6 ms·

The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. What we destroy today won’t be replaced while

by Ma8ee 3y ago

The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. What we destroy today won’t be replaced while humans as a species as we know it today even exists. It will always be many orders of magnitude easier to terraform Earth, even after we screwed it up, than trying to terraform Mars.

ke88y 3y ago
> It will always be many orders of magnitude easier to terraform Earth, even after we screwed it up, than trying to terraform Mars. It's many orders of magnitude easier to afford a $100,000,000 home if you make $10,000 per year than if you only make $1 per year. But you're never going to afford that home either way.
- replygirl 3y ago
  We reversed the Chicago River 120 years ago, protected the Netherlands from flooding for centuries, blasted out the bed of the East River to make New York one of the most successful ports in history, laid at least one canal through every major ithsmus, and built dozens of reservoirs and irrigation systems into every hydrological ecosystem that touches a major population center. That's just water projects.
  - gus_massa 3y ago
    > We reversed the Chicago River 120 years ago I had never heard that. More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River
  - ke88y 3y ago
    None of these are even remotely close to terraforming.
  - ask_b123 3y ago
    What is an isthmus? Do the Pyrenees count as one? Tehuantepec?
- Ma8ee 3y ago
  Certainly. What I was trying to say was that the notion of terraforming Mars as an escape when we screwed up here is absurd.
yummypaint 3y ago
We have been agressively terraforming the earth into a form less accomodating of current complex life for some time now, and we show no signs of slowing. That's the whole problem
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Agressively? We increased CO2 concentration by about 200 parts-per-million (a factor of about 2x), and increased the average temperature by about 1-2°C. Rain patterns are slightly different. Ocean PH levels dropped by about 0.04 . Sure, given how delicate the biosphere is, these small changes have a significant effect. However, if we look at Earth on the same scale as any other object in the solar system, the environment on Earth today is almost identical to the environment on Earth 1,000 years ago. The atmosphere is about 1023 millibars; 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.04% everything else. Liquid water covers most of the surface, with an active water cycle causing water rain to occur periodically over much of the planet. The temperature change is so small, that we would not notice it if it were on any other planet in the solar system, and it is far below the noise floor of day-to-day variance
  - robocat 3y ago
    They might be talking about farmland. For example, pastures, agriculture and forestry in New Zealand has approximately zero in common with the native flora & fauna that was here before humans modified the environment. The native plants that remain are virtually all in areas that are simply too uneconomic to farm in any way (usually mountainous). ~55% of New Zealand is being used for sheep and cattle, and another 8% for exotic forestry. We also eat an extraordinary amount of the fish and seafood in the world from the ocean. “The global per capita consumption footprint in 2011 is estimated at 27 kg. Our estimate is higher than the 18.6 kg reported in FAO statistics for the same year, as it also takes into account the indirect use of capture fisheries production by the fishmeal sector.” “the conversion of wild-capture fish that would not be used for human consumption into fishmeal and subsequent use as aquafeed, results in an overall increase in human consumption of fish”. “31% of the world's wild fish stocks are estimated to be overfished, 58% fully exploited”.
  - 3y ago
njarboe 3y ago
Hopefully in the future we will have two beautiful worlds full of life. Doesn't that dream seem great?
ascar 3y ago
> The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. On what are you basing this statement? I would argue that entirely depends on the complexity of the species and the time per generation. Bacteria certainly can adapt to extremely different conditions within years, if not even quicker. And these "simple life forms" are arguably much more important for the ecosystem than more complex ones like mammals.
- melagonster 3y ago
  if you only want bacteria, maybe. but even insects or spider still need more and more time to evolve closely new species. we even don't need to talk how many time for evolving a new mammal species. plants will extinct, too.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. What we destroy today won’t be replaced while humans as a species as we know it today even exists. When it comes to changing climate (and some degree of pollution) instead of newly evolved adaptations you get migrations or selection for particular alleles. Adjust up and back down and you can end up with diversity constraints on both ends.
- Ma8ee 3y ago
  Some manages to migrate or adapt. Many won’t. Either because there’s nowhere to migrate to, or because there’s no path there available. In the end, we will lose a lot of biodiversity.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    That's exactly my point.

by Ma8ee 3y ago

ke88y 3y ago

> It will always be many orders of magnitude easier to terraform Earth, even after we screwed it up, than trying to terraform Mars. It's many orders of magnitude easier to afford a $100,000,000 home if you make $10,000 per year than if you only make $1 per year. But you're never going to afford that home either way.

replygirl 3y ago
We reversed the Chicago River 120 years ago, protected the Netherlands from flooding for centuries, blasted out the bed of the East River to make New York one of the most successful ports in history, laid at least one canal through every major ithsmus, and built dozens of reservoirs and irrigation systems into every hydrological ecosystem that touches a major population center. That's just water projects.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  > We reversed the Chicago River 120 years ago I had never heard that. More info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River
- ke88y 3y ago
  None of these are even remotely close to terraforming.
- ask_b123 3y ago
  What is an isthmus? Do the Pyrenees count as one? Tehuantepec?
Ma8ee 3y ago
Certainly. What I was trying to say was that the notion of terraforming Mars as an escape when we screwed up here is absurd.

yummypaint 3y ago

We have been agressively terraforming the earth into a form less accomodating of current complex life for some time now, and we show no signs of slowing. That's the whole problem

gizmo686 3y ago
Agressively? We increased CO2 concentration by about 200 parts-per-million (a factor of about 2x), and increased the average temperature by about 1-2°C. Rain patterns are slightly different. Ocean PH levels dropped by about 0.04 . Sure, given how delicate the biosphere is, these small changes have a significant effect. However, if we look at Earth on the same scale as any other object in the solar system, the environment on Earth today is almost identical to the environment on Earth 1,000 years ago. The atmosphere is about 1023 millibars; 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.04% everything else. Liquid water covers most of the surface, with an active water cycle causing water rain to occur periodically over much of the planet. The temperature change is so small, that we would not notice it if it were on any other planet in the solar system, and it is far below the noise floor of day-to-day variance
- robocat 3y ago
  They might be talking about farmland. For example, pastures, agriculture and forestry in New Zealand has approximately zero in common with the native flora & fauna that was here before humans modified the environment. The native plants that remain are virtually all in areas that are simply too uneconomic to farm in any way (usually mountainous). ~55% of New Zealand is being used for sheep and cattle, and another 8% for exotic forestry. We also eat an extraordinary amount of the fish and seafood in the world from the ocean. “The global per capita consumption footprint in 2011 is estimated at 27 kg. Our estimate is higher than the 18.6 kg reported in FAO statistics for the same year, as it also takes into account the indirect use of capture fisheries production by the fishmeal sector.” “the conversion of wild-capture fish that would not be used for human consumption into fishmeal and subsequent use as aquafeed, results in an overall increase in human consumption of fish”. “31% of the world's wild fish stocks are estimated to be overfished, 58% fully exploited”.
- 3y ago

njarboe 3y ago

Hopefully in the future we will have two beautiful worlds full of life. Doesn't that dream seem great?

ascar 3y ago

> The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. On what are you basing this statement? I would argue that entirely depends on the complexity of the species and the time per generation. Bacteria certainly can adapt to extremely different conditions within years, if not even quicker. And these "simple life forms" are arguably much more important for the ecosystem than more complex ones like mammals.

melagonster 3y ago
if you only want bacteria, maybe. but even insects or spider still need more and more time to evolve closely new species. we even don't need to talk how many time for evolving a new mammal species. plants will extinct, too.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. What we destroy today won’t be replaced while humans as a species as we know it today even exists. When it comes to changing climate (and some degree of pollution) instead of newly evolved adaptations you get migrations or selection for particular alleles. Adjust up and back down and you can end up with diversity constraints on both ends.

Ma8ee 3y ago
Some manages to migrate or adapt. Many won’t. Either because there’s nowhere to migrate to, or because there’s no path there available. In the end, we will lose a lot of biodiversity.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  That's exactly my point.