4 ms·
Maybe we can go with a bit more of nuances here. Uninhabitable is probably an "overstatement", as in, if all human civilizations collapse globally consequently
by psychoslave 2y ago
Maybe we can go with a bit more of nuances here. Uninhabitable is probably an "overstatement", as in, if all human civilizations collapse globally consequently to its collective hubris, chances are good that other species will thrive in this very different world. We can even suppose continuation of some humans but with different life modalities.
- baq 2y agoI’m not sure which part of ‘boil the oceans’ you think we can sort of exist in. In this scenario we become Venus except with thinner atmosphere, so no balloons to save us.
- throwway120385 2y agoThey're not saying we can exist. They're saying that it's not uninhabitable to something, therefore making the value judgement that it would be uninhabitable is simply not true. Which is another kind of value judgement about how important your own values are.
- psychoslave 2y agoWhile such a scenario is certainly possible, it's not something that can be achieved by humanity by solely leverage on its current capacities to transform earth environment. See for example https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/47070/20231113/earth-s-oceans-boil-away-what-factors-make-planet-lose.htm https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/47070/20231113/earth-s... So, to answer your question, in the part where humanity can certainly change the world to its own detrimental, but is currently not able to really put it in a state where absolutely no life form is conceivable anymore, and that even putting it a state where some hunters gatherers would not be able to survive is not a 100% garantie outcome of current trends. though I would rather consider the current trend rather awful if you ask.