6 ms·

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

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.
gizmo686 12y ago
We do not have the technology to kill all oxygen producing species even if we tried. We some (many) species do die off, there will be room for other species to use the resources the extinct species were using and increase in population. This change would have dramatic effects on the entire ecosystem, but deoxigination is not one of them.
grondilu 12y ago
You're not going to lack oxygen any time soon. And not all plants need animals to reproduce. If we were to kill all fauna, the impact on flora would be huge, and it would certainly induce a very substantial decrease in our food production, but it would not reduce it to zero. Not to mention that we're capable of storing large amounts of food for very long periods. There would be human losses, lots of it, but there would almost as certainly be survivors. It's very difficult to imagine a scenario that would absolutely wipe out all mankind. At least not an environmentalist one. Annalee Lewitz wrote a whole book about it: http://scatteradaptandremember.com/ http://scatteradaptandremember.com/
- billiam 12y ago
  It's nice to hear from you, Dr. Strangelove. How is life in the bunker? There are so many unanticipated consequences of the extinction event we are currently slipping into that I think it is pointless to speculate in a sentence or two. The geologic record of past major extinctions (there have probably been many more minor ones) is extremely fragmentary and inconclusive. How fast can species, including ours, adapt to huge change? It is all about mutation and speciation rates. In some ways we have suppressed mutation rates by limiting disease and lengethning life; in other ways we have sped it up with synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering. Who's to say?
  - grondilu 12y ago
    > It's nice to hear from you, Dr. Strangelove. How is life in the bunker? I'm not discussing how good or bad life would be if we were to mitigate a severe environmental crisis. I'm discussing whether or not it would provoke human extinction. And to me that seems very much unlikely.
    - lifeformed 12y ago
      Well, I don't think the question at hand is simply how to avert human extinction, but how to avert disaster for humankind.

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.

gizmo686 12y ago

We do not have the technology to kill all oxygen producing species even if we tried. We some (many) species do die off, there will be room for other species to use the resources the extinct species were using and increase in population. This change would have dramatic effects on the entire ecosystem, but deoxigination is not one of them.

grondilu 12y ago

You're not going to lack oxygen any time soon. And not all plants need animals to reproduce. If we were to kill all fauna, the impact on flora would be huge, and it would certainly induce a very substantial decrease in our food production, but it would not reduce it to zero. Not to mention that we're capable of storing large amounts of food for very long periods. There would be human losses, lots of it, but there would almost as certainly be survivors. It's very difficult to imagine a scenario that would absolutely wipe out all mankind. At least not an environmentalist one. Annalee Lewitz wrote a whole book about it: http://scatteradaptandremember.com/ http://scatteradaptandremember.com/

billiam 12y ago
It's nice to hear from you, Dr. Strangelove. How is life in the bunker? There are so many unanticipated consequences of the extinction event we are currently slipping into that I think it is pointless to speculate in a sentence or two. The geologic record of past major extinctions (there have probably been many more minor ones) is extremely fragmentary and inconclusive. How fast can species, including ours, adapt to huge change? It is all about mutation and speciation rates. In some ways we have suppressed mutation rates by limiting disease and lengethning life; in other ways we have sped it up with synthetic chemicals and genetic engineering. Who's to say?
- grondilu 12y ago
  > It's nice to hear from you, Dr. Strangelove. How is life in the bunker? I'm not discussing how good or bad life would be if we were to mitigate a severe environmental crisis. I'm discussing whether or not it would provoke human extinction. And to me that seems very much unlikely.
  - lifeformed 12y ago
    Well, I don't think the question at hand is simply how to avert human extinction, but how to avert disaster for humankind.