8 ms·

On a long enough timeline, only human high-tech civilization will save the species of our planet.

by snikeris 8y ago

EliRivers 8y ago
Or that of some non-human species. If humans check out, perhaps someone else will take a turn.
- jniedrauer 8y ago
  No extant life is capable of building advanced technology except us. It would take a very long time for that to change. And there are no guarantees that we don't experience another catastrophic mass extinction event along the way that finally finishes us off. They would also be left with a world that has no cheap fuel sources or easily accessible raw materials. This may be the only chance our solar system will ever get at advanced civilization.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    On a long enough timeline. The kind of time that recycles continents. The kind of time that turns a small mammal into a dominant technological species. My point was that the OP assumed only humans can do it. I disagree. There's no law of physics preventing another species evolving and having a go, once humans vanish. In the meantime, while they're busy evolving, some cheap energy sources can be created for them. Plenty of time left before the sun changes too much.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      > In the meantime, while they're busy evolving, some cheap energy sources can be created for them. That may or may not be true. The fossil fuel glut that helped humanity develop industrial technology was the byproduct of a pretty strange set of evolutionary and environmental circumstances: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/01/07/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/01...
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      But honestly, who cares if a hypothetical far-future species of intelligent beings would evolve on Earth. We are humans, this is our civilization, and if we fuck this one up, we're checking out of the game. Even if we don't go extinct, it'll be many millennia before we're back at our feet. We have one chance here to build something qualitatively new and permanent in this universe.
      - ForHackernews 8y ago
        It may well be too late already. This article was originally posted in 2016, and things have gotten worse since then: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... If we wanted to have a genuine fighting chance of holding climate change to a safe level, the entire world would need to be on a war footing: rationing, mass revocation of driver's licenses, no coal power plants, anywhere. Nobody will stand for that, there's no political or economic will. Our grandchildren will curse us for hard lives we've bequeathed to them.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        I get that perspective. But maybe we could identify with self-consciousness and intelligence, rather than with just humans.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Sure. But right now humans are the only species exhibiting self-consciousness and intelligence in the known universe! We barely have a clue about how that came to be, and under what conditions it could happen again. It may very well be that we are - and forever will be - the only ones with "the spark" in the entire lightcone of Earth. So until another self-conscious intelligence presents itself, or until we have a more robust model that shows one should arise shall we die off, I think it's best to stick with our team for now, as it might be the only team.
        mirimir 8y ago
        OK, fair enough. Me, I'm betting that we'll build self-conscious machines, or become them (not that we aren't already, but I mean not-meat machines). But yeah, that's totally speculative.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure my cats are just keeping me around because I can open the food can.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    And because you're too big to kill. But if you die, they may eat you ;)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tremon 8y ago
Our technological ability to destroy greatly outmatches our ability to preserve, and always has. I do not believe techological progress will save the day. Technology alone with not spontaneously generate more sustainable economics or more reponsible societies.
- snikeris 8y ago
  I disagree. When you're struggling to survive, you don't care what your trash fire is doing to the environment. Caring about the environment is a wealthy person's problem. Technology creates wealth.
- trukterious 8y ago
  Snikeris is snickety, but correct. In the long run, only technology and creativity could create better substitutes for burning wood and dung. For making furniture and other structures out of rainforest hardwood. Only technology will avert the next big meteor strike and the next super-volcano eruption (both otherwise inevitable, and both capable of wiping out a multitude of species, as has happened previously). Reversion to a primitive way of life could make matters worse, environmentally speaking. The attraction is based on guilt. It's a response to the alienation and nihilism we associate with modernity; a response to philosophical and spiritual problems rather than to environmental ones. So our duty remains not to prophecy doom but to work for a better world -- for all life.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    Wood is a renewable resource - if the global population was (for example) a few million people, then building everything out of wood, clearcutting forests for farming and burning all the wood they'd need wouldn't be a problem; and without technology a high population can't be sustained. What's dangerous, however, is a mid-tech low-income high-population situation, which can only be a dystopia. High technology is a solution, stone-age technology can be a solution, but any semi-industrialized post-apocalyptic 'steampunk' will be worse than both high and low tech.
    - 8y ago
mirimir 8y ago
Yes, I suppose. The species saved will be humans, pets, livestock, crops, and whatever else is necessary, or can't be gotten rid of.

On a long enough timeline, only human high-tech civilization will save the species of our planet.

EliRivers 8y ago

Or that of some non-human species. If humans check out, perhaps someone else will take a turn.

jniedrauer 8y ago
No extant life is capable of building advanced technology except us. It would take a very long time for that to change. And there are no guarantees that we don't experience another catastrophic mass extinction event along the way that finally finishes us off. They would also be left with a world that has no cheap fuel sources or easily accessible raw materials. This may be the only chance our solar system will ever get at advanced civilization.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 8y ago
  On a long enough timeline. The kind of time that recycles continents. The kind of time that turns a small mammal into a dominant technological species. My point was that the OP assumed only humans can do it. I disagree. There's no law of physics preventing another species evolving and having a go, once humans vanish. In the meantime, while they're busy evolving, some cheap energy sources can be created for them. Plenty of time left before the sun changes too much.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    > In the meantime, while they're busy evolving, some cheap energy sources can be created for them. That may or may not be true. The fossil fuel glut that helped humanity develop industrial technology was the byproduct of a pretty strange set of evolutionary and environmental circumstances: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/01/07/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/01...
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    But honestly, who cares if a hypothetical far-future species of intelligent beings would evolve on Earth. We are humans, this is our civilization, and if we fuck this one up, we're checking out of the game. Even if we don't go extinct, it'll be many millennia before we're back at our feet. We have one chance here to build something qualitatively new and permanent in this universe.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      It may well be too late already. This article was originally posted in 2016, and things have gotten worse since then: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fossil-fuels https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... If we wanted to have a genuine fighting chance of holding climate change to a safe level, the entire world would need to be on a war footing: rationing, mass revocation of driver's licenses, no coal power plants, anywhere. Nobody will stand for that, there's no political or economic will. Our grandchildren will curse us for hard lives we've bequeathed to them.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      I get that perspective. But maybe we could identify with self-consciousness and intelligence, rather than with just humans.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        Sure. But right now humans are the only species exhibiting self-consciousness and intelligence in the known universe! We barely have a clue about how that came to be, and under what conditions it could happen again. It may very well be that we are - and forever will be - the only ones with "the spark" in the entire lightcone of Earth. So until another self-conscious intelligence presents itself, or until we have a more robust model that shows one should arise shall we die off, I think it's best to stick with our team for now, as it might be the only team.
        mirimir 8y ago
        OK, fair enough. Me, I'm betting that we'll build self-conscious machines, or become them (not that we aren't already, but I mean not-meat machines). But yeah, that's totally speculative.
poulsbohemian 8y ago
I'm pretty sure my cats are just keeping me around because I can open the food can.
- mirimir 8y ago
  And because you're too big to kill. But if you die, they may eat you ;)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tremon 8y ago

Our technological ability to destroy greatly outmatches our ability to preserve, and always has. I do not believe techological progress will save the day. Technology alone with not spontaneously generate more sustainable economics or more reponsible societies.

snikeris 8y ago
I disagree. When you're struggling to survive, you don't care what your trash fire is doing to the environment. Caring about the environment is a wealthy person's problem. Technology creates wealth.
trukterious 8y ago
Snikeris is snickety, but correct. In the long run, only technology and creativity could create better substitutes for burning wood and dung. For making furniture and other structures out of rainforest hardwood. Only technology will avert the next big meteor strike and the next super-volcano eruption (both otherwise inevitable, and both capable of wiping out a multitude of species, as has happened previously). Reversion to a primitive way of life could make matters worse, environmentally speaking. The attraction is based on guilt. It's a response to the alienation and nihilism we associate with modernity; a response to philosophical and spiritual problems rather than to environmental ones. So our duty remains not to prophecy doom but to work for a better world -- for all life.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  Wood is a renewable resource - if the global population was (for example) a few million people, then building everything out of wood, clearcutting forests for farming and burning all the wood they'd need wouldn't be a problem; and without technology a high population can't be sustained. What's dangerous, however, is a mid-tech low-income high-population situation, which can only be a dystopia. High technology is a solution, stone-age technology can be a solution, but any semi-industrialized post-apocalyptic 'steampunk' will be worse than both high and low tech.
  - 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Yes, I suppose. The species saved will be humans, pets, livestock, crops, and whatever else is necessary, or can't be gotten rid of.