5 ms·

But biodiversity loss has happened many times in the past, and the system is still here. More importantly, we are still here. The species loss has occured many

But biodiversity loss has happened many times in the past, and the system is still here. More importantly, we are still here. The species loss has occured many times even in the recent history while Homo Sapiens were already out there, and a lot more times if we include very close relatives of most advanced primates. It's not just that "system continues", primates even continue. Other species thrive, new ones come up and evolve, new niches form etc. Why would this time be any different? How do we know that this is somehow worse than the previous times? How do we know that this is not the natural process of evolution? Why do we assume that the graph of number of species has to go straight up all the time? How do we know there aren't supposed to be plateaus and dips? So yeah, if you can you consider answering seriously before downvoting, that would be great. I can't understand what in the history of science of species should make me believe that this event is bery bad on the long-term scale? Will there be many adjustments and problems? Yes? Will we adapt? Most certainly? Or why not?

DoreenMichele 7y ago
If we wipe out "everything," Mother Nature will deal herself a new hand and continue playing solitaire with herself. But we wouldn't be around to see it. We worry about this stuff because we fear we might not survive.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  In the worst case scenario, couldn't most of us just become vegan (with some supplements of course)? There seems to be many plants which are not entirely reliant on insects, or which could survive on minimal number of them, or which could be easily agricultured to thrive without them. Wouldn't this be even better morality-wise?
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    In the worst case scenario weather patterns will shift enough that large scale agriculture will fail in parts of the world that are currently productive. Heat waves, floods, and drought can and will destroy entire crops. Furthermore, sea level rise and stronger storms will destroy ports and transportation infrastructure, making it harder and more expensive to transport crops.
    - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
      Aren't you talking about global warming? I fail to see how the biodiversity loss itself directly would affect such climate changes.
      - jyounker 7y ago
        I do think the poster was conflating some aspects of climate change, but life has surprising effects on weather and local climate. Desertification and dust storms are both possible outcomes of biodiversity loss. There's also a growing body of evidence that precipitation is driven partially by bacteria. (See the following article from Nature: https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080228/full/news.2008.632.html https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080228/full/news.2008.632.h...)
      - GVIrish 7y ago
        What I'm saying is that it would be very, very difficult to mitigate catastrophic insect loss by switching consumption to primarily vegetables. Climate change is here, and is going to get worse. Losing pollinators and the collapse of ecosystems would be painfully disruptive on a large scale, and climate change will make it extremely difficult for humanity to adapt to it.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    I'm not someone predicting the end of the world. My mantra is generally "It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." I was merely pointing out that humanity doesn't actually care if we wipe out all life. We wring our hands because we fear we will wipe out ourselves, as if we are terribly important. It's narcissism, not morality, that drives such fretting.
  - jyounker 7y ago
    The worst case scenario is that we end up with an ecology that can't produce enough calories per acre on a consistent enough basis to support large numbers of warm blooded omnivorous mammals.
pfdietz 7y ago
> But biodiversity loss has happened many times in the past, and the system is still here This could just be an observer selection effect, since if the system weren't still here, neither would we be here.
- logicchains 7y ago
  That would explain all the times the world was on the brink of being destroyed by nuclear apocalypse but somehow survived.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  Arguably if there were other advanced species that just went extinct at some point, we would have found artifacts which are much older than what we have found made by previous homo sapiens-ish civilizations. And more advanced ones than just pyramids.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

If we wipe out "everything," Mother Nature will deal herself a new hand and continue playing solitaire with herself. But we wouldn't be around to see it. We worry about this stuff because we fear we might not survive.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
In the worst case scenario, couldn't most of us just become vegan (with some supplements of course)? There seems to be many plants which are not entirely reliant on insects, or which could survive on minimal number of them, or which could be easily agricultured to thrive without them. Wouldn't this be even better morality-wise?
- GVIrish 7y ago
  In the worst case scenario weather patterns will shift enough that large scale agriculture will fail in parts of the world that are currently productive. Heat waves, floods, and drought can and will destroy entire crops. Furthermore, sea level rise and stronger storms will destroy ports and transportation infrastructure, making it harder and more expensive to transport crops.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Aren't you talking about global warming? I fail to see how the biodiversity loss itself directly would affect such climate changes.
    - jyounker 7y ago
      I do think the poster was conflating some aspects of climate change, but life has surprising effects on weather and local climate. Desertification and dust storms are both possible outcomes of biodiversity loss. There's also a growing body of evidence that precipitation is driven partially by bacteria. (See the following article from Nature: https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080228/full/news.2008.632.html https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080228/full/news.2008.632.h...)
    - GVIrish 7y ago
      What I'm saying is that it would be very, very difficult to mitigate catastrophic insect loss by switching consumption to primarily vegetables. Climate change is here, and is going to get worse. Losing pollinators and the collapse of ecosystems would be painfully disruptive on a large scale, and climate change will make it extremely difficult for humanity to adapt to it.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'm not someone predicting the end of the world. My mantra is generally "It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine." I was merely pointing out that humanity doesn't actually care if we wipe out all life. We wring our hands because we fear we will wipe out ourselves, as if we are terribly important. It's narcissism, not morality, that drives such fretting.
- jyounker 7y ago
  The worst case scenario is that we end up with an ecology that can't produce enough calories per acre on a consistent enough basis to support large numbers of warm blooded omnivorous mammals.

pfdietz 7y ago

> But biodiversity loss has happened many times in the past, and the system is still here This could just be an observer selection effect, since if the system weren't still here, neither would we be here.

logicchains 7y ago
That would explain all the times the world was on the brink of being destroyed by nuclear apocalypse but somehow survived.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
Arguably if there were other advanced species that just went extinct at some point, we would have found artifacts which are much older than what we have found made by previous homo sapiens-ish civilizations. And more advanced ones than just pyramids.