4 ms·

Your right in the sense that there is nothing catastrophic from a the perspective of geological time. There have been mass extinctions before. The problem is th

Your right in the sense that there is nothing catastrophic from a the perspective of geological time. There have been mass extinctions before. The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. There is nothing particularly magical about the environment we want to live in, other than it happens to be about what it would be now if not for recent human actions. Unfortunately, those actions didn't just change the system, they re-introduced raw materials that have previously been removed from the system. There is no reason to believe that the new equilibrium is the same as the old one. An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. For billions of years it has been using up the planets supply of carbon and trapping it in what is now called fossil fuels. If this continues unchecked, we will run out of available carbon and life on this planet will die off. Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment. If only we had a large number of planets at varying stages of having life (including being long dead).

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
> The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. I'm adept of the view that the environment influences the organisms as much as organisms influence their environment, or rather that there isn't a clear distinction between environment and the organisms in it [1]. It should be an unrealistic notion to have living human beings and expect the environment to stay the same as before humans [2]. Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes. These events are what push back on our species, and we are expected to either adapt (be it consciously, with counter-measures, or by accident) or die altogether. > An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. (...) Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment. This is indeed an interesting perspective, which I subscribe too, and aligns well with the Gaia theory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  It is sort of incredible that on one post you admit to knowing little about the subject, and then on the next you make authoritative (albeit unsurprisingly asinine) arguments such as "it's unrealistic to expect the environment to stay the same, and we should just treat these events as normal and see if we adapt or go extinct."
  - hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
    I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom. Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.
    - be-prepared 13y ago
      I think it's pretty clear your beliefs are stupid ;-)
      - waps 13y ago
        I agree with him : your belief that it's possible for humans to keep our environment constant over significant time frames is what's ridiculous. You're turning around the argument. He's not suggesting anything insane, you are. You're defending Disney reality (poor little animals ! We must help !) against the idea of evolution (adapt or die ? Can't adapt by the thousands ? Too bad). Guess which one is going to win in the real world, irrespective of what the entire human species decides to do ?
        saalweachter 13y ago
        What do you consider "significant time frames"? 10 years, 1000 years, 100,000? If human activity is destabilizing the environment (ie, we have burned an amount of carbon which is suspiciously congruent with the amount of excess carbon in the atmosphere/oceans) why is it unreasonable to expect human activities to provide a similar amount of stabilization, even if greater amounts exceed our grasp?

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

> The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. I'm adept of the view that the environment influences the organisms as much as organisms influence their environment, or rather that there isn't a clear distinction between environment and the organisms in it [1]. It should be an unrealistic notion to have living human beings and expect the environment to stay the same as before humans [2]. Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes. These events are what push back on our species, and we are expected to either adapt (be it consciously, with counter-measures, or by accident) or die altogether. > An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. (...) Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment. This is indeed an interesting perspective, which I subscribe too, and aligns well with the Gaia theory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

enraged_camel 13y ago
It is sort of incredible that on one post you admit to knowing little about the subject, and then on the next you make authoritative (albeit unsurprisingly asinine) arguments such as "it's unrealistic to expect the environment to stay the same, and we should just treat these events as normal and see if we adapt or go extinct."
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom. Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.
  - be-prepared 13y ago
    I think it's pretty clear your beliefs are stupid ;-)
    - waps 13y ago
      I agree with him : your belief that it's possible for humans to keep our environment constant over significant time frames is what's ridiculous. You're turning around the argument. He's not suggesting anything insane, you are. You're defending Disney reality (poor little animals ! We must help !) against the idea of evolution (adapt or die ? Can't adapt by the thousands ? Too bad). Guess which one is going to win in the real world, irrespective of what the entire human species decides to do ?
      - saalweachter 13y ago
        What do you consider "significant time frames"? 10 years, 1000 years, 100,000? If human activity is destabilizing the environment (ie, we have burned an amount of carbon which is suspiciously congruent with the amount of excess carbon in the atmosphere/oceans) why is it unreasonable to expect human activities to provide a similar amount of stabilization, even if greater amounts exceed our grasp?