2 ms·

But plenty of things cause extinction events, hell humans were causing the Wolly Mammoth to go extinct long before we had anything resembling a civilization. Pl

But plenty of things cause extinction events, hell humans were causing the Wolly Mammoth to go extinct long before we had anything resembling a civilization. Plenty of other plants and animals will drive other animals to extinction. It’s the circle of life, one which we, being animals, are a part of.

lm28469 7y ago
I don't think that's where the question is. The issue is that other species dying might very well take us down too. It's an ecosystem where everything is interconnected, sure you can remove a few species here and there and nothing will change, but remove enough of them and we'll start seeing the consequences. A good analogy is the Eiffel tower, you can remove a bolt, 10 bolts, 100 bolts, it'll still hold fine, remove one too many and it'll collapse. The metal will still be there (earth) but it won't be the Eiffel tower anymore (Life). > The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  When I say about confusion in climate discussions (like elsewhere in the thread), I talk about precisely this. You arrived at the correct (IMO) conclusion that the primary and pressing issue with environmental damage is that systems humans depend on to live may collapse at some point, possibly quite suddenly. But in comments upthread, you argued about moral issues of letting species die. Those are two very separate problems! One of them is an issue of conscience, the other is an impending catastrophe that threatens to kill a lot of people and make even more suffer, and could likely be a civilization-ending process. I think bundling them together (which is common) is making people in general less receptive to the changes that need to be done.

lm28469 7y ago

I don't think that's where the question is. The issue is that other species dying might very well take us down too. It's an ecosystem where everything is interconnected, sure you can remove a few species here and there and nothing will change, but remove enough of them and we'll start seeing the consequences. A good analogy is the Eiffel tower, you can remove a bolt, 10 bolts, 100 bolts, it'll still hold fine, remove one too many and it'll collapse. The metal will still be there (earth) but it won't be the Eiffel tower anymore (Life). > The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

TeMPOraL 7y ago
When I say about confusion in climate discussions (like elsewhere in the thread), I talk about precisely this. You arrived at the correct (IMO) conclusion that the primary and pressing issue with environmental damage is that systems humans depend on to live may collapse at some point, possibly quite suddenly. But in comments upthread, you argued about moral issues of letting species die. Those are two very separate problems! One of them is an issue of conscience, the other is an impending catastrophe that threatens to kill a lot of people and make even more suffer, and could likely be a civilization-ending process. I think bundling them together (which is common) is making people in general less receptive to the changes that need to be done.