4 ms·

The changes introduced by bacteria were certainly not adapted to by all flora and fauna, as you go on to describe. But here we are. Had the bacteria said “hey

The changes introduced by bacteria were certainly not adapted to by all flora and fauna, as you go on to describe. But here we are. Had the bacteria said “hey guys all this Oxygen we’re making is seriously disrupting the environment and killing a lot of stuff, we should limit our productivity in order to ensure that doesn’t happen, after all we’re the greatest things that will ever be on this planet so we have to make sure it’s well suited for us and only us forever and ever and ever”, here we would not be.

toss1 3y ago
It is silly to speculating about the results of bacteria somehow limiting or compensating for their excess O2 production, especially since there could be many ways it could have been done (not necessarily limiting, but evolving CO2 or CH4 producing species to counterbalance, etc.). Such speculations could just as easily conclude that we could have evolved a billion years earlier if they'd "done something", and we'd now be 1000x as mature a species. Even if we make your assumption that humans are somehow entitled to do whatever we want, it is massively stupid to ignore the fact that we depend on an extremely complex web of life to survive. We can break some links, but breaking too many will literally be suicidal. When we see that we are doing something that WILL inevitably break many of those links (not to mention flood most of our major cities in decades, which is already happening), the only wise thing to do is to adjust course to prevent that destruction. Yet you seem to think it is a good idea to spread ignorance and stupidity. That way is guaranteed to NOT advance even humanity's self-centered interests. Do you have some fetish about burning hydrocarbons or some religion that makes it sacred?
kadoban 3y ago
> after all we’re the greatest things that will ever be on this planet so we have to make sure it’s well suited for us and only us forever and ever and ever”, here we would not be. So your contention would be that we should all die off so something else can come around in a few hundred million years?
- basil-rash 3y ago
  There isn’t a “should” involved. I don’t have hubris in near enough magnitude to think my desires about what species is in control in 3,000,000 hold any significance regardless. My point is rather that if we do die off, there will be something that comes along, and it will in all likelihood be an evolutionarily “better” species than humanity. For instance, if we die in nuclear armageddon, there’s a very good chance that whatever comes next will have significant radiation hardening capabilities, and perhaps would even be able to metabolize radiation. These individuals would be far better suited to be Earth’s intergalactic vanguard.

toss1 3y ago

It is silly to speculating about the results of bacteria somehow limiting or compensating for their excess O2 production, especially since there could be many ways it could have been done (not necessarily limiting, but evolving CO2 or CH4 producing species to counterbalance, etc.). Such speculations could just as easily conclude that we could have evolved a billion years earlier if they'd "done something", and we'd now be 1000x as mature a species. Even if we make your assumption that humans are somehow entitled to do whatever we want, it is massively stupid to ignore the fact that we depend on an extremely complex web of life to survive. We can break some links, but breaking too many will literally be suicidal. When we see that we are doing something that WILL inevitably break many of those links (not to mention flood most of our major cities in decades, which is already happening), the only wise thing to do is to adjust course to prevent that destruction. Yet you seem to think it is a good idea to spread ignorance and stupidity. That way is guaranteed to NOT advance even humanity's self-centered interests. Do you have some fetish about burning hydrocarbons or some religion that makes it sacred?

kadoban 3y ago

> after all we’re the greatest things that will ever be on this planet so we have to make sure it’s well suited for us and only us forever and ever and ever”, here we would not be. So your contention would be that we should all die off so something else can come around in a few hundred million years?

basil-rash 3y ago
There isn’t a “should” involved. I don’t have hubris in near enough magnitude to think my desires about what species is in control in 3,000,000 hold any significance regardless. My point is rather that if we do die off, there will be something that comes along, and it will in all likelihood be an evolutionarily “better” species than humanity. For instance, if we die in nuclear armageddon, there’s a very good chance that whatever comes next will have significant radiation hardening capabilities, and perhaps would even be able to metabolize radiation. These individuals would be far better suited to be Earth’s intergalactic vanguard.