5 ms·
I used to agree completely with you, but now I realize that, given the second law of thermodynamics, it's impossible to restore an entire ecosystem back to a pr
by rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I used to agree completely with you, but now I realize that, given the second law of thermodynamics, it's impossible to restore an entire ecosystem back to a previous state. From what I hear, one goal of ending climate change is to allow icecaps to re-form and to last longer throughout the year, which ostensibly will end the suffering of polar bears "stranded" at sea. However, even if we did remove all excess amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere (which, as of today, is something that's barely discussed seriously), it's not going to suddenly reverse the adapted behavior of polar bears. This is a totally hypothetical and unscientific story, but let's pretend that the ice caps melted such that polar bears were forced inland and began foraging for food in human-populated areas. In response, the government of Canada single-handedly puts up the money to remove all excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Over a period of decades, the ice grows back, but: do we really expect the polar bear population, which has now adapted to foraging for garbage, to suddenly move back to their initial habitat? Chances are, food will be more plentiful for them in a human-populated area. Now let's assume that polar bears play a significant role in seal population control. Well, now that the polar bears have adapted and are now living further inland, the seal population booms in the arctic region. In fact, it gets so big, that now penguin populations are in rapid decline! So, at this point, we've spent probably trillions of dollars, haven't really helped the polar bears at all, and have directly contributed to the endangerment of penguins. And this is all assuming that our plan even works! Not to mention the fact that there may be other species that died off that played a huge impact on balancing the ice-filled arctic ecosystem.
So, given that scenario, I think the better question to ask is, what benefit would we, as humans, get from a return to a cooler Earth? IMO wildlife will take care of itself: adapt, die off, etc. the same way it always has. BUT, I think that too often the focus is put on sad-looking animals and melted snowcaps, which makes it seem like global warming is just an "environmentalist" issue rather than a serious threat to human life.
- oinksoft 13y agoOh, come on, are you trying to say that all endangered species will just adapt to live amongst humans if their habitat is destroyed? Your idea about polar bears foraging for human garbage is laughable: These creatures are (1) purely carnivorous, and (2) incapable of living in warm climates. Polar bear population has plummeted as their natural habitat has dwindled. Further, the reason for wanting to save the polar bear is not just to save one species, but that this animal's decline is a bellwether for the decline of the entire arctic ecosystem. We can't say for sure what will happen if the arctic ecosystem disappears. The ongoing massive extinction event driven by human activity is a real thing. Do you want to live in a world where the only animals alive are ones that humans raise as livestock, or that thrive amongst humans? Nothing but pigs, chickens, pigeons, sparrows, cockroaches, bass and such. Sounds awfully grim to me, but without serious efforts towards preserving wildlife, this is precisely what the future holds.
- dchichkov 13y agoIt is purely a question of having the right technology. There is no law that says that you can not engineer a polar bear that is not purely carnivorous, is capable of living in warm climate and very useful to humans in some way. Same goes about every other species. And it is not that sad. Well designed ecologies can be diverse and beautiful. Even more diverse and beautiful than naturally evolved once.
- djrobstep 13y ago[citation needed]
- dchichkov 13y agoWell, I can't source precisely that phrasing. But imagine an engineered ecology that is: less cruel than a naturally evolved one; as diverse; also includes some 'dinosaur-killer-sized' asteroid impact aversion system that prevents global scale mass extinctions. Wouldn't you find that ecology more beautiful than a naturally evolved one (that we have now)?
- mturmon 13y agoGiven humanity's track record, my imagined idea of an engineered ecology is not so rosy as yours. Who would do it, and what would their motivations be?
- cubsink 13y ago"given the second law of thermodynamics" It doesn't apply to earth. It's not a closed system. Species don't adapt in 5 years, they do it over millions. I guess you're American?
- sliverstorm 13y agoYou are misapplying the second law of thermodynamics and calling it wisdom. The second law specifically applies to a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. There is no fundamental reason local entropy cannot be maintained.
- dbaupp 13y ago> Well, now that the polar bears have adapted and are now living further inland, the seal population booms in the arctic region. In fact, it gets so big, that now penguin populations are in rapid decline No penguins in the Arctic, no polar bears in the Antarctic; they have little-to-no bearing on each others population (even indirectly via seal populations). You could've chosen a better example.
- mturmon 13y agoThis mistake caused me to laugh outright. It illustrates the lack of actual information or expertise within the parent comment.