3 ms·

"That can't be true, because if it were that would be really bad" doesn't seem like a good way to reason about things like this IMO

by _yb2s 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago
You misunderstand. It can't be true because if it were, the current situation would be vastly worse than it actually is. Ancient mass extinctions were almost unimaginably terrible. It's not that the current situation is ok.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  The current human caused ecological catastrophe is obviously slower than, e.g. a meteor impact or supervolcano blocking out the sun caused global ecological catastrophe, but that doesn't mean the ultimate effects won't be just as bad, even if we're not fully experiencing them yet.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Yes, the current situation could become much worse. But it's not committed to that, and it's not yet in that state. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as the game would already be over.
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      The effects of these type of events take a while to be fully realized, even when you are past the point of no return, e.g. where the species populations are too low to overcome the genetic bottleneck and survive long term, but aren't yet extinct. If you were actually in most historical mass extinction events, I'd also say they seemed "not that bad yet" for quite a long time after the point of no return, much longer than all of human history even in some cases.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        This is mere presumption, then, that the current experience will turn into something that is as bad as a mass extinction. It's also defeatism of the rankest kind. That outcome cannot both be inherent in the present and also avoidable.
        _yb2s 2y ago
        It already is a large extinction event. It is also still possible to massively affect how much worse it gets, and the chances that our species is ultimately included in the extinction. It’s not defeatist to acknowledge reality- it is necessary to choose a realistic course of action. "If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle" -Sun Tzu Here is a more technical treatment of what is actually happening: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09678 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09678 Look at Figure 2 to see where we are now compared to past mass extinction events. We're well below the 75% of all species threshold, but that criteria is for a time frame of 2 million years in length. We can only guess at the future, we can't for example say for sure which species are already past the point of no return when they aren't yet extinct.
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  This is a really poor counter. Are you not familiar with the timespans of these previous events?
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Are you not familiar with the difference in meaning between the words "largest" and "fastest"?
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Do we know the time spans with sufficient accuracy? How long did the great oxygenation take for example? Surely longer than civilization so far?
  - bena 2y ago
    People have a really hard time with things that exist on cosmic scales. We tend to think within the frame of a single human lifetime. 100 years is a long time for us. 1000 is so long that we don't even expect to have much information. 10,000 years might as well be 1 million for all we distinguish. There is about as much time between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and humans than between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Stegosaurus. If we took the entirety of the planet's existence and mapped it out on a single year, all of humanity takes place in the last 25 minutes of the last day. All of recorded history takes place in the thirty seconds before midnight on December 31st. The Triassic/Jurassic extinction event took place "in less than 10,000 years". That's longer than recorded history. The KT extinction took place over 5000 years. So "quick" is relative. We think in terms of weeks or months or years. But we're talking about a process that takes centuries or millennia.
- yongjik 2y ago
  Other than the infamous K-T extinction, most (all?) other mass extinction events unfolded over millions of years. Humanity managed to wipe out most of large animals in, like what, 10,000 years? It's like watching a two hour horror movie and, thirty seconds in, you exclaim "Oh come on nobody died yet! I'm sure this will be very boring."
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    As opposed to watching a movie in which no one has died and saying "this movie has the most deaths I have ever seen."

"That can't be true, because if it were that would be really bad" doesn't seem like a good way to reason about things like this IMO

by _yb2s 2y ago

"That can't be true, because if it were that would be really bad" doesn't seem like a good way to reason about things like this IMO

pfdietz 2y ago

You misunderstand. It can't be true because if it were, the current situation would be vastly worse than it actually is. Ancient mass extinctions were almost unimaginably terrible. It's not that the current situation is ok.

_yb2s 2y ago
The current human caused ecological catastrophe is obviously slower than, e.g. a meteor impact or supervolcano blocking out the sun caused global ecological catastrophe, but that doesn't mean the ultimate effects won't be just as bad, even if we're not fully experiencing them yet.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Yes, the current situation could become much worse. But it's not committed to that, and it's not yet in that state. If it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as the game would already be over.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    The effects of these type of events take a while to be fully realized, even when you are past the point of no return, e.g. where the species populations are too low to overcome the genetic bottleneck and survive long term, but aren't yet extinct. If you were actually in most historical mass extinction events, I'd also say they seemed "not that bad yet" for quite a long time after the point of no return, much longer than all of human history even in some cases.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      This is mere presumption, then, that the current experience will turn into something that is as bad as a mass extinction. It's also defeatism of the rankest kind. That outcome cannot both be inherent in the present and also avoidable.
      - _yb2s 2y ago
        It already is a large extinction event. It is also still possible to massively affect how much worse it gets, and the chances that our species is ultimately included in the extinction. It’s not defeatist to acknowledge reality- it is necessary to choose a realistic course of action. "If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle" -Sun Tzu Here is a more technical treatment of what is actually happening: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09678 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09678 Look at Figure 2 to see where we are now compared to past mass extinction events. We're well below the 75% of all species threshold, but that criteria is for a time frame of 2 million years in length. We can only guess at the future, we can't for example say for sure which species are already past the point of no return when they aren't yet extinct.
horsawlarway 2y ago
This is a really poor counter. Are you not familiar with the timespans of these previous events?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Are you not familiar with the difference in meaning between the words "largest" and "fastest"?
- adrianN 2y ago
  Do we know the time spans with sufficient accuracy? How long did the great oxygenation take for example? Surely longer than civilization so far?
- bena 2y ago
  People have a really hard time with things that exist on cosmic scales. We tend to think within the frame of a single human lifetime. 100 years is a long time for us. 1000 is so long that we don't even expect to have much information. 10,000 years might as well be 1 million for all we distinguish. There is about as much time between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and humans than between the Tyrannosaurus Rex and Stegosaurus. If we took the entirety of the planet's existence and mapped it out on a single year, all of humanity takes place in the last 25 minutes of the last day. All of recorded history takes place in the thirty seconds before midnight on December 31st. The Triassic/Jurassic extinction event took place "in less than 10,000 years". That's longer than recorded history. The KT extinction took place over 5000 years. So "quick" is relative. We think in terms of weeks or months or years. But we're talking about a process that takes centuries or millennia.
yongjik 2y ago
Other than the infamous K-T extinction, most (all?) other mass extinction events unfolded over millions of years. Humanity managed to wipe out most of large animals in, like what, 10,000 years? It's like watching a two hour horror movie and, thirty seconds in, you exclaim "Oh come on nobody died yet! I'm sure this will be very boring."
- pfdietz 2y ago
  As opposed to watching a movie in which no one has died and saying "this movie has the most deaths I have ever seen."