5 ms·

This is just not true. We are changing the earth in ways that is killing existing life but we are not threatening the existence of life or humanity as a whole.

This is just not true. We are changing the earth in ways that is killing existing life but we are not threatening the existence of life or humanity as a whole. No matter what happens humans will adapt and life will evolve to fill new niches.

NateEag 3y ago
Full extinction seems unlikely, yeah. Reverting to low-tech after civilizational collapse... that one seems far too plausible to me. And we've used up loads of the easily-accessed coal and oil. industrial revolution 2.0 may not actually be feasible.
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
I can't see how you're so confident. As we continue to haphazardly destabilizing the climate and the environment there could be catastrophic tipping points that we're currently unaware of.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Life survived through much worse climate changes and ecological destabilizations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_... While what is happenings is extremely bad for our perception of what life is like, life itself has been through much worse.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    That's such a callous and ghoulish attitude to me. Human consciousness and civilization are nature's greatest achievement. We should not let it be extinguished. Nature will not be able to recreate it, at least not on this planet.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m saying life will survive us. I’m not particularly eager to see humanity extinguished or the world reset into another age. But if it happens, life won’t be gone from the universe even if there’s only life here on earth. Nature might, who knows? And maybe we are just “programmed” to feel our own importance, and thats perhaps necessary but not sufficient to save us.
austinjp 3y ago
I would genuinely enjoy reading published science that supports your proposition. I've not seen much, if any.

NateEag 3y ago

Full extinction seems unlikely, yeah. Reverting to low-tech after civilizational collapse... that one seems far too plausible to me. And we've used up loads of the easily-accessed coal and oil. industrial revolution 2.0 may not actually be feasible.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

I can't see how you're so confident. As we continue to haphazardly destabilizing the climate and the environment there could be catastrophic tipping points that we're currently unaware of.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Life survived through much worse climate changes and ecological destabilizations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_... While what is happenings is extremely bad for our perception of what life is like, life itself has been through much worse.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  That's such a callous and ghoulish attitude to me. Human consciousness and civilization are nature's greatest achievement. We should not let it be extinguished. Nature will not be able to recreate it, at least not on this planet.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m saying life will survive us. I’m not particularly eager to see humanity extinguished or the world reset into another age. But if it happens, life won’t be gone from the universe even if there’s only life here on earth. Nature might, who knows? And maybe we are just “programmed” to feel our own importance, and thats perhaps necessary but not sufficient to save us.

austinjp 3y ago

I would genuinely enjoy reading published science that supports your proposition. I've not seen much, if any.