3 ms·

> But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough

by ryanp0 11y ago

> But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough" it's not about size or power. Even very small insignificant things can and do have quite a large impact. It's more about impacting a system in a way it's ill equipped to compensate for. One of the more recent theories of the cause of the worst extinction level event is a particular methane producing microbe. Something far less powerful than a human is, yet a potential cause of an extinction level event that dwarfed the one that killed off the dinosaurs.

alphapapa 11y ago
Frankly, I think the earth's ecosystems are incredibly robust and able to compensate for more than we can imagine. Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?
- ryanp0 11y ago
  The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't. "Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet. Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form? The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Obviously nuclear weapons could make the planet uninhabitable. That's not the point, and it's a form of reductio ad absurdum.
    - ryanp0 11y ago
      So obviously some human actions can make the planet uninhabitable, so humans are capable of impacting the planet. The question therefore isn't whether humans are "big enough" but whether particular human actions are impacting the planet. My entire point was that the line of reasoning that we're not big enough to impact the planet is nonsense since not only do smaller things than us impact the planet, but there's indisputable methods we are capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable.

by ryanp0 11y ago

alphapapa 11y ago

Frankly, I think the earth's ecosystems are incredibly robust and able to compensate for more than we can imagine. Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?

ryanp0 11y ago
The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't. "Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet. Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form? The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Obviously nuclear weapons could make the planet uninhabitable. That's not the point, and it's a form of reductio ad absurdum.
  - ryanp0 11y ago
    So obviously some human actions can make the planet uninhabitable, so humans are capable of impacting the planet. The question therefore isn't whether humans are "big enough" but whether particular human actions are impacting the planet. My entire point was that the line of reasoning that we're not big enough to impact the planet is nonsense since not only do smaller things than us impact the planet, but there's indisputable methods we are capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable.