3 ms·
Right, the ones that exist today should be evolved for today’s environment. Higher acid levels should mean most of the average stock will die, and the mutants
by intended 8y ago
Right, the ones that exist today should be evolved for today’s environment.
Higher acid levels should mean most of the average stock will die, and the mutants which survive will eventually adapt.
Think of the George Carlin skit - the planet will be fine, just we humans and everything we know will be gone.
- User23 8y agoI agree with your main point, but I'm pretty sure that evolution and adaptation work for humans too and there are an awful lot of human beings. None of this is to discount the potentially severe (unknown, scary) risks, but I don't think human extinction is really in play due to a warming climate. The most serious risk I'm aware of is that high CO2 content in the atmosphere will interfere with human respiration. Evolution will handle this, just like it handled human beings living in the Himalayas.
- eanzenberg 8y agoHow is this not fear-mongering? Most people will be fine with a 5deg C global increase.
- spookthesunset 8y agoMaybe people, yes, in the short term. But everything that people depend on.... not so much. I mean, yeah we'd live but you an kiss coral reefs goodbye, glaciers, etc... It would be a rather shitty place to live.
- eanzenberg 8y agoWhy though? Honestly, do you and 99% of the global population depend on glaciers and coral reefs?
- btilly 8y agoSee my sibling answer next to yours for an explanation of why the oceans were not then acidic despite the higher atmospheric CO2 levels. If you wait a few thousand years, ours won't be either. But shellfish who depend on their calcium bicarbonate shells not dissolving can't afford to wait a few thousand years while bathed in a mild acid...