Man v Animal: Sad reality

[Hammerfest]

Personally I find the reality really depressing, I consider myself an armchair naturalist. I love the natural world and all its mysteries so naturally I take a keen interest in conservation though I can't help feel to little to late. What's your views?

I think it's important to point out that the mass extinction of dinosaurs, which was one of the biggest of its kind, was not caused by human beings. I think it's also important to point out that we're still discovering new species all the time. Personally, I find the article in the OP to be drivel.

Oh and by the way, put an "s" after the "v" in the thread title. This isn't a legal battle we're talking about here.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

We won the evolution race.

If you guys want to argue about Deus Ex Machina, you should immediately scale up to Gamma Ray Bursts. (Actual name of the scientific phenomenon that's going to kill us instantly without even a warning since it travels as fast as the light our eyes would need to collect to see it.)

It was hilarious when NASA lied to us about it being impossible to be instantly destroyed just to pamper us. Either they've progressed into detection methods beyond the speed of light and lied to us about that, or they straight up deny the fact that we could absorb a lethal danger traveling near the speed of light, which would make it imperceptible in any way.

All the other people suggesting that "Little bacterium can own you quickly" cannot refute the victory we've achieved in biological evolution. We have no peers, and if there's anyone beside or above us, they have the power to remain undetectable. Our ability to control reality, if it would be to exterminate the very "water bears" of any location by sequential steps with advanced technology, has guaranteed we won the race.

You're argument that we haven't won is the same as saying "You're not in control of your world because you could eat a bullet to your head any second and there's no way you could stop that."

Which is pretty defeatist, which is what a lot of the people in this thread seem to select being.

[Deleted]

It was hilarious when NASA lied to us about it being impossible to be instantly destroyed just to pamper us. Either they've progressed into detection methods beyond the speed of light and lied to us about that, or they straight up deny the fact that we could absorb a lethal danger traveling near the speed of light, which would make it imperceptible in any way.

It's less about denying it than about the fact that there is no known object in our immediate region that could send out gamma ray bursts our direction. So the overall odds of us getting eradicated by a burst is practically 0.

[Elegiac]

I'm pretty sure that we didn't kill ~60% of the animal kingdom in a time span of a century or so. So yeah, that's BS.

No, but in about ten to twelve thousand years we've considerable reduced the amount of extant biodiversity amongst animals and plants. Extinction events can occur over millennia.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it's important to point out that the mass extinction of dinosaurs, which was one of the biggest of its kind, was not caused by human beings. I think it's also important to point out that we're still discovering new species all the time. Personally, I find the article in the OP to be drivel.

So because previous extinction events have happened, the Holocene event clearly can't happen?

[Deleted]

No, but in about ten to twelve thousand years we've considerable reduced the amount of extant biodiversity amongst animals and plants. Extinction events can occur over millennia.

Fair point, but I still fail to see why that matters. As the dominant species, it is natural that we immediately impact most other living things around us, mostly negatively. But if a species is about to go extinct merely because of our presence in the general region, I'd say that they probably weren't going to make it for long, anyways. It is also worth pointing out that we're the only species in the history of life on our planet who is actively trying to keep another species alive, even though it is mostly for selfish reasons ("but look how cute they are!").

Or do you think that it merely is our modern way of life that is killing them off? Because I'm pretty sure that our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago also finished quite a few species off.

[Elegiac]

Fair point, but I still fail to see why that matters. As the dominant species, it is natural that we immediately impact most other living things around us, mostly negatively. But if a species is about to go extinct merely because of our presence in the general region, I'd say that they probably weren't going to make it for long, anyways. It is also worth pointing out that we're the only species in the history of life on our planet who is actively trying to keep another species alive, even though it is mostly for selfish reasons ("but look how cute they are!").

Or do you think that it merely is our modern way of life that is killing them off? Because I'm pretty sure that our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago also finished quite a few species off.

Hence why it is called the Holocene extinction.

But yes, our way of life encourages increasing manipulation of the biosphere to serve our needs. Such as cutting down the Amazon to built soy and sugar plantations, draining aquifers for irrigation, pumping and fracking for oil.

The issue is that our lifestyles are impacting the biosphere to such a point that said lifestyle is becoming impacted.

[Hammerfest]

So because previous extinction events have happened, the Holocene event clearly can't happen?

More species have died off due to natural causes than man-made deforestation or pollution or hunting. The sheer multitude of extinct dinosaur species alone demonstrates that and clearly debunks the premise upon which the article is based.

[Elegiac]

More species have died off due to natural causes than man-made deforestation or pollution or hunting.

In the history of life on the planet, sure.

That does not mean that there is not an anthropogenic extinction event going on at the present.

[Hammerfest]

That does not mean that there is not an anthropogenic extinction event going on at the present.

Extinctions happen. They happen with us and the happen without us.

[Elegiac]

Extinctions happen. They happen with us and the happen without us.

You don't see the negatives in a loss of biodiversity?

[Deleted]

You don't see the negatives in a loss of biodiversity?

Curious in seeing future animals

[minteK917]

If you take away our high tech gadgets, we're a bottom feeder in the food chain.
We are among the slowest, among the weakest, among the most vulnerable to diseases. We're kinda fucked without our superior brain capabilities.

Many of these are untrue. Humans are among the mammal with the most endurance when it comes to heat and long term activity. We are also among the most resilient to many toxic elements and diseas in general even without medication Homo sapien existed for a long while before modern time. The mere fact our most common form of early hunting was simply chasing animal until they tire kinda show the kind of animal we were.

Off topic but im tired of that non sense always coming up.

[Sunseeker]

No, but in about ten to twelve thousand years we've considerable reduced the amount of extant biodiversity amongst animals and plants. Extinction events can occur over millennia.

But over 10? You're stretching when you have to argue that man has been destroying the earth since before we were civilized.

[Deleted]

Pandas really need to just die out. They're one of the dumbest species.

99% of their diet is only one type of food.
They're assholes about mating
It's hard for them to conceive and stay pregnant

Like, fucking adapt better or gtfo.

Just like americans.

[Elegiac]

But over 10? You're stretching when you have to argue that man has been destroying the earth since before we were civilized.

I don't think anyone is arguing this, quite frankly.

[Sunseeker]

I don't think anyone is arguing this, quite frankly.

12,000 years ago man was still largely in the infancy of civilization. Populations were exceedingly small and whole swaths of the earth were unpopulated. The effect we would have had on the environment and our ability to destroy species was infinitesimal.

[Elegiac]

12,000 years ago man was still largely in the infancy of civilization. Populations were exceedingly small and whole swaths of the earth were unpopulated. The effect we would have had on the environment and our ability to destroy species was infinitesimal.

The point was that we have been manipulating the environment since agriculture was a thing. The advent of the holocene is just the beginning of this process, not 'bam humans came along and suddenly no biodiversity'.