5 ms·

Why has massive biodiversity losses at multiple previous points in earth's history always resulted in an even larger subsequent explosion of biodiversity?

xnx 4y ago
I lament we've been given this amazing Eden filled with boundless flora and fauna -the complexity and beauty of which we can barely comprehend- and we're trading it in for parking lots and shiny baubles.
- EForEndeavour 4y ago
  "You know what I love most about Mars? They still dream. We gave up. They're an entire culture dedicated to a common goal, working together as one to turn a lifeless rock into a garden. We had a garden and we paved it." — Franklin Degraaf, The Expanse S1E3 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/TheExpanse https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/TheExpanse
  - goatlover 4y ago
    However, the Martian dream dies the moment they find out there are other worlds with biospheres not named Earth that they can migrate to. Particularly one named Laconia. The problem with Mars in the Expanse is they never got around to terraforming the surface. That and the military culture. In the books, Holden says that not a single blade of grass grows outdoors on the surface. But Earth, despite its pollution and massive population, still grows tons of things that don't grow anywhere else. It's hard to understand just how fertile our planet remains. Bobby is dazzled sitting by the polluted harbor, hearing a sea gall flying overhead. Mars only has underground zoos and farms.
- aeternum 4y ago
  Economic growth, increase population, and technological advancement such that we can get off this planet are the only ways the Eden survives. Otherwise you have maximally until the sun goes red dwarf, and likely Earth will lose its magnetic field allowing its atmosphere to be lost to space, or a sufficiently large asteroid will hit well before that. We're on the clock, humans have to get life off this planet before it is destroyed or everything dies forever.
  - lixtra 4y ago
    While there‘s no doubt that earth’s clock is ticking there’s no doubt that the universe‘s clock is also ticking - although a few orders of magnitude slower.
  - fnordian_slip 4y ago
    If we focus our efforts on colonizing space instead of trying to save this planet first, humanity will never get to colonize another planet. Terraforming or even just permanently living self-sufficiently on Mars is many orders of magnitude harder than stopping global warming, and you see how well we are doing there. Mars is more hostile than earth even after a long time of humans fucking it up.
    - aeternum 4y ago
      Global warming has been blown way out of proportion. The steep decline in cost of solar panels and wind turbines over the last 10 years is already enough to solve the problem. Oil will simply be more expensive and that's what will trigger change. People vote with their wallets, only a tiny proportion of the population has the luxury of doing anything but. Foolish to try to appeal to morality when most of the world lives paycheck to paycheck or worse. On Mars we actually do want to create global warming and a greenhouse effect, so it's good that we know how :D
twiddling 4y ago
life finds a way, but it does over longer time spans than individual human life spans
macinjosh 4y ago
IMO, because the "tournament" of evolution between competing species comes to place where "winners" are declared, they live. Losers die off. While lamentable, this opens the field for the next round of competitors to fill the voids left by the losers which drives more diversity and the process repeats itself.
gmm1990 4y ago
tell that to mar's climate
jt2190 4y ago
There could be a new explosion of biodiversity, but it might exclude humans.
everdrive 4y ago
Because the cause of the loss has been temporary. Will this one be temporary as well? I hope so.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
that's if our species is one of the few that survive the extinction event
jemmyw 4y ago
It opens the space for less well adapted creatures to evolve into and adapt. For a short time (on an evolutionary timescale) you get a much larger variety of adaptation strategies until the best ones win out. Unless humanity completely erases life on earth I'm sure it'll bounce back. There's still time ahead, although not as much as there was behind. However, I'd rather we destroyed less and restored more, at least in my lifetime, so we could enjoy its existence.
mellavora 4y ago
An explosion which sometimes, but not always, includes vertebrates. And which usually happens on a time scale which most of us would consider "long"
yongjik 4y ago
According to Wikipedia, after the End-Permian Extinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Triassic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Triassic > Early Triassic faunas lacked biodiversity and were relatively homogeneous due to the effects of the extinction. The ecological recovery on land took 30 million years. I guess it eventually works out if you are willing to wait very, very long.
zizee 4y ago
I don't know the answer to that, but I can say that you and I are likely to be long gone before any explosion in biodiversity will occur. It won't happen for many tens of thousands of years (probably many millions). People often seem to think the whole climate change is worrying about the earth and all the animal life. The earth will be fine, individual animals will hardly notice (they have much more immediate concerns most of the time, like being eaten). It's humanity that is going to suffer, with the risk of many of our highly optimised systems becoming unsuited to task (think many cities and food production needing to shift, leading to starvation/conflict).
bawolff 4y ago
Because if you kill everything it leaves a lot of room for new things to move in and specialize. Which is fine until you realize kill most biodiversity may include humans. Even if the earth survives doesn't mean we will.

xnx 4y ago

I lament we've been given this amazing Eden filled with boundless flora and fauna -the complexity and beauty of which we can barely comprehend- and we're trading it in for parking lots and shiny baubles.

EForEndeavour 4y ago
"You know what I love most about Mars? They still dream. We gave up. They're an entire culture dedicated to a common goal, working together as one to turn a lifeless rock into a garden. We had a garden and we paved it." — Franklin Degraaf, The Expanse S1E3 https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/TheExpanse https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/TheExpanse
- goatlover 4y ago
  However, the Martian dream dies the moment they find out there are other worlds with biospheres not named Earth that they can migrate to. Particularly one named Laconia. The problem with Mars in the Expanse is they never got around to terraforming the surface. That and the military culture. In the books, Holden says that not a single blade of grass grows outdoors on the surface. But Earth, despite its pollution and massive population, still grows tons of things that don't grow anywhere else. It's hard to understand just how fertile our planet remains. Bobby is dazzled sitting by the polluted harbor, hearing a sea gall flying overhead. Mars only has underground zoos and farms.
aeternum 4y ago
Economic growth, increase population, and technological advancement such that we can get off this planet are the only ways the Eden survives. Otherwise you have maximally until the sun goes red dwarf, and likely Earth will lose its magnetic field allowing its atmosphere to be lost to space, or a sufficiently large asteroid will hit well before that. We're on the clock, humans have to get life off this planet before it is destroyed or everything dies forever.
- lixtra 4y ago
  While there‘s no doubt that earth’s clock is ticking there’s no doubt that the universe‘s clock is also ticking - although a few orders of magnitude slower.
- fnordian_slip 4y ago
  If we focus our efforts on colonizing space instead of trying to save this planet first, humanity will never get to colonize another planet. Terraforming or even just permanently living self-sufficiently on Mars is many orders of magnitude harder than stopping global warming, and you see how well we are doing there. Mars is more hostile than earth even after a long time of humans fucking it up.
  - aeternum 4y ago
    Global warming has been blown way out of proportion. The steep decline in cost of solar panels and wind turbines over the last 10 years is already enough to solve the problem. Oil will simply be more expensive and that's what will trigger change. People vote with their wallets, only a tiny proportion of the population has the luxury of doing anything but. Foolish to try to appeal to morality when most of the world lives paycheck to paycheck or worse. On Mars we actually do want to create global warming and a greenhouse effect, so it's good that we know how :D

twiddling 4y ago

life finds a way, but it does over longer time spans than individual human life spans

macinjosh 4y ago

IMO, because the "tournament" of evolution between competing species comes to place where "winners" are declared, they live. Losers die off. While lamentable, this opens the field for the next round of competitors to fill the voids left by the losers which drives more diversity and the process repeats itself.

gmm1990 4y ago

tell that to mar's climate

jt2190 4y ago

There could be a new explosion of biodiversity, but it might exclude humans.

everdrive 4y ago

Because the cause of the loss has been temporary. Will this one be temporary as well? I hope so.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

that's if our species is one of the few that survive the extinction event

jemmyw 4y ago

It opens the space for less well adapted creatures to evolve into and adapt. For a short time (on an evolutionary timescale) you get a much larger variety of adaptation strategies until the best ones win out. Unless humanity completely erases life on earth I'm sure it'll bounce back. There's still time ahead, although not as much as there was behind. However, I'd rather we destroyed less and restored more, at least in my lifetime, so we could enjoy its existence.

mellavora 4y ago

An explosion which sometimes, but not always, includes vertebrates. And which usually happens on a time scale which most of us would consider "long"

yongjik 4y ago

According to Wikipedia, after the End-Permian Extinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Triassic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Triassic > Early Triassic faunas lacked biodiversity and were relatively homogeneous due to the effects of the extinction. The ecological recovery on land took 30 million years. I guess it eventually works out if you are willing to wait very, very long.

zizee 4y ago

I don't know the answer to that, but I can say that you and I are likely to be long gone before any explosion in biodiversity will occur. It won't happen for many tens of thousands of years (probably many millions). People often seem to think the whole climate change is worrying about the earth and all the animal life. The earth will be fine, individual animals will hardly notice (they have much more immediate concerns most of the time, like being eaten). It's humanity that is going to suffer, with the risk of many of our highly optimised systems becoming unsuited to task (think many cities and food production needing to shift, leading to starvation/conflict).

bawolff 4y ago

Because if you kill everything it leaves a lot of room for new things to move in and specialize. Which is fine until you realize kill most biodiversity may include humans. Even if the earth survives doesn't mean we will.