5 ms·

Sure we cause a mass extinction, I’m not saying “we don’t have any impact on other species”. My point still stands, the nature doesn’t care, this isn’t the firs

by volemo 2y ago

Sure we cause a mass extinction, I’m not saying “we don’t have any impact on other species”. My point still stands, the nature doesn’t care, this isn’t the first extinction and I bet won’t be the last. However, you didn’t address my main question: how can we be a burden to a red wasteland?

bayindirh 2y ago
The nature doesn't care yet, but it showed that it might, and it will if we don't stop abusing the ecosystem. Ah, at worst, all humanity will go extinct. Which doesn't matter much at the grand scale. It'll be exciting for the next ones, if the planet is left in a state to allow another such evolution, or somebody else likes the colors and wants to visit for a couple of revolutions around the Sol. > how can we be a burden to a red wasteland? We are not sure that it's a red wasteland. We think that life has a single foundation and will evolve from that one. Maybe it had a similar ecosystem before, and tons of bacteria are in hiatus. Maybe there's something else underground. Maybe there are other living organisms which we can't detect. I don't think that Mars has worms which might eat us for snacks and giggles, but I'm not sure that it's devoid of life completely, either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- palata 2y ago
  > Ah, at worst, all humanity will go extinct. To be honest, I don't care so much about humanity going extinct in 500 years. But somehow I care about me or my children dying at an early age because we as a species don't manage to not screw up our lives.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I care about me or my children dying at an early age because we as a species don't manage to not screw up our lives The only near-term total human extinction risks are cosmological. We don’t have the ability to wipe ourselves out with even nukes, just wipe out modern civilisation. (And that would require someone going out of their way to nuke e.g. Oceania and South America.)
    - palata 2y ago
      Think about that: the dinosaurs did not die because of the impact of the asteroid, but because of the climate change that followed. Fun fact: that climate change was a lot slower than the one we are measuring now. A lot.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > dinosaurs did not die because of the impact of the asteroid, but because of the climate change that followed Dinosaurs couldn’t construct shelter with A/C, harvest power from the sun and the earth’s core or move around the planet in a day [1]. And even then, it took at least tens of thousands of years [2]. It’s about as unscientific to claim anthropogenic climate change is going to cause human extinction within even 10,000 years as it is to claim it doesn’t exist. [1] source needed [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/asteroid-may-have-killed-dinosaurs-quicker-than-scientists-thought-idUSBRE91618B/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/asteroid-m...
        palata 2y ago
        > Dinosaurs couldn’t construct shelter with A/C, harvest power from the sun and the earth’s core or move around the planet in a day [1] Simple question: do you know what we humans eat? Can you grow that in your bunker at scale? And even if you could: if your project is to make the Earth look like mars and call it a success because some humans survive when most species are extinct, then I don't know what to say. > It’s about as unscientific to claim anthropogenic climate change is going to cause human extinction within even 10,000 years as it is to claim it doesn’t exist. This is called manipulation. I didn't say that. What I said is that for what we know and measure, climate change is likely to cause a global collapse, maybe human extinction. Claiming that climate change doesn't exist is just wrong.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > do you know what we humans eat? Can you grow that in your bunker? Soil, artificial UV and nitrogen extraction from air are solved problems. And you would not need a bunker, just A/C (or filtration if we’re going nuclear). > because some humans survive when most species are extinct If you’re talking about climate change, it’s some humans and some species are extinct. (Most cuddly wild mammals and birds we like.) > for what we know and measure, climate change is likely to cause a global collapse, maybe human extinction Right. This is false catastrophism. There isn’t a “maybe” human extinction within known parameters. There isn’t even an end to industrial civilisation without nukes. People say this crap and undermine the entire climate movement because when the lie in extinction risk is shown it brings into legitimate question the other claims.
palata 2y ago
> how can we be a burden to a red wasteland? I couldn't care less about mars, to be honest. My problem is that some use it as (an absurd) justification to commoditise space. SpaceX is hurting the climate by making it cheap to send lots of rockets.
- volemo 2y ago
  Ehm, do you claim space exploration cases a meaningful impact on the global climate in a world built on burning fossil fuel, refining iron ore, making almost everything out of mostly non recycled plastic, and eating cows and chickens? ._.
  - palata 2y ago
    Subsidising (with a whole lot of money) technologies that make the situation worse instead of subsidising changes that would make society more resilient most definitely has an impact. You want to say "oh, actually, we've seen that 99% of our emissions was due to our production of trackpads, so the solution is to stop using trackpads and all is well"? Let me tell you that the problem is a lot harder than that. We need to work on everything everywhere.

by volemo 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago

The nature doesn't care yet, but it showed that it might, and it will if we don't stop abusing the ecosystem. Ah, at worst, all humanity will go extinct. Which doesn't matter much at the grand scale. It'll be exciting for the next ones, if the planet is left in a state to allow another such evolution, or somebody else likes the colors and wants to visit for a couple of revolutions around the Sol. > how can we be a burden to a red wasteland? We are not sure that it's a red wasteland. We think that life has a single foundation and will evolve from that one. Maybe it had a similar ecosystem before, and tons of bacteria are in hiatus. Maybe there's something else underground. Maybe there are other living organisms which we can't detect. I don't think that Mars has worms which might eat us for snacks and giggles, but I'm not sure that it's devoid of life completely, either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

palata 2y ago
> Ah, at worst, all humanity will go extinct. To be honest, I don't care so much about humanity going extinct in 500 years. But somehow I care about me or my children dying at an early age because we as a species don't manage to not screw up our lives.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I care about me or my children dying at an early age because we as a species don't manage to not screw up our lives The only near-term total human extinction risks are cosmological. We don’t have the ability to wipe ourselves out with even nukes, just wipe out modern civilisation. (And that would require someone going out of their way to nuke e.g. Oceania and South America.)
  - palata 2y ago
    Think about that: the dinosaurs did not die because of the impact of the asteroid, but because of the climate change that followed. Fun fact: that climate change was a lot slower than the one we are measuring now. A lot.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > dinosaurs did not die because of the impact of the asteroid, but because of the climate change that followed Dinosaurs couldn’t construct shelter with A/C, harvest power from the sun and the earth’s core or move around the planet in a day [1]. And even then, it took at least tens of thousands of years [2]. It’s about as unscientific to claim anthropogenic climate change is going to cause human extinction within even 10,000 years as it is to claim it doesn’t exist. [1] source needed [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/asteroid-may-have-killed-dinosaurs-quicker-than-scientists-thought-idUSBRE91618B/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/asteroid-m...
      - palata 2y ago
        > Dinosaurs couldn’t construct shelter with A/C, harvest power from the sun and the earth’s core or move around the planet in a day [1] Simple question: do you know what we humans eat? Can you grow that in your bunker at scale? And even if you could: if your project is to make the Earth look like mars and call it a success because some humans survive when most species are extinct, then I don't know what to say. > It’s about as unscientific to claim anthropogenic climate change is going to cause human extinction within even 10,000 years as it is to claim it doesn’t exist. This is called manipulation. I didn't say that. What I said is that for what we know and measure, climate change is likely to cause a global collapse, maybe human extinction. Claiming that climate change doesn't exist is just wrong.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > do you know what we humans eat? Can you grow that in your bunker? Soil, artificial UV and nitrogen extraction from air are solved problems. And you would not need a bunker, just A/C (or filtration if we’re going nuclear). > because some humans survive when most species are extinct If you’re talking about climate change, it’s some humans and some species are extinct. (Most cuddly wild mammals and birds we like.) > for what we know and measure, climate change is likely to cause a global collapse, maybe human extinction Right. This is false catastrophism. There isn’t a “maybe” human extinction within known parameters. There isn’t even an end to industrial civilisation without nukes. People say this crap and undermine the entire climate movement because when the lie in extinction risk is shown it brings into legitimate question the other claims.

palata 2y ago

> how can we be a burden to a red wasteland? I couldn't care less about mars, to be honest. My problem is that some use it as (an absurd) justification to commoditise space. SpaceX is hurting the climate by making it cheap to send lots of rockets.

volemo 2y ago
Ehm, do you claim space exploration cases a meaningful impact on the global climate in a world built on burning fossil fuel, refining iron ore, making almost everything out of mostly non recycled plastic, and eating cows and chickens? ._.
- palata 2y ago
  Subsidising (with a whole lot of money) technologies that make the situation worse instead of subsidising changes that would make society more resilient most definitely has an impact. You want to say "oh, actually, we've seen that 99% of our emissions was due to our production of trackpads, so the solution is to stop using trackpads and all is well"? Let me tell you that the problem is a lot harder than that. We need to work on everything everywhere.