4 ms·

probably not much as most species alive today will be extinct and there's no reason to think we wouldn't be one of the

KronisLV 6y ago
A possible reason for this cynicism is the fact that we're currently in the middle of the Holocene extinction[0]: > The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. Another thing that's interesting and worrying is the fact that wild animals take up only 4% of the biomass of mammals, 60% being livestock and 36% being humans. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- ehnto 6y ago
  Playing devils advocate partly just to make myself feel less depressed about that, but would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, which makes that a somewhat misleading statistic? Even if there was no wild animal extinctions, you would expect humans and livestock to have dominated the percentages simply from growth alone.
  - KronisLV 6y ago
    The article itself and the referenced sources go into more detail about the species that have gone extinct and the probable causes for that, human behaviour being suspect (habitat destruction, overexploitation, agriculture, climate change; though things such as disease are also mentioned). As for the estimated numbers, at least one such study[0][1] is mentioned: > A 2018 study published in PNAS found that since the dawn of human civilization, 83% of wild mammals, 80% of marine mammals, 50% of plants and 15% of fish have vanished. As for the biomass distribution percentages, you might as well be right! Fig. 1. in the linked study really puts things into perspective, though, animal life being pretty miniscule in the grand scale of things, when compared to plants, bacteria and other types of biomass, which is quite interesting! Growing up, i never saw estimates such as these, which really make me conscious of just how big of an impact humans (and their lifestyle choices, such as the demand for meat) could have on other species and the ecosystems as a whole, hence me mentioning it as something interesting. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...
  - acqq 6y ago
    > would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, Only that part is fair to say. But that it: > makes that a somewhat misleading statistic Isn't "fair" at all. There the "misleading" claim, I guess, presumes that the cost of human and livestock population exploding is nothing to the rest of nature, whereas it's completely the opposite: that's one visible point, and the cause of all imbalances that follow. The problem is, of course, that the change of the environment by humans has the consequences will impact the humans more than they are able to cope.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Fine, except that wild terrestrial vertebrate populations have fallen by ~99%. This isn't "humans and livestock rising, wildlife constant". It's "humans and livestock exploding, wildlife vanishing".
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      See Paul Chefurka: https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-eart... https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1f4c44d9d2f/1542077130274-6VAJRQRB9H9MLPIZ2300/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kN9WS6lkPTLWXFYvtrguK3tZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PI7rubP63sZTEEql4LpB6iVkxQFBHeRds9Ybpt_P1NbQQ/Screen-Shot-2018-07-17-at-5.35.05-PM-768x731.png https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1...
dmos62 6y ago
It's unlikely that humanity as a whole will be lost. Civilization collapse is quite likely. "Natural ecosystem" collapse is even more likely (nature as we know it might stop existing). I recommend listening to Noam Chomsky. In the last few years he's been very active in pointing out how bad things are about to get (not in a fear mongering way, but to incite activism).
- omnimus 6y ago
  Can you recomend something specific? What recent should i listen to? Thanks!
  - dmos62 6y ago
    I'm comfortable recommending any interview or talk with him. He's been super active during the COVID crisis, so there's too many videos to keep track. From the title, this seems to be on subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbBF0M42DY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbBF0M42DY
- marricks 6y ago
  I actually really like Noam, I could have been a bit more general in that we very well might not advance scientifically.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It's unlikely that humanity as a whole will be lost. Unlikely, but not that unprobable. We're one of the most easily wiped out species... Cockroaches and tardigrades will be doing fine in many circumstances where we'll be toast...

A possible reason for this cynicism is the fact that we're currently in the middle of the Holocene extinction[0]: > The current rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. Another thing that's interesting and worrying is the fact that wild animals take up only 4% of the biomass of mammals, 60% being livestock and 36% being humans. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

ehnto 6y ago
Playing devils advocate partly just to make myself feel less depressed about that, but would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, which makes that a somewhat misleading statistic? Even if there was no wild animal extinctions, you would expect humans and livestock to have dominated the percentages simply from growth alone.
- KronisLV 6y ago
  The article itself and the referenced sources go into more detail about the species that have gone extinct and the probable causes for that, human behaviour being suspect (habitat destruction, overexploitation, agriculture, climate change; though things such as disease are also mentioned). As for the estimated numbers, at least one such study[0][1] is mentioned: > A 2018 study published in PNAS found that since the dawn of human civilization, 83% of wild mammals, 80% of marine mammals, 50% of plants and 15% of fish have vanished. As for the biomass distribution percentages, you might as well be right! Fig. 1. in the linked study really puts things into perspective, though, animal life being pretty miniscule in the grand scale of things, when compared to plants, bacteria and other types of biomass, which is quite interesting! Growing up, i never saw estimates such as these, which really make me conscious of just how big of an impact humans (and their lifestyle choices, such as the demand for meat) could have on other species and the ecosystems as a whole, hence me mentioning it as something interesting. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6016768/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-ra...
- acqq 6y ago
  > would it not be fair to say that humans have exploded in number, along with livestock, Only that part is fair to say. But that it: > makes that a somewhat misleading statistic Isn't "fair" at all. There the "misleading" claim, I guess, presumes that the cost of human and livestock population exploding is nothing to the rest of nature, whereas it's completely the opposite: that's one visible point, and the cause of all imbalances that follow. The problem is, of course, that the change of the environment by humans has the consequences will impact the humans more than they are able to cope.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Fine, except that wild terrestrial vertebrate populations have fallen by ~99%. This isn't "humans and livestock rising, wildlife constant". It's "humans and livestock exploding, wildlife vanishing".
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    See Paul Chefurka: https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-earths-biomass-is-affected-by-humans https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2018/7/18/how-much-of-eart... https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1f4c44d9d2f/1542077130274-6VAJRQRB9H9MLPIZ2300/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kN9WS6lkPTLWXFYvtrguK3tZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZamWLI2zvYWH8K3-s_4yszcp2ryTI0HqTOaaUohrI8PI7rubP63sZTEEql4LpB6iVkxQFBHeRds9Ybpt_P1NbQQ/Screen-Shot-2018-07-17-at-5.35.05-PM-768x731.png https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58ed5944e6f2e1...

dmos62 6y ago

It's unlikely that humanity as a whole will be lost. Civilization collapse is quite likely. "Natural ecosystem" collapse is even more likely (nature as we know it might stop existing). I recommend listening to Noam Chomsky. In the last few years he's been very active in pointing out how bad things are about to get (not in a fear mongering way, but to incite activism).

omnimus 6y ago
Can you recomend something specific? What recent should i listen to? Thanks!
- dmos62 6y ago
  I'm comfortable recommending any interview or talk with him. He's been super active during the COVID crisis, so there's too many videos to keep track. From the title, this seems to be on subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbBF0M42DY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbBF0M42DY
marricks 6y ago
I actually really like Noam, I could have been a bit more general in that we very well might not advance scientifically.
coldtea 6y ago
>It's unlikely that humanity as a whole will be lost. Unlikely, but not that unprobable. We're one of the most easily wiped out species... Cockroaches and tardigrades will be doing fine in many circumstances where we'll be toast...