3 ms·

If you burn all fossil fuel, you still have oxygen to breath. There were animals like sharks before trees even developed. Sooner or later, we will go all in on

If you burn all fossil fuel, you still have oxygen to breath. There were animals like sharks before trees even developed. Sooner or later, we will go all in on synthetic life. Apart from destroying a library of global process optima and beneficial molecules, why should we worry about destroying nature? If we can live on mars we can also live on a sterile earth. We stupidly destroy very expensive knowledge but we don't destroy life.

Retric 8y ago
We don't currently live on Mars and don't have the ability to do so yet. At some point in the distant future we might be able to, but we could easily fail to get there by killing ourselves off before then. The problem is increasing risks. As you reduce biological diversity you decrease stability. We have already gone though two banana strains due focusing on small number of varieties. So, you might think humanity could survive with say a handful of plant species for example, but that starts the countdown to zero which will kill us off.
s_kilk 8y ago
> If we can live on mars We can't live on Mars, nor can we live on a sterile Earth.
- southerndrift 8y ago
  We will be able to do so soon: * NASA Launches $1m Competition to Turn Mars CO2 into Sugar[1] Energy and food, what else would you need? When the threat of death becomes more pressing, more resources will be put into that research to synthesize all necessary nutritions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918909
  - imgabe 8y ago
    Sitting in a wasteland sipping on nutrient sludge sounds very depressing. Yes, your body may continue functioning, but I would hesitate to call that "living".
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
      As long as you have a computer and the internet, this sounds like a dream life for a gamer.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
jschwartzi 8y ago
I would argue that your sterile Earth is unliveable for the same reason a 6x8 cell with no windows is unliveable. The basic conditions for living are not the same as the basic conditions for life. By that, I mean that food and air are necessary for life but can we really call that living if that is all we have? Our natural environment contains a rich diversity of species and life forms that have evolved over billions of years. If you think sterile environments are enough, how do you explain why people routinely travel to the outdoors and to the backcountry? I think it's foolhardy to ignore these facts when you consider whether climate change has a negative impact on us. And it's especially foolhardy to dismiss the effect nature has on humanity given the volumes of evidence to the contrary.
headcanon 8y ago
Blade runner was a cool movie but i'd rather not actually live in that world. On a long enough timeline, I'm sure we'll have a sufficient understanding of ecology to be effective stewards of our environment, but you're massively understating the complexity that will go into it. We're by no means there yet and won't be for centuries, even if we get do get a mars colony going in the next couple decades.

Retric 8y ago

We don't currently live on Mars and don't have the ability to do so yet. At some point in the distant future we might be able to, but we could easily fail to get there by killing ourselves off before then. The problem is increasing risks. As you reduce biological diversity you decrease stability. We have already gone though two banana strains due focusing on small number of varieties. So, you might think humanity could survive with say a handful of plant species for example, but that starts the countdown to zero which will kill us off.

s_kilk 8y ago

> If we can live on mars We can't live on Mars, nor can we live on a sterile Earth.

southerndrift 8y ago
We will be able to do so soon: * NASA Launches $1m Competition to Turn Mars CO2 into Sugar[1] Energy and food, what else would you need? When the threat of death becomes more pressing, more resources will be put into that research to synthesize all necessary nutritions. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918909
- imgabe 8y ago
  Sitting in a wasteland sipping on nutrient sludge sounds very depressing. Yes, your body may continue functioning, but I would hesitate to call that "living".
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    As long as you have a computer and the internet, this sounds like a dream life for a gamer.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jschwartzi 8y ago

I would argue that your sterile Earth is unliveable for the same reason a 6x8 cell with no windows is unliveable. The basic conditions for living are not the same as the basic conditions for life. By that, I mean that food and air are necessary for life but can we really call that living if that is all we have? Our natural environment contains a rich diversity of species and life forms that have evolved over billions of years. If you think sterile environments are enough, how do you explain why people routinely travel to the outdoors and to the backcountry? I think it's foolhardy to ignore these facts when you consider whether climate change has a negative impact on us. And it's especially foolhardy to dismiss the effect nature has on humanity given the volumes of evidence to the contrary.

headcanon 8y ago

Blade runner was a cool movie but i'd rather not actually live in that world. On a long enough timeline, I'm sure we'll have a sufficient understanding of ecology to be effective stewards of our environment, but you're massively understating the complexity that will go into it. We're by no means there yet and won't be for centuries, even if we get do get a mars colony going in the next couple decades.