3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.