4 ms·

Our ability to modify the environment at an unprecedented scale (deliberately, or often otherwise) is nothing to scoff at. We'll continue to do damage to the e

by Crito 13y ago

Our ability to modify the environment at an unprecedented scale (deliberately, or often otherwise) is nothing to scoff at. We'll continue to do damage to the ecosystem, serious damage, but as long as any life continues to survive we will continue to find ways to exploit it. We are really good at that. Furthermore, life is remarkably resilient. For all the damage we will do to the ecosystem, some of it will manage to hang on. I find it more likely that we will eventually all kill ourselves in some more direct manner than "humans kill ecosystem, humans die without ecosystem". My money is on something along the lines of "increasingly deadly war combined with logistics induced famine kills humans".

bad_user 13y ago
Hurray for kitchen cockroaches :-) You're betting on deadly wars and induced famine to kill humans and I agree, however most wars are over land or natural resources. So if WW III happens at some point and we exterminate each other, you can bet that the continued destruction of our ecosystem will have something to do with it.
mjmahone17 13y ago
That would require quite the famine, to kill every human. We are omnivore foragers: we eat whatever we can find. To kill us all would require something that got rid of damn near every edible food we know. Including things like dandelions and mongongo nuts. I doubt that's likely. What seems far more likely to me is that humanity will survive, but for a few generations it will be a survival in a food desert, until our population rebalances to the resources available, and, much like what happened in the aftermath of the wars of the Khans, our environment starts healing. I don't think this will happen within my lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s), but I'd be surprised if, in my lifetime, humanity's quality of life, purely in terms of our ability to feed, clothe, and treat ourselves, didn't noticeably drop. Growth must not be humanity's end goal. If that's all we work towards, then we literally are cancer of the environment: abnormal creatures with uncontrolled growth.
- crag 13y ago
  Growth is our end goal now. But fresh water is the key. And our biggest problem. Fresh water is in sorry shape all over the world. Environmental issues will change our course. We'll have no choice really. Hopefully I'm dead when the "water" wars begin.
  - Crito 13y ago
    It does not make much sense to talk about fresh water supply on scales larger than aquifer. Some are strained, and wars may be started over some, but Egypt and the Sudan starting a war over the Nile really doesn't have many implications at all for people who get their fresh water elsewhere. It won't make water more expensive in North Dakota; wells in Australia will still produce fresh water as Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers burn on the battlefield. Fresh water isn't like oil, it is not a traded commodity (and if we consumed it in small enough quantities to ship around like we ship oil, then there would be no shortage concerns). There are plenty of concerns, but they are regional concerns with regional solutions. Some of those solutions may be "Find somewhere else to live", or even "Wait until enough of the population in this area dies, so that the water supply is sufficient for the survivors". These possible resolutions are not pleasant resolutions.. but the world seems to have a knack for being less than pleasant. My point here is that there is no reason for these regional issues and their potentially horrific resolutions to threaten the survival of the species itself. We are too resilient for that. Should that be comforting? Who knows. Probably not.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      If you think wells in Australia or North Dakota still have water, just wait until they start foraging shale gas by hydraulic fracturing.
      - Crito 13y ago
        Sure, they have some problems with hydraulic fracturing... a solution to that problem won't help Egypt, and a solution to Egypt's problem won't help North Dakota. Widespread regional issues are still regional issues.

by Crito 13y ago

bad_user 13y ago

Hurray for kitchen cockroaches :-) You're betting on deadly wars and induced famine to kill humans and I agree, however most wars are over land or natural resources. So if WW III happens at some point and we exterminate each other, you can bet that the continued destruction of our ecosystem will have something to do with it.

mjmahone17 13y ago

That would require quite the famine, to kill every human. We are omnivore foragers: we eat whatever we can find. To kill us all would require something that got rid of damn near every edible food we know. Including things like dandelions and mongongo nuts. I doubt that's likely. What seems far more likely to me is that humanity will survive, but for a few generations it will be a survival in a food desert, until our population rebalances to the resources available, and, much like what happened in the aftermath of the wars of the Khans, our environment starts healing. I don't think this will happen within my lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s), but I'd be surprised if, in my lifetime, humanity's quality of life, purely in terms of our ability to feed, clothe, and treat ourselves, didn't noticeably drop. Growth must not be humanity's end goal. If that's all we work towards, then we literally are cancer of the environment: abnormal creatures with uncontrolled growth.

crag 13y ago
Growth is our end goal now. But fresh water is the key. And our biggest problem. Fresh water is in sorry shape all over the world. Environmental issues will change our course. We'll have no choice really. Hopefully I'm dead when the "water" wars begin.
- Crito 13y ago
  It does not make much sense to talk about fresh water supply on scales larger than aquifer. Some are strained, and wars may be started over some, but Egypt and the Sudan starting a war over the Nile really doesn't have many implications at all for people who get their fresh water elsewhere. It won't make water more expensive in North Dakota; wells in Australia will still produce fresh water as Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers burn on the battlefield. Fresh water isn't like oil, it is not a traded commodity (and if we consumed it in small enough quantities to ship around like we ship oil, then there would be no shortage concerns). There are plenty of concerns, but they are regional concerns with regional solutions. Some of those solutions may be "Find somewhere else to live", or even "Wait until enough of the population in this area dies, so that the water supply is sufficient for the survivors". These possible resolutions are not pleasant resolutions.. but the world seems to have a knack for being less than pleasant. My point here is that there is no reason for these regional issues and their potentially horrific resolutions to threaten the survival of the species itself. We are too resilient for that. Should that be comforting? Who knows. Probably not.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    If you think wells in Australia or North Dakota still have water, just wait until they start foraging shale gas by hydraulic fracturing.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Sure, they have some problems with hydraulic fracturing... a solution to that problem won't help Egypt, and a solution to Egypt's problem won't help North Dakota. Widespread regional issues are still regional issues.