5 ms·

Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction, is I think the point of this article.

grondilu 12y ago
That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.
wyager 12y ago
>Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.
- enraged_camel 12y ago
  I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them Why not?
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Good point, but if the goal is to avoid extinction, the fortunate few who make it into the biodome might not require "massive scales".
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  How about sources of oxygen? What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels.
  - wyager 12y ago
    >How about sources of oxygen? Algae produce oxygen. >What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? Whatever simple dependency chains algae may have, we can engineer them away (or maintain them). >I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels. You're wrong on both counts. If the demand was there, we could switch to solar power now. We have the production capacity.
    - wldcordeiro 12y ago
      If I'm wrong, can you provide evidence that we have all the capabilities that you claim? I find it hard to believe we're at all prepared for potential cataclysmic situations.
      - grondilu 12y ago
        It's hard to believe only if you understand it as "everybody would be fine". A cataclysm would probably kill or starve many people, but what is hard to believe is that there would be no survivor at all. Consider a nuclear submarine for instance. This facility is capable of remaining totally autonomous during half-a-year (it even produces its own oxygen). It's not too hard to imagine that something similar could protect a fair amount of men and women from basically anything, and for a longer period, if it only is modified to do so. Consider also this non-exhaustive list of underground bunkers: http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-511609185 http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-51160... You could probably store enough food and other resources to survive during decades in these. Certainly enough time to figure out how to eventually survive outside, regardless of what exactly happened there. And finally, remember that there are already thousands of survivalists all over the world, actively preparing for the end-of-the-world. What is hard to believe is that a few environmental factors would cause the death of absolutely all human beings on Earth.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        The wide range of environments in which algae thrive is something any biologist could tell you. The availability of electric generation capacity, and the prices thereof, is a matter of public knowledge. The fact that coal burning is still cheaper than many "renewable" power sources is a contingent if not trivial fact. Any human on a greater than subsistence income who wanted to use only solar power, could. Of course, asking for proof that we're "prepared for potential cataclysmic situations" is the mother of all goalpost maneuvers.

That may be the point of the article, but I was commenting on a very specific assertion.

>Said primate could potentially avert its own extinction There is no reason to believe that a mass extinction of other species would effect a human extinction. Even now, with only a few decades of genomics under our belt, we could probably replace every single food source humans currently rely on with genetically engineered algae/fungi/etc. That is the worst-case scenario for mass extinction caused by habitat shift, and doesn't result in the extinction of humans.

enraged_camel 12y ago
I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them.
- wyager 12y ago
  >I don't think it's possible to rely solely on genetic engineering for natural substances at the massive scales we consume them Why not?
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Good point, but if the goal is to avoid extinction, the fortunate few who make it into the biodome might not require "massive scales".
wldcordeiro 12y ago
How about sources of oxygen? What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels.
- wyager 12y ago
  >How about sources of oxygen? Algae produce oxygen. >What if we kill off species that are vital to the reproduction of plants? Whatever simple dependency chains algae may have, we can engineer them away (or maintain them). >I highly doubt that we're scientifically advanced enough to replace anything we rely on considering we've yet to be able to replace fossil fuels. You're wrong on both counts. If the demand was there, we could switch to solar power now. We have the production capacity.
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    If I'm wrong, can you provide evidence that we have all the capabilities that you claim? I find it hard to believe we're at all prepared for potential cataclysmic situations.
    - grondilu 12y ago
      It's hard to believe only if you understand it as "everybody would be fine". A cataclysm would probably kill or starve many people, but what is hard to believe is that there would be no survivor at all. Consider a nuclear submarine for instance. This facility is capable of remaining totally autonomous during half-a-year (it even produces its own oxygen). It's not too hard to imagine that something similar could protect a fair amount of men and women from basically anything, and for a longer period, if it only is modified to do so. Consider also this non-exhaustive list of underground bunkers: http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-511609185 http://io9.com/the-secret-world-of-underground-bunkers-51160... You could probably store enough food and other resources to survive during decades in these. Certainly enough time to figure out how to eventually survive outside, regardless of what exactly happened there. And finally, remember that there are already thousands of survivalists all over the world, actively preparing for the end-of-the-world. What is hard to believe is that a few environmental factors would cause the death of absolutely all human beings on Earth.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      The wide range of environments in which algae thrive is something any biologist could tell you. The availability of electric generation capacity, and the prices thereof, is a matter of public knowledge. The fact that coal burning is still cheaper than many "renewable" power sources is a contingent if not trivial fact. Any human on a greater than subsistence income who wanted to use only solar power, could. Of course, asking for proof that we're "prepared for potential cataclysmic situations" is the mother of all goalpost maneuvers.