4 ms·

Suppose we ceased to exist. Are we certain that nature would 'repair' itself? What's the 'good' state measured by (objective function)? If we don't have it def

Suppose we ceased to exist. Are we certain that nature would 'repair' itself? What's the 'good' state measured by (objective function)? If we don't have it defined, I don't think we fully understand our relationship with the natural world and how to fix it.

samschooler 6y ago
It would “repair” itself in the sense that the animals already endangered may go extinct, the damage we caused would run its course. But over a few millennia our effect on our environment would slowly go away and life and the planet would move on without us. Global warming is an issue for life, but because it affects humans and the economy is why we care. Animal will migrate, go extinct, or adapt, but ultimately the ecosystem will move on.
ip26 6y ago
What's the 'good' state In simple terms my understanding is, high biodiversity. More diversity is correlated with resilience, adaptability, etc.
- shrubby 6y ago
  https://imgur.com/a/Yy59VjX https://imgur.com/a/Yy59VjX this shows exactly what we've done to biodiversity. Biomass of farm animals, human and wildlife compared. The equivalent ratio is present everywhere we go.
  - diplodocusaur 6y ago
    awfully biased. At least link to the actual study
pfdietz 6y ago
> Are we certain that nature would 'repair' itself? Our mere presence casts an anthropic shadow over observations of how likely disastrous environmental outcomes have been. For example, any extinction worse than the end Permian extinction would likely have prevented mammals from surviving, and humans then evolving. So just by our presence we can rule out the occurrence of such an event, even if (without us) it could perhaps have been likely. Perhaps planets like Earth are just normally unstable, falling into states that destroy their biospheres, and Earth itself has been extremely lucky. There's no reason to think that luck will continue.

samschooler 6y ago

It would “repair” itself in the sense that the animals already endangered may go extinct, the damage we caused would run its course. But over a few millennia our effect on our environment would slowly go away and life and the planet would move on without us. Global warming is an issue for life, but because it affects humans and the economy is why we care. Animal will migrate, go extinct, or adapt, but ultimately the ecosystem will move on.

ip26 6y ago

What's the 'good' state In simple terms my understanding is, high biodiversity. More diversity is correlated with resilience, adaptability, etc.

shrubby 6y ago
https://imgur.com/a/Yy59VjX https://imgur.com/a/Yy59VjX this shows exactly what we've done to biodiversity. Biomass of farm animals, human and wildlife compared. The equivalent ratio is present everywhere we go.
- diplodocusaur 6y ago
  awfully biased. At least link to the actual study

pfdietz 6y ago

> Are we certain that nature would 'repair' itself? Our mere presence casts an anthropic shadow over observations of how likely disastrous environmental outcomes have been. For example, any extinction worse than the end Permian extinction would likely have prevented mammals from surviving, and humans then evolving. So just by our presence we can rule out the occurrence of such an event, even if (without us) it could perhaps have been likely. Perhaps planets like Earth are just normally unstable, falling into states that destroy their biospheres, and Earth itself has been extremely lucky. There's no reason to think that luck will continue.