4 ms·

One thing we can learn from Fukushima and Chernobyl: humans are more dangerous to wildlife than nuclear accidents.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Which is why I love Agent Smith's quote from The Matrix: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus."
- hktntbvuvu 5y ago
  Which is exactly why I do not worry about so called "invasive species" (cats, kudzu, english ivy, ...) Only humans are truly invasive.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    We’re just as invasive as the other ones, exploiting our own environment as much as we can.
- grncdr 5y ago
  Which, while making for an excellent bit of dialogue, is unfortunately not the case at all. The idea that natural systems reach an equilibrium is a fiction imposed by humans who invented the concept of “ecology” in the 20th century. Every attempt to measure an equilibrium has revealed that the system being measured is constantly changing and there is no stable configuration.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
    One of the first tenets of evolutionary ecology we learned in school is that all organisms need to be able to grow exponentially, to fill their niche. That's what everyone does, it grows when it's able. And humans mostly do that too.
    - artificialLimbs 5y ago
      The population expansion rate is declining, and we expect to level out around 9 billion people.
  - smallerfish 5y ago
    > The idea that natural systems reach an equilibrium is a fiction There's a middle ground. a) We invented modern medicine and now live 2-3x as long as evolution selects for. b) We have effectively no predators. Most apex predators are limited in number based on availability of prey. We figured out how to intensively farm our prey. Therefore there's a very high bar that our population has yet to reach, which is unusual. c) While an equilibrium observable in a short period of time may be rare in nature, over longer periods oscillations in population size correlated with availability of resources are common. d) Since the entire system of our planet is dynamic and has had parameters changing relatively rapidly over our lifetimes (both directly and indirectly mostly caused by us), it would be unexpected to find a static relationship between species populations. Everything is adapting.
    - beiller 5y ago
      Humans don't actually live any longer. We just have less mortality at the lower end of the age spectrum which brings up the average. And it seems we still have predators if you consider covid maybe? Many countries on earth have a negative birth rate which suggests maybe there is some sort of equilibrium in my opinion. Of course I must point out my bias I am in fact a human being.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    I wouldn't say there aren't stable configurations. These systems tend to bounce between strange attractors (which are stable with variance), and the set of possible strange attractors is also probably stable given the life forms that are interacting. Of course, on geological time scales massive events can disrupt the set of possible strange attractors, but then nothing is stable or permanent as you go out in time scope so I'm not sure that matters.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    Not to mention Agent Smith is dead wrong. Want to see biggest polluter/changer in the world. Plants. It's not a virus. It's plants. Oxygen is a highly toxic compound, that's essentially exhaust gas for photosynthesis. Plants changed the world way more than humans ever did. They redefined the basic chemistry of all other life on Earth. Because they slaughtered 97% of all life, by accident. What survived had to use/endure oxygen.
    - staplung 5y ago
      Perhaps this is a quibbling point but the Great Oxidation Event happened more than 2 billion years ago, long before plants evolved. Most atmospheric oxygen was "created" by cyanobacteria. In fact, plants - along with all other multicellular organisms - were one of the beneficiaries of the GOE as they would not have been able to evolve without it.
      - Ygg2 5y ago
        You are right, but cyanobacteria is a plant or plant life predecessor. Either way. Cyanobacteria isn't a virus, like Agent Smith implied.
    - burrows 5y ago
      I find this story extremely compelling. (Is it True?) > Because they slaughtered 97% of all life, by accident. And isn’t this also true of humans? We’re not killing other species (and their “habitats”) on purpose, it’s a side effect of Real Goals (eg, we want fuel to heat our homes so we can survive the winter. Or more cynically, Fuel Source Executives need to sell fuel in order to consume yachts and ski vacations).
      - Ygg2 5y ago
        See great oxidation event. Also destroing x% of species isn't same destroying x% of life. If there are ten species of 2 individuals and 80 individuals of another species, you can kill ~90% species while killing only 20% of all life. If you kill 90% of all life you have to kill 90 individuals.
  - a0-prw 5y ago
    All equilibrium is temporary and imperfect. In the complete absence of external influences (which in the extreme in practice is impossible) ecosystems do indeed reach something approaching equilibrium, certainly with fluctuations in predators and prey, but no violent, sudden disruptions. There's a whole genre of YouTube videos made by hobbyists who establish ecosystems in glass jars and seal them for many years. https://youtu.be/Es6DDuMmhAM https://youtu.be/Es6DDuMmhAM Edit: With (of course) the external influence of light ;)
- throwthere 5y ago
  I remember that quote but it's not backed by reality. Plenty of mammals haven't reached a "natural equilibrium" and are destroying fauana/plantlife unchecked. Some examples from present time-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia, http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/100_worst.php http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/100_worst.php
  - loonster 5y ago
    We live in a finite world. Equilibrium will happen. Given enough time, the rabbits will run out of food and start to die off. Or a predator will be introduced (or evolve) that will feed on the rabbits and flourish.
  - unanswered 5y ago
    According to the ideology that nature should be/have become static and that all changes are therefore due to humans, the rabbits are just a symptom of human destruction.
refurb 5y ago
This makes no sense. Humans are nature. If you went to say Africa and killed all the lions there, the wildlife would “flourish” in the same way, but it wouldn’t be natural because lions killing prey and reducing their numbers is natural.
- codetrotter 5y ago
  > Humans are nature. Yeah but they didn’t say we weren’t. They said we are more dangerous to wildlife than nuclear accidents.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    To be fair, a pride of lions is also more dangerous to wildlife than a nuclear accident. Lions, like humans, have intent and will happily track down and kill the last deer. A nuclear accident on the other hand will only kill at random and will “let go” of many animals it could kill but didn’t happen to incidentally radiate as it disapated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pfortuny 5y ago
Notice that the fauna we see is the surviving one…
- loonster 5y ago
  Or the descendants. Humans live a long time for our body mass. Fukushima happened 10 years ago. For a human, that's 1/2-1/3 of a generation. For a deer, that is 5 generations. For a mouse, that's potentially 500 generations ago.
concordDance 5y ago
Mostly because nuclear accidents are much scarier than they should be. I wouldn't be surprised if it was safer to live in Fukishima than the average city due to reduced (non-radioactive) pollution and fewer people piloting multi-ton objects at 60mph.

Which is why I love Agent Smith's quote from The Matrix: "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus."

hktntbvuvu 5y ago
Which is exactly why I do not worry about so called "invasive species" (cats, kudzu, english ivy, ...) Only humans are truly invasive.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  We’re just as invasive as the other ones, exploiting our own environment as much as we can.
grncdr 5y ago
Which, while making for an excellent bit of dialogue, is unfortunately not the case at all. The idea that natural systems reach an equilibrium is a fiction imposed by humans who invented the concept of “ecology” in the 20th century. Every attempt to measure an equilibrium has revealed that the system being measured is constantly changing and there is no stable configuration.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  One of the first tenets of evolutionary ecology we learned in school is that all organisms need to be able to grow exponentially, to fill their niche. That's what everyone does, it grows when it's able. And humans mostly do that too.
  - artificialLimbs 5y ago
    The population expansion rate is declining, and we expect to level out around 9 billion people.
- smallerfish 5y ago
  > The idea that natural systems reach an equilibrium is a fiction There's a middle ground. a) We invented modern medicine and now live 2-3x as long as evolution selects for. b) We have effectively no predators. Most apex predators are limited in number based on availability of prey. We figured out how to intensively farm our prey. Therefore there's a very high bar that our population has yet to reach, which is unusual. c) While an equilibrium observable in a short period of time may be rare in nature, over longer periods oscillations in population size correlated with availability of resources are common. d) Since the entire system of our planet is dynamic and has had parameters changing relatively rapidly over our lifetimes (both directly and indirectly mostly caused by us), it would be unexpected to find a static relationship between species populations. Everything is adapting.
  - beiller 5y ago
    Humans don't actually live any longer. We just have less mortality at the lower end of the age spectrum which brings up the average. And it seems we still have predators if you consider covid maybe? Many countries on earth have a negative birth rate which suggests maybe there is some sort of equilibrium in my opinion. Of course I must point out my bias I am in fact a human being.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  I wouldn't say there aren't stable configurations. These systems tend to bounce between strange attractors (which are stable with variance), and the set of possible strange attractors is also probably stable given the life forms that are interacting. Of course, on geological time scales massive events can disrupt the set of possible strange attractors, but then nothing is stable or permanent as you go out in time scope so I'm not sure that matters.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  Not to mention Agent Smith is dead wrong. Want to see biggest polluter/changer in the world. Plants. It's not a virus. It's plants. Oxygen is a highly toxic compound, that's essentially exhaust gas for photosynthesis. Plants changed the world way more than humans ever did. They redefined the basic chemistry of all other life on Earth. Because they slaughtered 97% of all life, by accident. What survived had to use/endure oxygen.
  - staplung 5y ago
    Perhaps this is a quibbling point but the Great Oxidation Event happened more than 2 billion years ago, long before plants evolved. Most atmospheric oxygen was "created" by cyanobacteria. In fact, plants - along with all other multicellular organisms - were one of the beneficiaries of the GOE as they would not have been able to evolve without it.
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      You are right, but cyanobacteria is a plant or plant life predecessor. Either way. Cyanobacteria isn't a virus, like Agent Smith implied.
  - burrows 5y ago
    I find this story extremely compelling. (Is it True?) > Because they slaughtered 97% of all life, by accident. And isn’t this also true of humans? We’re not killing other species (and their “habitats”) on purpose, it’s a side effect of Real Goals (eg, we want fuel to heat our homes so we can survive the winter. Or more cynically, Fuel Source Executives need to sell fuel in order to consume yachts and ski vacations).
    - Ygg2 5y ago
      See great oxidation event. Also destroing x% of species isn't same destroying x% of life. If there are ten species of 2 individuals and 80 individuals of another species, you can kill ~90% species while killing only 20% of all life. If you kill 90% of all life you have to kill 90 individuals.
- a0-prw 5y ago
  All equilibrium is temporary and imperfect. In the complete absence of external influences (which in the extreme in practice is impossible) ecosystems do indeed reach something approaching equilibrium, certainly with fluctuations in predators and prey, but no violent, sudden disruptions. There's a whole genre of YouTube videos made by hobbyists who establish ecosystems in glass jars and seal them for many years. https://youtu.be/Es6DDuMmhAM https://youtu.be/Es6DDuMmhAM Edit: With (of course) the external influence of light ;)
throwthere 5y ago
I remember that quote but it's not backed by reality. Plenty of mammals haven't reached a "natural equilibrium" and are destroying fauana/plantlife unchecked. Some examples from present time-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia, http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/100_worst.php http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/100_worst.php
- loonster 5y ago
  We live in a finite world. Equilibrium will happen. Given enough time, the rabbits will run out of food and start to die off. Or a predator will be introduced (or evolve) that will feed on the rabbits and flourish.
- unanswered 5y ago
  According to the ideology that nature should be/have become static and that all changes are therefore due to humans, the rabbits are just a symptom of human destruction.

refurb 5y ago

This makes no sense. Humans are nature. If you went to say Africa and killed all the lions there, the wildlife would “flourish” in the same way, but it wouldn’t be natural because lions killing prey and reducing their numbers is natural.

codetrotter 5y ago
> Humans are nature. Yeah but they didn’t say we weren’t. They said we are more dangerous to wildlife than nuclear accidents.
- true_religion 5y ago
  To be fair, a pride of lions is also more dangerous to wildlife than a nuclear accident. Lions, like humans, have intent and will happily track down and kill the last deer. A nuclear accident on the other hand will only kill at random and will “let go” of many animals it could kill but didn’t happen to incidentally radiate as it disapated.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pfortuny 5y ago

Notice that the fauna we see is the surviving one…

loonster 5y ago
Or the descendants. Humans live a long time for our body mass. Fukushima happened 10 years ago. For a human, that's 1/2-1/3 of a generation. For a deer, that is 5 generations. For a mouse, that's potentially 500 generations ago.

concordDance 5y ago

Mostly because nuclear accidents are much scarier than they should be. I wouldn't be surprised if it was safer to live in Fukishima than the average city due to reduced (non-radioactive) pollution and fewer people piloting multi-ton objects at 60mph.