4 ms·

>Shouldn't we start by preventing further extinctions Should we? Extinctions happen for a reason and open up niches for innovation (new species.) Why prevent

>Shouldn't we start by preventing further extinctions Should we? Extinctions happen for a reason and open up niches for innovation (new species.) Why prevent this?

danuker 4y ago
Currently that reason is us. We are destroying habitats faster than species can adapt. The "why" is to preserve working ecosystems and biodiversity.
- criddell 4y ago
  Currently? It’s been that way for at least 60,000 years.
  - danuker 4y ago
    We've been hunting species to extinction for 60k years, yes, but we haven't reached global transformation of the environment until the past few hundred. But you can also interpret "currently" on a geological time scale.
    - djitz 4y ago
      Hunting anything near extinction is very solidly at the last inch of the timeline encompassing the last 60k years.
      - criddell 4y ago
        Most extinctions, sure. Some think humans hunted Australia’s megafauna to extinction 50,000 years ago: https://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals-in-australia/ https://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animal...
- edgyquant 4y ago
  We are just another species. Ecosystems and biodiversity aren’t going anywhere. The only thing that will change is their makeup. Organisms that can’t keep up with their environment die and are replaced by new ones that can.
  - outworlder 4y ago
    We are another species but we operate more like a disease. We are no longer operating unchecked by the remainder of the biosphere. > Ecosystems and biodiversity aren’t going anywhere. If we keep up, they are. We can totally destroy the biosphere in ways that would make it, from our perspective, unrecoverable. Sure, it could recover in a few million years with other species, but that won't matter to us.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > We are no longer operating unchecked by the remainder of the biosphere. But we aren't, really. Long-term, we will be fully checked. And it will be ugly. In terms of humans, it's better that we check ourselves before nature does it because when nature course-corrects, it will probably look like a cataclysm to us.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  What we're actually doing is making the environment less suitable for us and most of the other currently existing species. Long term, that's not a problem. Once we're done trashing the place, life, biodiversity, and working ecosystems will still be here. They will just be very different from what they are now.
darth_avocado 4y ago
Yes, because the current extinction is not “natural”.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  How is it not natural? Because people are the species outcompeting the other ones? That’s a weird view of what natural is and it will only cause inefficiencies and prevent organisms that are fit for survival from arising.
  - chongli 4y ago
    The word natural exists specifically to make a distinction between human causes and all other causes. Saying “humans are natural, therefore anything humans do is natural as well” is to render the word meaningless.

>Shouldn't we start by preventing further extinctions Should we? Extinctions happen for a reason and open up niches for innovation (new species.) Why prevent this?

danuker 4y ago

Currently that reason is us. We are destroying habitats faster than species can adapt. The "why" is to preserve working ecosystems and biodiversity.

criddell 4y ago
Currently? It’s been that way for at least 60,000 years.
- danuker 4y ago
  We've been hunting species to extinction for 60k years, yes, but we haven't reached global transformation of the environment until the past few hundred. But you can also interpret "currently" on a geological time scale.
  - djitz 4y ago
    Hunting anything near extinction is very solidly at the last inch of the timeline encompassing the last 60k years.
    - criddell 4y ago
      Most extinctions, sure. Some think humans hunted Australia’s megafauna to extinction 50,000 years ago: https://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animals-in-australia/ https://earthsky.org/earth/early-humans-wiped-out-big-animal...
edgyquant 4y ago
We are just another species. Ecosystems and biodiversity aren’t going anywhere. The only thing that will change is their makeup. Organisms that can’t keep up with their environment die and are replaced by new ones that can.
- outworlder 4y ago
  We are another species but we operate more like a disease. We are no longer operating unchecked by the remainder of the biosphere. > Ecosystems and biodiversity aren’t going anywhere. If we keep up, they are. We can totally destroy the biosphere in ways that would make it, from our perspective, unrecoverable. Sure, it could recover in a few million years with other species, but that won't matter to us.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > We are no longer operating unchecked by the remainder of the biosphere. But we aren't, really. Long-term, we will be fully checked. And it will be ugly. In terms of humans, it's better that we check ourselves before nature does it because when nature course-corrects, it will probably look like a cataclysm to us.
JohnFen 4y ago
What we're actually doing is making the environment less suitable for us and most of the other currently existing species. Long term, that's not a problem. Once we're done trashing the place, life, biodiversity, and working ecosystems will still be here. They will just be very different from what they are now.

darth_avocado 4y ago

Yes, because the current extinction is not “natural”.

edgyquant 4y ago
How is it not natural? Because people are the species outcompeting the other ones? That’s a weird view of what natural is and it will only cause inefficiencies and prevent organisms that are fit for survival from arising.
- chongli 4y ago
  The word natural exists specifically to make a distinction between human causes and all other causes. Saying “humans are natural, therefore anything humans do is natural as well” is to render the word meaningless.