Do you think that the ecology of our planet is in danger?

[hellhamster]

In ecology, there's a term called negative feedback of ecosystems. It's the relationship between different species, causing an equilibrium using the distribution of energy of the sun to the various lifeforms, and is propagated by biodiversity. This translates roughly to the bigger the range of biodiversity, the better an ecosystem can withstand extreme changes and maintain equilibrium. Some species receive the brunt of the attack and go extinct, but others survive because there are natural mechanisms in place.

Ecologically and therefore scientifically speaking, humanity is a threat to the environment by forcing itself unto natural habitats and lowering biodiversity. To put it in a simple example, we are removing forests, which is a type of ecosystem with extreme biodiversity, and replacing it with man-made habitats with a fraction of the aforementioned biodiversity. Whenever an extreme phenomenon occurs, there will be no absorption of the hit. For example, there will be not enough microorganisms or earthworms to take care of removing soil toxicity by organic matter, and the soil becomes infertile, causing erosion and a chain reaction of catastrophic events.

Man is therefore indirectly responsible for ecological catastrophes, but can prevent them.

There are sea worms in the polar region north of Norway. They eat the bacteria trapped in methane-rich ice, that in turn eat the methane trapped in the ice. If the population growth of those worms goes wild, it is theorised that the worms will start digging deep into Norway's continental shelf and due to their size and number, are able to eat at the methane rich foundation, causing a collapse, propagated by the release of methane. That can lead to a total collapse of the foundation and cause a tsunami thousands of meters high that will destroy pretty much the entire world.

This is just one example of preventable catastrophes that man can control, there are myriad others.

[Beazy]

After watching Joe Rogan last night with dr. Shanna Swan, I feel really bad for future humans. I think we're way past "in danger" and into the completely fucked stage.

[Al Gorefiend]

I think coronavirus was the planets response to human overpopulation.

Earth is actually amazing swell at maintaining homeostasis, and barring any sort of anthropomorphism or magic, maybe the planet does have methods of reducing human population if necessary?
It did begin in one of Earth's most densely populated and heavily polluted areas

[Shadowferal]

If covid19 was the planet's response to overpopulation then she's being nice.

How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

Because once in our history, the world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults. One study says we hit as low as 40.

Forty? Come on, that can't be right. Well, the technical term is 40 "breeding pairs" (children not included). More likely there was a drastic dip and then 5,000 to 10,000 bedraggled Homo sapiens struggled together in pitiful little clumps hunting and gathering for thousands of years until, in the late Stone Age, we humans began to recover. But for a time there, says science writer Sam Kean, "We damn near went extinct."

Toba, The Supervolcano

Once upon a time, says Sam, around 70,000 B.C., a volcano called Toba, on Sumatra, in Indonesia went off, blowing roughly 650 miles of vaporized rock into the air. It is the largest volcanic eruption we know of, dwarfing everything else...

Sure, humans may survive. But this won't be some sci-fi novel story. The dystopian post apocalyptic society isn't one anyone here will want to live in.

[Al Gorefiend]

If covid19 was the planet's response to overpopulation then she's being nice.

How Human Beings Almost Vanished From Earth In 70,000 B.C.

Because once in our history, the world-wide population of human beings skidded so sharply we were down to roughly a thousand reproductive adults. One study says we hit as low as 40.

Forty? Come on, that can't be right. Well, the technical term is 40 "breeding pairs" (children not included). More likely there was a drastic dip and then 5,000 to 10,000 bedraggled Homo sapiens struggled together in pitiful little clumps hunting and gathering for thousands of years until, in the late Stone Age, we humans began to recover. But for a time there, says science writer Sam Kean, "We damn near went extinct."

Toba, The Supervolcano

Once upon a time, says Sam, around 70,000 B.C., a volcano called Toba, on Sumatra, in Indonesia went off, blowing roughly 650 miles of vaporized rock into the air. It is the largest volcanic eruption we know of, dwarfing everything else...

Sure, humans may survive. But this won't be some sci-fi novel story. The dystopian post apocalyptic society isn't one anyone here will want to live in.

I don't so much think dystopian post apocalypse is in our future but rather a more reduced global population to offset the population boom of post-WW2, of which COVID alone as it stands barely dented it. Mass overpopulation is ultimately going to do us in and more people should concern themselves with it.

[JohnBrown1917]

I don't so much think dystopian post apocalypse is in our future but rather a more reduced global population to offset the population boom of post-WW2, of which COVID alone as it stands barely dented it. Mass overpopulation is ultimately going to do us in and more people should concern themselves with it.

We got plenty of resources, they problem is humanity fucking itself.

- - - Updated - - -

I think coronavirus was the planets response to human overpopulation.

Earth is actually amazing swell at maintaining homeostasis, and barring any sort of anthropomorphism or magic, maybe the planet does have methods of reducing human population if necessary?
It did begin in one of Earth's most densely populated and heavily polluted areas

This has to be the worst take in this whole thread. That is not how any of shit works.

[Erwarth]

I don't.

But I think human life will be less and less sustainable.

The planet will move on, but we won't.

[Al Gorefiend]

We got plenty of resources, they problem is humanity fucking itself.

- - - Updated - - -



This has to be the worst take in this whole thread. That is not how any of shit works.

That we know of. The evolution of viruses is fascinating

[gordon15wp]

I don't.

But I think human life will be less and less sustainable.

The planet will move on, but we won't.

Maybe that's why we're going to colonize Mars?..

[JohnBrown1917]

That we know of. The evolution of viruses is fascinating

Ye ye, and i'm actually god, because you can't disproof it.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe that's why we're going to colonize Mars?..

Mars is far less habitable than even earth with even the worst estimates of climate change.

[Ursus]

You've come a long way from saying nobody can predict the future lol

No, no, you misunderstood him. He meant that nobody can predict the future except for him. As for his all-knowing insights, he doesn't really "know" much other than that no matter what kind of problem humanity faces, future humans will 100% for sure be able to solve it.

[Logwyn]

I disagree. The Earth will probably be destroyed by the sun after several billion years but my geuss is humanity survives and outlives the Earth.

If we survive long enough. I think we will or something that we became will have figured out how to refuel stars so they do not die. Of course this is a long long long way off but could happen.

[PC2]

You've come a long way from saying nobody can predict the future lol

Nobody can reliably know the future which is why we can only guess. I could be wrong, the population might go down and we could go extinct but there's currently no reason to assume that is the case.

[Shadowferal]

Nobody can reliably know the future which is why we can only guess. I could be wrong, the population might go down and we could go extinct but there's currently no reason to assume that is the case.

No reason to assume worst case scenarios in any situation so why prepare for them?

[PC2]

No reason to assume worst case scenarios in any situation so why prepare for them?

Yeah we could assume there will be a nuclear war or a large asteroid impact but it would lead to a waste of resources. If people want to plan for the worst case scenario that is fine as long as they're not trying to force it on other people.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah we could assume there will be a nuclear war or a large asteroid impact but it would lead to a waste of resources. If people want to plan for the worst case scenario that is fine as long as they're not trying to force it on other people.

Like wearing masks...because who knew that would ever hapoen. Or mass unemployment.. Tanked economies...

[Elegiac]

Yeah we could assume there will be a nuclear war or a large asteroid impact but it would lead to a waste of resources. If people want to plan for the worst case scenario that is fine as long as they're not trying to force it on other people.

I'd accept this as long as we passed a law holding the people who "didn't want it forced on them" fully accountable if the worst case scenario does happen - i.e. they foot the highest tax burden for funding relief, while getting the lowest priority for said relief. After all, nothing bad is going to happen as a result of climate change so you won't need to worry about being held liable for them, right?

I guarantee you none of you will put your money where your mouth is, though, because climate change denialists are fully aware of the fact they're lying; they just think they can get out of the consequences of pollution.

[PC2]

I'd accept this as long as we passed a law holding the people who "didn't want it forced on them" fully accountable if the worst case scenario does happen - i.e. they foot the highest tax burden for funding relief, while getting the lowest priority for said relief. After all, nothing bad is going to happen as a result of climate change so you won't need to worry about being held liable for them, right?

I guarantee you none of you will put your money where your mouth is, though, because climate change denialists are fully aware of the fact they're lying; they just think they can get out of the consequences of pollution.

Sounds good to me, but if you're saying climate change will cause an overall decrease in agriculture, GDP, and the population then you should have to pay extra taxes when they don't decrease. While everyone else pays lower taxes.

[Elegiac]

Sounds good to me, but if you're saying climate change will cause an overall decrease in agriculture, GDP, and the population then you should have to pay extra taxes when they don't decrease.

Why the fuck would we need extra taxes, then?

The entire point is that y'all don't believe in climate change because you have the luxury of distancing yourselves from its consequences, and that lie is exposed every time you are asked to pay for that luxury. Kinda cringe, tbh.

[PC2]

Why the fuck would we need extra taxes, then?

You implied that there should be personal consequences for being wrong. You can't just say that applies to optimists but not to the pessimists who are expecting bad results.