3 ms·

This reinforces my deep conviction that life will find a way, no matter what mischief we get up to. Even if it has to tap into its reserves...

drewcoo 3y ago
That getting up to mischief . . . is part of life, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek
- Borrible 3y ago
  Absolutely! And if it really is a global extinction event at the moment, I can't wait to see what wonderful new variants will blossom from that tabula rasa in ten to twenty million years. Will they be less conscious or more, more or less social, more or less intelligent, more distributed intelligence like in insect societies? Will they be smaller, smarter, more vicious? No doubt, a deep valley is surrounded by high hills.
hutzlibu 3y ago
Yes, killing all life would be indeed really hard. But killing all "advanced" life, is quite possible on the other hand.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  And destroying ecosystems which are essential for our own species to survive is "we are well on our way to it".
  - mycall 3y ago
    Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds [0] and it is expected to happen again in the next 50 years. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...
nuz 3y ago
I'm not sure we could extinguish all life on earth even if we wanted to, much less by accident via what we're doing now.
- thfuran 3y ago
  We can certainly do a number on a lot of the big names though.
vinaypai 3y ago
This is why "save the earth" is a silly slogan. The Earth doesn't need saving. An environment suitable for humans on the other hand...
- locopati 3y ago
  it's not literal. we're in a mass extinction that's only going to get worse. earth as shorthand for the environment that supports all these creatures (including us).
- mrpopo 3y ago
  This is also misleading. What's disappearing is a sustainable environment suitable for humans without advanced technology and globalized trade. Humans are living in climate-controlled environments in Phoenix, but they wouldn't last long without (fossil-fuel based) external energy sources. Or at least there wouldn't be that many.
me_me_me 3y ago
not really, Venus is an example of self reinforcing mechanism that will inadvertently destroy every ecosystem. Even though Venus is inside the goldilock zone. Besides the whole argument, the life will find a way is hardly encouraging. Its not a win for us I am not sure how its an argument for anything but being painfully obnoxious.
- Borrible 3y ago
  Oh, come on, give life a chance, it can't always be me, me, me.
- ls612 3y ago
  Earth does not have nearly enough available carbon to start a greenhouse feedback loop. It won’t be at risk of Venusification for about a billion years until the Sun gets a lot hotter.

drewcoo 3y ago

That getting up to mischief . . . is part of life, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo3R3LBjDek

Borrible 3y ago
Absolutely! And if it really is a global extinction event at the moment, I can't wait to see what wonderful new variants will blossom from that tabula rasa in ten to twenty million years. Will they be less conscious or more, more or less social, more or less intelligent, more distributed intelligence like in insect societies? Will they be smaller, smarter, more vicious? No doubt, a deep valley is surrounded by high hills.

hutzlibu 3y ago

Yes, killing all life would be indeed really hard. But killing all "advanced" life, is quite possible on the other hand.

psychoslave 3y ago
And destroying ecosystems which are essential for our own species to survive is "we are well on our way to it".
- mycall 3y ago
  Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970, report finds [0] and it is expected to happen again in the next 50 years. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity...

nuz 3y ago

I'm not sure we could extinguish all life on earth even if we wanted to, much less by accident via what we're doing now.

thfuran 3y ago
We can certainly do a number on a lot of the big names though.

vinaypai 3y ago

This is why "save the earth" is a silly slogan. The Earth doesn't need saving. An environment suitable for humans on the other hand...

locopati 3y ago
it's not literal. we're in a mass extinction that's only going to get worse. earth as shorthand for the environment that supports all these creatures (including us).
mrpopo 3y ago
This is also misleading. What's disappearing is a sustainable environment suitable for humans without advanced technology and globalized trade. Humans are living in climate-controlled environments in Phoenix, but they wouldn't last long without (fossil-fuel based) external energy sources. Or at least there wouldn't be that many.

me_me_me 3y ago

not really, Venus is an example of self reinforcing mechanism that will inadvertently destroy every ecosystem. Even though Venus is inside the goldilock zone. Besides the whole argument, the life will find a way is hardly encouraging. Its not a win for us I am not sure how its an argument for anything but being painfully obnoxious.

Borrible 3y ago
Oh, come on, give life a chance, it can't always be me, me, me.
ls612 3y ago
Earth does not have nearly enough available carbon to start a greenhouse feedback loop. It won’t be at risk of Venusification for about a billion years until the Sun gets a lot hotter.