3 ms·

So you agree? The population boom and bust cycle is exactly how nature functions in almost all cases. Life attempts to expand as much as possible consuming all

So you agree? The population boom and bust cycle is exactly how nature functions in almost all cases. Life attempts to expand as much as possible consuming all available resources and the only limit is exhaustion of those resources or being consumed by other life. Humanity is the only example of a living organism that is aware of this and attempts to mitigate it by finding more efficient ways to use those resources or developing new ones. That is the point I was trying to make, I was refuting the other commenter's argument from nature that technology is not natural because it doesn't have sustainability built in. They have it backwards, nature is un-directed and un-aware and is therefore unable to find solutions to resource depletion. Humanity is aware and capable of changing their behavior and their environment and is therefore capable of efficiently using existing resources and finding and developing new ones.

college_physics 4y ago
Nature (biological systems) do not in general consume all available resources to die off. It may happen to bacteria in isolated Petri dishes but in open ecosystems there are in general restoring factors that keep populations within ranges. In fact, despite the "inanity" of low life, over geological timescales a pretty nasty rocky planet has been turned into a vibrant biosphere (the Gaia hypothesis - though its validity is not necessary for my argument). Technology opens up channels that are so "unnatural" there is little to contain them in the short term - besides human reason and empathy ofcourse, but reports on that front are contradictory. There was, e.g., nothing nature could do to fix the depleting ozone layer hole generated through the mindless release of new gases. Fortunately, in that instance, it was technically and behaviorally possible to start reverting the damage. As another, (currently) most extreme example, the biosphere doesn't know how to handle nuclear energy. Its entirely conceivable that geopolitical strife can make large parts of the planet uninhabitable and whether that happens or not plays out entirely in the mental / emotional states of humans. I stand by my point that human invented technology opens up immense channels for large scale destruction of the biosphere and there is no natural restoring force to ensure its sustainable use. A casual inspection of the speed with which we alter our environment (for the worse) using technology, coupled with the dominant mindset of widespread ignorance of our condition does not bode well. It may happen that we will somehow "grow up" and develop a globally adopted culture of equilibrium within society and with the environment but that is a big if.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  > Nature (biological systems) do not in general consume all available resources to die off. So what happens to a deer population if it is established somewhere with no natural predators? Same question for any other prey species. You can also ask the same question for what happens when a predatory population expands rapidly but this is harder to control all variables for. I still disagree that there is anything unnatural. Yes, ionizing radiation can easily kill most living things, no it is not something that life could not adapt to. The only reason that most organisms are not tolerant of high levels of radiation is because this particular planet doesn't have high levels of radiation (though we do have a non-zero amount of background radiation that we are all very tolerant of). There currently exist organisms that are tolerant of high levels or radiation and given enough time to evolve that would be possible for life in general. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99018
  - college_physics 4y ago
    Logically and abstractly, yes, everything is "natural". Both nuclear forces and the human collective's behavior are part of the Universe after all. Even as we engineer one tech-driven ecosystem instability after another, it is likely that some living things will survive for the day after. But is this a scenario that should consider seriously? The problem is not the un-natural nature of technology per se but the mismatch between our intellectual ability to unlock potent technology domains that tap unusual (non-biological) spheres, versus our self-governance capability to deploy them in sustainable ways. The lack of any other restoring force besides limited human reason and empathy means its a race against the clock before something really bad happens.
imtringued 4y ago
Nature does logistic growth all the time, just look at human height growth curves. We grow very quickly when we are young and barely grow when we are old. That is literally the inversion of exponential growth which is slow in the beginning and fast at the end which tends to overshoot resource constraints by a far bigger margin.

college_physics 4y ago

Nature (biological systems) do not in general consume all available resources to die off. It may happen to bacteria in isolated Petri dishes but in open ecosystems there are in general restoring factors that keep populations within ranges. In fact, despite the "inanity" of low life, over geological timescales a pretty nasty rocky planet has been turned into a vibrant biosphere (the Gaia hypothesis - though its validity is not necessary for my argument). Technology opens up channels that are so "unnatural" there is little to contain them in the short term - besides human reason and empathy ofcourse, but reports on that front are contradictory. There was, e.g., nothing nature could do to fix the depleting ozone layer hole generated through the mindless release of new gases. Fortunately, in that instance, it was technically and behaviorally possible to start reverting the damage. As another, (currently) most extreme example, the biosphere doesn't know how to handle nuclear energy. Its entirely conceivable that geopolitical strife can make large parts of the planet uninhabitable and whether that happens or not plays out entirely in the mental / emotional states of humans. I stand by my point that human invented technology opens up immense channels for large scale destruction of the biosphere and there is no natural restoring force to ensure its sustainable use. A casual inspection of the speed with which we alter our environment (for the worse) using technology, coupled with the dominant mindset of widespread ignorance of our condition does not bode well. It may happen that we will somehow "grow up" and develop a globally adopted culture of equilibrium within society and with the environment but that is a big if.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
> Nature (biological systems) do not in general consume all available resources to die off. So what happens to a deer population if it is established somewhere with no natural predators? Same question for any other prey species. You can also ask the same question for what happens when a predatory population expands rapidly but this is harder to control all variables for. I still disagree that there is anything unnatural. Yes, ionizing radiation can easily kill most living things, no it is not something that life could not adapt to. The only reason that most organisms are not tolerant of high levels of radiation is because this particular planet doesn't have high levels of radiation (though we do have a non-zero amount of background radiation that we are all very tolerant of). There currently exist organisms that are tolerant of high levels or radiation and given enough time to evolve that would be possible for life in general. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99018
- college_physics 4y ago
  Logically and abstractly, yes, everything is "natural". Both nuclear forces and the human collective's behavior are part of the Universe after all. Even as we engineer one tech-driven ecosystem instability after another, it is likely that some living things will survive for the day after. But is this a scenario that should consider seriously? The problem is not the un-natural nature of technology per se but the mismatch between our intellectual ability to unlock potent technology domains that tap unusual (non-biological) spheres, versus our self-governance capability to deploy them in sustainable ways. The lack of any other restoring force besides limited human reason and empathy means its a race against the clock before something really bad happens.

imtringued 4y ago

Nature does logistic growth all the time, just look at human height growth curves. We grow very quickly when we are young and barely grow when we are old. That is literally the inversion of exponential growth which is slow in the beginning and fast at the end which tends to overshoot resource constraints by a far bigger margin.