted and biology, and this is incorrect. The there is no biological concept of "equilibrium", it's simply a way you could loosely describe a population with low rate of growth for some period.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet." It seems to me that while humans are outliers, we're not unique. For instance, we can be compared to the organisms that oxygenated the Earth's atmosphere. Or those that first produced lignin which other organisms couldn't digest for a long time. I recall reading that the latter is why such massive petroleum deposits exist[1]. So our effect on the planet could be considered an echo of that earlier runaway ecological change. [1]http://piecubed.co.uk/carboniferous-period-insect/ http://piecubed.co.uk/carboniferous-period-insect/

titzer 8y ago

> Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. No, not really. These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. They also don't have a tendency to cause mass destruction that takes down the environment around them. The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. If birds and ants had the same cycle, they would not have survived hundreds of millions of years like they have. People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet. So, no, this is not "normal" or "natural" IMO.

drak0n1c 8y ago
Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. It is very anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Yes, we have a drive to consume and exploit but our desire to preserve what we see as beautiful is no different - it's all just a product of our desires. I am not opposed to environmentalism - but we shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species long before humans ever showed up. Just like the stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons.
LMYahooTFY 8y ago
>These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. This is closer to what I meant to say, and the term "exhaust" was a poor descriptor. However, the way in which species encounter barriers that define the carrying capacity of an ecosystem are not commonly gentle. >The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. I'm still uncertain at what point in our evolution you draw the line that cuts us out of the animal kingdom. I see your point, but you seem to be implying that the way you're using "equilibrium", and "natural" is rooted and biology, and this is incorrect. The there is no biological concept of "equilibrium", it's simply a way you could loosely describe a population with low rate of growth for some period.
perl4ever 8y ago
"People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet." It seems to me that while humans are outliers, we're not unique. For instance, we can be compared to the organisms that oxygenated the Earth's atmosphere. Or those that first produced lignin which other organisms couldn't digest for a long time. I recall reading that the latter is why such massive petroleum deposits exist[1]. So our effect on the planet could be considered an echo of that earlier runaway ecological change. [1]http://piecubed.co.uk/carboniferous-period-insect/ http://piecubed.co.uk/carboniferous-period-insect/