3 ms·
It would still sort itself out eventually, one way or the other. We can speed up the recovery and try to minimize the impact, but even if there's no humans left
by ivanhoe 7y ago
It would still sort itself out eventually, one way or the other. We can speed up the recovery and try to minimize the impact, but even if there's no humans left life would probably continue in some form. If some species are destroyed, others would evolve into the empty niche. That's how nature works. That's literally how we and all other life got to exist on this planet in a first place, as a replacement for someone else less lucky/efficient.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoIn order to save time and energy, sometimes every detail isn’t spelled out. “Sort itself out” presumably has a condition of not causing substantial harm to humans. It’s obvious the world will keep on spinning with or without humans, or maybe not, and it’ll get eaten by the sun. But that possibility doesn’t need to be addressed every time.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoFor a complete and total failure of an industrial facility a death toll on par with a bad bus crash is far below the threshold of "substantial harm to humans" Normally when something containing substances hazardous to human health and/or containing a lot of energy goes pop like that it's a lot worse. Strictly by the numbers the Chernobyl is not worthy of being called a disaster. We only hear about it because it is the worst case in its particular niche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_failures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industrial_disasters