4 ms·

> I think it’s hard to know what ‘bad’ means here I think with how slow evolution happens, bad is anything that isn't the status quo. Yes, some species that ar

by rozap 2y ago

> I think it’s hard to know what ‘bad’ means here I think with how slow evolution happens, bad is anything that isn't the status quo. Yes, some species that are more adaptable will survive and could even thrive as competitors die off, but many more species will go extinct. It's hard to imagine any path here (at least on a short to medium term timescale) where biodiversity increases. And given that biodiversity is what got us to where we are, I think it's easy to agree that it's a good thing, so anything that threatens it is bad. > All that said, I don’t think we have the computational models to predict what happens when you increase the temperature on earth for a century. This definitely seems true. As a layman it seems like this is a classic case where chaos theory comes into play. Even tiny errors in our projections will lead to wildly different outcomes, so the only thing that we can say for sure is that we don't know. That's scary.

purpleblue 2y ago
> And given that biodiversity is what got us to where we are Mass extinctions also is what got us to where we are. If dinosaurs were still around when humans started to evolve, it might have been a Bad Thing. Many species are supposed to go extinct, all the time. That's is how nature and evolution works. If we become extinct, then it paves the way for human++. This is neither good nor bad, it's just how life has evolved for billions of years. I think if we try to stop this and maintain status quo, that is ethically and morally wrong.
- taylodl 2y ago
  > Many species are supposed to go extinct, all the time. True, but what are called "mass extinction events" actually took place over tens of thousands of years, which is "quick" when talking about geological time. We're potentially talking about a mass extinction event taking place over hundreds of years. The problem is that's a long time compared to a human lifespan, but an extremely short time from a geological standpoint. We have nothing from the past to analyze what the effects of this exceedingly fast extinction event will be - including whether it will lead to such ecological collapse that complex land animals such as humans can continue to exist. We simply don't know. One would think we should proceed with caution, but instead we're hitting the accelerator.

by rozap 2y ago

purpleblue 2y ago

> And given that biodiversity is what got us to where we are Mass extinctions also is what got us to where we are. If dinosaurs were still around when humans started to evolve, it might have been a Bad Thing. Many species are supposed to go extinct, all the time. That's is how nature and evolution works. If we become extinct, then it paves the way for human++. This is neither good nor bad, it's just how life has evolved for billions of years. I think if we try to stop this and maintain status quo, that is ethically and morally wrong.

taylodl 2y ago
> Many species are supposed to go extinct, all the time. True, but what are called "mass extinction events" actually took place over tens of thousands of years, which is "quick" when talking about geological time. We're potentially talking about a mass extinction event taking place over hundreds of years. The problem is that's a long time compared to a human lifespan, but an extremely short time from a geological standpoint. We have nothing from the past to analyze what the effects of this exceedingly fast extinction event will be - including whether it will lead to such ecological collapse that complex land animals such as humans can continue to exist. We simply don't know. One would think we should proceed with caution, but instead we're hitting the accelerator.