3 ms·
The example, taken from the Origin of Species, of the OP is interesting, but then it goes on to list multiple inter-dependencies. It does not address one quest
by pierrebai 5y ago
The example, taken from the Origin of Species, of the OP is interesting, but then it goes on to list multiple inter-dependencies.
It does not address one question: are these inter-dependencies required, strict and essential to the survival of the affected species.
IOW, are not the species flexible enough and adaptable enough that any change would be fixed by a substitute or a change in behaviour?
There are many claims, both around ecology and climate changes, that hinge on the idea that the current state of the world as a whole is desirable, good and fragile.
That is the main thing that always irks me. Life survived the extinction of the dinosaurs, multiple glaciations, etc. But it is always portrayed as a fragile system. That always seemed to me a bit hypocritical.
- necovek 5y agoWe do know with reasonable certainty that life is adaptable and likely to survive any man made catastrophe: as humans go extinct if they don't do much to prevent their effects on the ecosystem, Earth and life will likely find a new equillibrium for the mid-term future (millions of years). But we are worried about short term future that directly affects the human species, and even knowing what environment we'd be living in for that short term (thousands of years). If humans want to go past those thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, it seems some change of behaviour is needed, and a better understanding of the inter-relations between species.