4 ms·

We humans benefit from a stable environment. In stable-ish conditions, ecosystems evolve towards stable configurations where the sun's energy can be optimally

by pygy_ 7y ago

We humans benefit from a stable environment. In stable-ish conditions, ecosystems evolve towards stable configurations where the sun's energy can be optimally tapped. Those disruptions bring unstability (boom-bust cycles of high amplitude) and thus danger for us.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.
- pygy_ 7y ago
  It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incredibly fast changes.
    - pygy_ 7y ago
      The current extinction event would seem like a tremendous amount of evidence that many species have a hard limit on how fast they can adapt. On a smaller scale there are many people that died in fire they themselves had started. Culture (information stored in the brain) changes faster than DNA, but its ability to change is still limited, especially in older folks. In order to survive, we need our environmental conditions to remain in a reasonable range (temperature, atmospheric composition, weather). According to some predictions, some parts of the world around the equator will be to hot for people to live at the turn of the 22th century. The ocean (50 to 80% of the photosynthesis) is already in a sorry state and we keep on pushing. So far, so good... https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/grow https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/grow The earth is like an Apple pie, let's eat it and let's eat it and let's die! Do you want some more? It's ...hmm... delicious! To take on another of your initial points regarding the fitness of invasive species. Being too aggressive is not necessarily being fitter. A specie (not necessarily human) that's too dominant can crash the ecosystem that sustains it and cause it to collapse, bringing its own demise.
      - pygy_ 7y ago
        Another way to frame it: you seem to believe that we can adapt arbitrarily at an arbitrarily fast rate. There is however inertia both in infrastructure building and in changing mentalities that means it isn't the case. I'm not sure we'll adapt fast enough to the current challenges (assuming it's not already too late for a large scale disaster). The future will tell who was right.

by pygy_ 7y ago

marcus_holmes 7y ago

Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.

pygy_ 7y ago
It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incredibly fast changes.
  - pygy_ 7y ago
    The current extinction event would seem like a tremendous amount of evidence that many species have a hard limit on how fast they can adapt. On a smaller scale there are many people that died in fire they themselves had started. Culture (information stored in the brain) changes faster than DNA, but its ability to change is still limited, especially in older folks. In order to survive, we need our environmental conditions to remain in a reasonable range (temperature, atmospheric composition, weather). According to some predictions, some parts of the world around the equator will be to hot for people to live at the turn of the 22th century. The ocean (50 to 80% of the photosynthesis) is already in a sorry state and we keep on pushing. So far, so good... https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/grow https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/grow The earth is like an Apple pie, let's eat it and let's eat it and let's die! Do you want some more? It's ...hmm... delicious! To take on another of your initial points regarding the fitness of invasive species. Being too aggressive is not necessarily being fitter. A specie (not necessarily human) that's too dominant can crash the ecosystem that sustains it and cause it to collapse, bringing its own demise.
    - pygy_ 7y ago
      Another way to frame it: you seem to believe that we can adapt arbitrarily at an arbitrarily fast rate. There is however inertia both in infrastructure building and in changing mentalities that means it isn't the case. I'm not sure we'll adapt fast enough to the current challenges (assuming it's not already too late for a large scale disaster). The future will tell who was right.