5 ms·

"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vani

"If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos." — Edward O. Wilson

Theizestooke 5y ago
Both scenarios would cause upheaval, and I'm not sure what he means by a "rich state of equilibrium".
- civilized 5y ago
  He means something that would be interesting for a biologist like him to hang out in and observe. I know some biologists, and they often wish that the world should be "rich" from a biologist's perspective even if the biologist isn't there to observe it. It's a curious perspective to me. If you don't exist, why would it matter whether the world is (a) green and buzzing with insects, or (b) reduced to grey goo or strange matter? Why would your aesthetic preferences be relevant in a world that you don't exist in? It's not like you're going to get to watch this universe through a viewport.
  - ahmedalsudani 5y ago
    We wouldn't survive for long without insects, and we'd notice the rot buildup in our environment very quickly without them. It's not about "biology". It's about roles in the ecosystem.
    - civilized 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my comment.
      - ahmedalsudani 5y ago
        > I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my comment. A direct question would be easy to answer. As it is, I'm sorry to hear about your confusion :-)
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    Aesthetic preferences exist in our minds independent of our direct experience. That’s why people can have aesthetic opinions of things the instant they experience them. An aesthetic preference is essentially an ideal against which we compare our experience. Whether we expect to meet that ideal does not diminish its power. In fact if it was easily met, it would not be much of an ideal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  The living world is not currently in a state of equilibrium. The populations of humans and the animals and plants we keep are growing extremely quickly; almost every other population of living thing is shrinking quickly. “Rich” refers to the variety and abundance of living things. The total biomass of living things has declined (there’s less overall) and what is left is concentrated into far fewer species than previously. Just taken as a store of information, the loss is staggering. But from a practical perspective we are less rich; it’s far harder today to catch fish than it used to be, for example.
- api 5y ago
  The notion of equilibrium is something I always disagree with when I read environmentalists. The ecosystem is never in equilibrium. If it were it would be dead. If it reached a meta-stable state evolutionary change would halt. An icy comet circling way out beyond Neptune is an example of a system somewhat near equilibrium.
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  A modern day equivalent of this rich state of equilibrium can be observed in Chernobyl. The place was decimated by nuclear radiation a few decades ago. Initially it was believed that the place never support any large life forms for many centuries. However wild life is currently thriving in Chernobyl including large mammals and birds [0]. [0] https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustainability/chernobyl-is-now-a-hugely-important-wildlife-refuge https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustainability/chernobyl-is...
kabes 5y ago
Mankind is one species with about 7 billion specimen. Insects an entire class with in the million species and 10 quintillion specimen. Not really a fair comparison. If all mammals would dissapear there'd also be chaos. Even just whale poop has a big impact.
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  And yet humans commonly think they are the most important thing on earth, placing themselves at the apex of some pyramid. E O Wilson gives us perspective by seeing the world not as a bauble in a real estate store, but as a canvas for all of biology.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Humans are most important beings on Earth for themselves, which I find perfectly natural.

Theizestooke 5y ago

Both scenarios would cause upheaval, and I'm not sure what he means by a "rich state of equilibrium".

civilized 5y ago
He means something that would be interesting for a biologist like him to hang out in and observe. I know some biologists, and they often wish that the world should be "rich" from a biologist's perspective even if the biologist isn't there to observe it. It's a curious perspective to me. If you don't exist, why would it matter whether the world is (a) green and buzzing with insects, or (b) reduced to grey goo or strange matter? Why would your aesthetic preferences be relevant in a world that you don't exist in? It's not like you're going to get to watch this universe through a viewport.
- ahmedalsudani 5y ago
  We wouldn't survive for long without insects, and we'd notice the rot buildup in our environment very quickly without them. It's not about "biology". It's about roles in the ecosystem.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my comment.
    - ahmedalsudani 5y ago
      > I'm not sure what you think you're responding to in my comment. A direct question would be easy to answer. As it is, I'm sorry to hear about your confusion :-)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  Aesthetic preferences exist in our minds independent of our direct experience. That’s why people can have aesthetic opinions of things the instant they experience them. An aesthetic preference is essentially an ideal against which we compare our experience. Whether we expect to meet that ideal does not diminish its power. In fact if it was easily met, it would not be much of an ideal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
snowwrestler 5y ago
The living world is not currently in a state of equilibrium. The populations of humans and the animals and plants we keep are growing extremely quickly; almost every other population of living thing is shrinking quickly. “Rich” refers to the variety and abundance of living things. The total biomass of living things has declined (there’s less overall) and what is left is concentrated into far fewer species than previously. Just taken as a store of information, the loss is staggering. But from a practical perspective we are less rich; it’s far harder today to catch fish than it used to be, for example.
api 5y ago
The notion of equilibrium is something I always disagree with when I read environmentalists. The ecosystem is never in equilibrium. If it were it would be dead. If it reached a meta-stable state evolutionary change would halt. An icy comet circling way out beyond Neptune is an example of a system somewhat near equilibrium.
wanderingmind 5y ago
A modern day equivalent of this rich state of equilibrium can be observed in Chernobyl. The place was decimated by nuclear radiation a few decades ago. Initially it was believed that the place never support any large life forms for many centuries. However wild life is currently thriving in Chernobyl including large mammals and birds [0]. [0] https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustainability/chernobyl-is-now-a-hugely-important-wildlife-refuge https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/sustainability/chernobyl-is...

kabes 5y ago

Mankind is one species with about 7 billion specimen. Insects an entire class with in the million species and 10 quintillion specimen. Not really a fair comparison. If all mammals would dissapear there'd also be chaos. Even just whale poop has a big impact.

wombatmobile 5y ago
And yet humans commonly think they are the most important thing on earth, placing themselves at the apex of some pyramid. E O Wilson gives us perspective by seeing the world not as a bauble in a real estate store, but as a canvas for all of biology.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Humans are most important beings on Earth for themselves, which I find perfectly natural.