4 ms·

>> What are we doing to this planet? What will it become? The tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia

• nipponese 8y ago
  Humanity on Earth is doomed, the planet will be fine.
  • viach 8y ago
    Actually it depends on how far it all gets
    • irrational 8y ago
      What do you mean? If if there was a nuclear war to end all nuclear wars and all humans died and the surface of the earth was irradiated so that most animals died, there would still be life. Slowly the surface would be replaced though tectonic action. New life would flourish and grow without human intervention. In a billion years or so you probably wouldn't even know humans had ever been here. The planet would be just fine.
      • viach 8y ago
        Probably, but you can't really know for sure. Humans is something which never happened to this planet before. I wouldn't bet 10$ on life surviving here in the case things continue to go the way they are going today.
        • irrational 8y ago
          Life has been found far far underground, under the greenland and antarctic ice sheets, and in other even more inhospitable places. There is no way humans could eradicate all life before we managed to off ourselves. Only the destruction of the entire planet so that all that is left in the earth's orbit around the sun is a dust cloud could maybe kill all life (and even then I wouldn't bet against it).
      • guelo 8y ago
        In about 600 million years photosynthesis will stop working killing off all plants and we'll lose oxygen from the atmosphere. In a billion years the oceans will start boiling away and plate tectonics will stop. The next few hundred million years is all the Earth will get before it loses it's amazing uniqueness and turns into another boring rock.
        • SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
          > In about 600 million years photosynthesis will stop working killing off all plants and we'll lose oxygen from the atmosphere. In a billion years the oceans will start boiling away and plate tectonics will stop. Do you have a source for this? I assumed that the changes to earth was still billions of years away, when the sun finally goes supernova.
          • guelo 8y ago
            Here under Climate Impact and Loss of Oceans sections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth
            • SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
              Ah, I imagine life will adapt at least to the photosynthesis issue. The water I got no idea though.
  • guelo 8y ago
    Humanity along with 90% of the plant and animal species evolved in the last 66 million years.
  • jurassicfoxy 8y ago
    God I'm tired of hearing this platitude. Define "Fine" when 90% of the animals on earth are extinct? What is "fine" to you about that, exactly?
    • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Define "Fine" when 90% of the animals on earth are extinct? If humans go extinct, human timescales cease to be relevant. Since we're talking about the Earth, reverting to geologic timescales makes sense. Earth 10 or 100 million years after humans may not be that different with or without humans. (I agree, however, that the platitude is unhelpful. We're human. We care about the Earth on a human timescale.)
  • bootlooped 8y ago
    Firstly, I think this distinction is pedantic and unhelpful. It's like saying your car wasn't destroyed in a high speed collision, it just got mashed into a form that is no longer useful for human transportation. Yes, the giant mass of mostly rock called Earth is not going to literally be destroyed and cease to exist due to human activity. That's not what people are claiming, and I think that is clear. Secondly, we're making the planet a lot worse for more organisms than humans.
• mempko 8y ago
  Tragedy of the commons is from a story that was made up. There is zero evidence that shared ownership causes such a tragedy. In fact, the opposite is shown, that no shared ownership causes tragedy. The problem with overfishing, for example, is not that the ocean is a commons, it's that it is specifically NOT a commons. Everyone owning something is not the same as nobody owning something because commons usually means cooperation vs competition.
  • wahern 8y ago
    Commons relates to access, not ownership. Ownership relates to property and the sine qua non of property is ability to exclude. Everybody owning something is a non-sense statement in the context of public policy. As both a legal and practical matter public property is owned by specific governmental institutions so that access can be efficiently controlled. Tragedy of the Commons describes the exact situation where people have unfettered access to exploit a resource, capable of deriving a personal benefit to the detriment of everybody else; and specifically such that exploitation of the resource produces significantly less social benefit than if access were limited. It doesn't matter if 99% of people are conscientious and abstain from unfairly exploiting the resource because of a cultural sense of transitive "ownership" as a citizen or human. The laws aren't for the 99%, they're for the subgroup of people willing to subvert the norm for personal gain (and to be fair everybody has been and regularly is a member of that subgroup at some point).
    • mempko 8y ago
      Commons is about ownership AND access. It is owned in common. The "tragedy of the commons" is a fictional story not based on any evidence. It was made up like a fairy tale. Things held in common certainly have rules which are either explicit or implicit. The only times something like the "tragedy of the commons" occurs is when private enterprise gets involved and the perverse incentives demand exploitation. And of course the resources exploited are explicitly NOT commons because it's lawless.