3 ms·

> We are an incredibly hardy species. We are clever. We find ways to survive in deserts, mountains, small islands, icey tundras and anything in between. We’re

> We are an incredibly hardy species. We are clever. We find ways to survive in deserts, mountains, small islands, icey tundras and anything in between. We’re that… so far. But at the same time: - our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex species did last for millions of years - we’re actively moving our own environment out of spec with our survival capabilities, and as warm-blooded mammals it’s much easier to adapt to the cold than it is to the heat, 35 WBT is a hard limit (in fact it looks like it’s an over-estimate and 31 is closer, even for healthy young adults, but 35 WBT was a theorised estimate) Drive to survive can only get you so far, you can have as much drive to survive as your average cockroach, that won’t save you from heat stroke any more than it’ll save you from drowning or a bullet wound.

antisthenes 4y ago
> our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex species did last for millions of years I think that's a pretty bad comparison. A much better comparison is with a species that's also a mammal, spread world-wide, extremely adaptable and exhibits group behavior. The Canidae genus fits the bill nicely, which includes foxes, jackals, and of course, wolves and dogs. They have a pretty good track record of ~9000kY of being virtually unchanged from their current forms and inhabit all parts of the world, including some fairly remote islands. > we’re actively moving our own environment out of spec with our survival capabilities, Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different.
- pixl97 4y ago
  >Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different. Not at all. Most species that over breed their local environment have die offs. But, if the overpopulation is too severe they can damage the environment and go extinct from the environment. But, you're looking at the local scale and this is much too small of scope. A few billion years ago there was something closer to the game we play called the Great Oxygen Catastrophe. This unfolded at a global scale and lead to worldwide die offs of bacteria as they produced too much oxygen. Eventually it is thought they caused the extinction of a huge portion of the oxygen producing bacteria and paved the way for lifeforms that could survive in the altered planet.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > They have a pretty good track record of ~9000kY of being virtually unchanged from their current forms and inhabit all parts of the world, including some fairly remote islands. And we’re nowhere near that is my point. Not sure what you think yours is? > Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different. Absolutely not. A species exceeding their environment’s carrying capacity will have die-offs then the survivors carry on. It does not make its own environment unlivable for itself, which is what humanity is doing. Humanity is also heading towards exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity but that is a separate issue.

antisthenes 4y ago

> our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex species did last for millions of years I think that's a pretty bad comparison. A much better comparison is with a species that's also a mammal, spread world-wide, extremely adaptable and exhibits group behavior. The Canidae genus fits the bill nicely, which includes foxes, jackals, and of course, wolves and dogs. They have a pretty good track record of ~9000kY of being virtually unchanged from their current forms and inhabit all parts of the world, including some fairly remote islands. > we’re actively moving our own environment out of spec with our survival capabilities, Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different.

pixl97 4y ago
>Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different. Not at all. Most species that over breed their local environment have die offs. But, if the overpopulation is too severe they can damage the environment and go extinct from the environment. But, you're looking at the local scale and this is much too small of scope. A few billion years ago there was something closer to the game we play called the Great Oxygen Catastrophe. This unfolded at a global scale and lead to worldwide die offs of bacteria as they produced too much oxygen. Eventually it is thought they caused the extinction of a huge portion of the oxygen producing bacteria and paved the way for lifeforms that could survive in the altered planet.
masklinn 4y ago
> They have a pretty good track record of ~9000kY of being virtually unchanged from their current forms and inhabit all parts of the world, including some fairly remote islands. And we’re nowhere near that is my point. Not sure what you think yours is? > Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different. Absolutely not. A species exceeding their environment’s carrying capacity will have die-offs then the survivors carry on. It does not make its own environment unlivable for itself, which is what humanity is doing. Humanity is also heading towards exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity but that is a separate issue.