4 ms·

Protip: If you have to argue the Earth was warmer "a few million years ago", you've lost the argument.

leereeves 7y ago
Not even worth responding to. That kind of low-effort comment doesn't belong here. (My original response didn't belong either, so I edited it.)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If your argument is that returning to temperatures a few millions years ago is apocalypse, you've lost the ability to reason. As humans did not live on Earth a few million years ago, insofar as human society is concerned, why would the fact that temperatures had previously occurred a few million years ago be even slightly inconsistent with them being apocalyptic?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Close relatives of humans have lived on Earth for much longer. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm betting they required similar climate conditions.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      That they lived when the climate was significantly different and were replaced when it became more like current climate is evidence otherwise (it's not, in and of itself, conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.)
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        They also weren't trying to hold together an advanced technological society. Survival on the margins of existence may be possible long after society as we know it is in ruins.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that the advantage the genus homo had over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that homo sapiens' advantage over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc. No, it's evidence both for the general conclusion and that specific point, it doesn't require that point as an assumption. Evidence is any fact whose existence makes a conclusion more likely than it would be in the absence of that fact.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Given X could potentially cause Y, the fact that Y happened is not evidence of X. In other words, the mere fact that something happened isn't evidence for a proposed (even plausible) cause. Proving the cause requires further evidence.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Close relatives of humans didn't have to sustain societies, and as animals living out in nature are much stronger and more resilient. Plus they could die in droves, and nobody would care (in fact, other apes, living further away wouldn't even know it). So, if you mean we get to enjoy living in conditions fit for apes, then you might be on to something, but I wouldn't exactly rejoice about it...

Not even worth responding to. That kind of low-effort comment doesn't belong here. (My original response didn't belong either, so I edited it.)

dragonwriter 7y ago
> If your argument is that returning to temperatures a few millions years ago is apocalypse, you've lost the ability to reason. As humans did not live on Earth a few million years ago, insofar as human society is concerned, why would the fact that temperatures had previously occurred a few million years ago be even slightly inconsistent with them being apocalyptic?
- leereeves 7y ago
  Close relatives of humans have lived on Earth for much longer. Unless you have evidence otherwise, I'm betting they required similar climate conditions.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    That they lived when the climate was significantly different and were replaced when it became more like current climate is evidence otherwise (it's not, in and of itself, conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.)
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      They also weren't trying to hold together an advanced technological society. Survival on the margins of existence may be possible long after society as we know it is in ruins.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that the advantage the genus homo had over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Only if you make the significant (and I think unwarranted) assumption that homo sapiens' advantage over other apes was climate adaptation and not greater intelligence, standing upright, etc. No, it's evidence both for the general conclusion and that specific point, it doesn't require that point as an assumption. Evidence is any fact whose existence makes a conclusion more likely than it would be in the absence of that fact.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Given X could potentially cause Y, the fact that Y happened is not evidence of X. In other words, the mere fact that something happened isn't evidence for a proposed (even plausible) cause. Proving the cause requires further evidence.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Close relatives of humans didn't have to sustain societies, and as animals living out in nature are much stronger and more resilient. Plus they could die in droves, and nobody would care (in fact, other apes, living further away wouldn't even know it). So, if you mean we get to enjoy living in conditions fit for apes, then you might be on to something, but I wouldn't exactly rejoice about it...