4 ms·

Hasn't North Africa only been a desert for a few thousand years? It's not exactly some perfectly balanced ecosystem that has existed for a million years or some

Hasn't North Africa only been a desert for a few thousand years? It's not exactly some perfectly balanced ecosystem that has existed for a million years or something. Really, it turning to a desert was an ecosystem collapse... Second, Africa is HUGE. The amount of land they would be using for this must be minuscule compared to the area of this ecosystem. Third, not all ecosystems are equal.. The biodiversity of some areas is so much higher than others, it's not comparable. An acre of rain forest must be worth more than an acre of desert.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> It's not exactly some perfectly balanced ecosystem that has existed for a million years or something. There are no ecosystems like that. It's not even a possibility.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  There are ecosystems that are millions of years old. The oldest rainforests have existed for nearly 100 million years.
  - eastof 4y ago
    For anyone interested to learn more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daintree_Rainforest#History_and_description https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daintree_Rainforest#History_...
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    And if you somehow were able to visit it 80 million years ago, you'd notice that it's completely different now.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      80 million maybe. 8 million maybe not.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Wrong again; you would also notice that it's completely different 8 million years ago. It's not difficult to distinguish between a population that migrated one hundred years ago and the source population it was drawn from. 8 million years is... longer than that.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        No, it's called a continuous ecosystem because it remains very similar. Selective pressure would be very similar, unlike the rare case of certain populations changing significantly when facing a very different situation. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a pine tree from 100,000 years ago to one today, let alone 100. Or a rabbit, snake, bee, fish, or bird.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a pine tree from 100,000 years ago to one today Perhaps. Certainly if you put me in front of the two trees I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. But that's a different question than whether I can tell the difference. If you put me in front of a pine and a fir I couldn't tell you which was which, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to tell the difference. It might also be relevant that the last time I had any significant contact with any conifer was quite a few years ago. > it's called a continuous ecosystem because it remains very similar. Selective pressure would be very similar This is a myth. Specifically, it's the myth of the "living fossil". It's a popular concept, but not a scientific one. The majority of people can't tell the difference between a coral snake and a king snake. That's not evidence that coral snakes are similar to king snakes. > unlike the rare case of certain populations changing significantly when facing a very different situation Not relevant. It also isn't difficult to tell the difference between two populations that were divided by a barrier 100 years ago. Things drift.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Perhaps. Certainly if you put me in front of the two trees I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. But that's a different question than whether I can tell the difference. If you put me in front of a pine and a fir I couldn't tell you which was which, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to tell the difference. No, I mean you couldn't tell the difference, other than it being a different tree. If you had a bunch of trees from 100,000 years ago and a bunch from today, you would not be able to sort them. > It might also be relevant that the last time I had any significant contact with any conifer was quite a few years ago. Pick almost any life form. Grass, bird, fish, snake. > This is a myth. Specifically, it's the myth of the "living fossil". It's a popular concept, but not a scientific one. It's not that myth at all, and has nothing to do with it. > Not relevant. It also isn't difficult to tell the difference between two populations that were divided by a barrier 100 years ago. Things drift. The point is that there was no barrier. Most things don't drift very fast at all. Most species in an old ecosystem could have evolved more than a million years ago and had little change since then. There are species that have existed for millions of years, you do accept that at least?
- seiferteric 4y ago
  My point is that this one in particular is pretty new, and was previously completely different (wet and green). I doubt there has even been enough time for much balance to have been achieved. Also some quick googling claims that the amazon rain forest has existed for millions of years (between 10-55 MILLION years), seems pretty well established to me...
Tagbert 4y ago
Just because an area has gone through climate change in the past is not an argument that current climate change, which is happening at an accelerated rate, is acceptable. It is that rate of change that makes our current risk so high. Having said that, I agree that the impact of putting solar panels in this are is likely much less and more local than the impact of burning the fossil fuels that they solar would offset.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> It's not exactly some perfectly balanced ecosystem that has existed for a million years or something. There are no ecosystems like that. It's not even a possibility.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
There are ecosystems that are millions of years old. The oldest rainforests have existed for nearly 100 million years.
- eastof 4y ago
  For anyone interested to learn more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daintree_Rainforest#History_and_description https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daintree_Rainforest#History_...
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  And if you somehow were able to visit it 80 million years ago, you'd notice that it's completely different now.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    80 million maybe. 8 million maybe not.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Wrong again; you would also notice that it's completely different 8 million years ago. It's not difficult to distinguish between a population that migrated one hundred years ago and the source population it was drawn from. 8 million years is... longer than that.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        No, it's called a continuous ecosystem because it remains very similar. Selective pressure would be very similar, unlike the rare case of certain populations changing significantly when facing a very different situation. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a pine tree from 100,000 years ago to one today, let alone 100. Or a rabbit, snake, bee, fish, or bird.
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        > You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a pine tree from 100,000 years ago to one today Perhaps. Certainly if you put me in front of the two trees I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. But that's a different question than whether I can tell the difference. If you put me in front of a pine and a fir I couldn't tell you which was which, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to tell the difference. It might also be relevant that the last time I had any significant contact with any conifer was quite a few years ago. > it's called a continuous ecosystem because it remains very similar. Selective pressure would be very similar This is a myth. Specifically, it's the myth of the "living fossil". It's a popular concept, but not a scientific one. The majority of people can't tell the difference between a coral snake and a king snake. That's not evidence that coral snakes are similar to king snakes. > unlike the rare case of certain populations changing significantly when facing a very different situation Not relevant. It also isn't difficult to tell the difference between two populations that were divided by a barrier 100 years ago. Things drift.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        > Perhaps. Certainly if you put me in front of the two trees I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which. But that's a different question than whether I can tell the difference. If you put me in front of a pine and a fir I couldn't tell you which was which, but it wouldn't be at all difficult to tell the difference. No, I mean you couldn't tell the difference, other than it being a different tree. If you had a bunch of trees from 100,000 years ago and a bunch from today, you would not be able to sort them. > It might also be relevant that the last time I had any significant contact with any conifer was quite a few years ago. Pick almost any life form. Grass, bird, fish, snake. > This is a myth. Specifically, it's the myth of the "living fossil". It's a popular concept, but not a scientific one. It's not that myth at all, and has nothing to do with it. > Not relevant. It also isn't difficult to tell the difference between two populations that were divided by a barrier 100 years ago. Things drift. The point is that there was no barrier. Most things don't drift very fast at all. Most species in an old ecosystem could have evolved more than a million years ago and had little change since then. There are species that have existed for millions of years, you do accept that at least?
seiferteric 4y ago
My point is that this one in particular is pretty new, and was previously completely different (wet and green). I doubt there has even been enough time for much balance to have been achieved. Also some quick googling claims that the amazon rain forest has existed for millions of years (between 10-55 MILLION years), seems pretty well established to me...

Tagbert 4y ago

Just because an area has gone through climate change in the past is not an argument that current climate change, which is happening at an accelerated rate, is acceptable. It is that rate of change that makes our current risk so high. Having said that, I agree that the impact of putting solar panels in this are is likely much less and more local than the impact of burning the fossil fuels that they solar would offset.