Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    Without wild nature, a person will still not be able to survive for a long time. So rather with the wild nature and destroy itself

  2. #42
    it seems to me in this case - just the end

  3. #43
    Someday the creatures on that program will be akin to unicorns and griffins. A fairy-tale bestiary written in past tense, and no one is lifting a finger to stop it.
    ~Raymond Reddington

  4. #44
    The Lightbringer Shakadam's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,300
    Depends on how exactly you'd "destroy the wild". I'm gonna take this to mean "What would happen to us Humans if we destroyed the wild" in the way OP describes.

    First off: What we need from this planet in order to live is basically oxygen, a means of getting food, a magnetic field, gravity, and a reasonable temperature.

    Oxygen: Unless we also kill off everything in our oceans we would probably be OK, algae produces most of our oxygen. Presumably the grass and whatever else on the golf courses (a hell of a lot of golf courses btw) would produce some oxygen as well. Even if we did kill every single oxygen producing thing on the planet all at once, we'd have enough oxygen remaining in the atmosphere for a couple hundred years, so there'd be some time to come up with some solution.

    Food: This becomes trickier since so much about the ecology and probably weather patterns would change, killing off all the insects is a baaaad idea. Growing food artifically is ofc possible but it would probably lead to mass hunger and a fairly large portion of humanity would probably die before we figure that out.

    Magnetic Field: Not an issue, nothing we do on the surface of this planet will change anything about that.

    Gravity: Not an issue.

    Temperature: Hard to know how that would play out. Presumably carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase faster than now, however, killing off most animals and all insects would be a significant reduction in oxygen-consuming-carbon dioxide-producing biomass so it might also go down, I really don't know. More greenhouse gases = higher temps as we all know. However if temps started to rise too much it could be technically solved by a space sunshield to block or redirect some of the Sun's radiation.

    Truly, the biggest issue would be food production due to the insects being gone. Everything else seems possible solvable before we're all dead.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakadam View Post
    However if temps started to rise too much it could be technically solved by a space sunshield to block or redirect some of the Sun's radiation.
    If it doesn't exist now then it's science fiction.

  6. #46
    The Lightbringer Shakadam's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    If it doesn't exist now then it's science fiction.
    Why's that? Technically it's a relatively simple solution that we could do right now, but it's a matter of cost and quite frankly we're not at a point where investing in such a thing is seen as necessary.
    Renewables are cheaper and more desirable to invest in. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't make a sunshield if we wanted to.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakadam View Post
    Why's that? Technically it's a relatively simple solution that we could do right now, but it's a matter of cost and quite frankly we're not at a point where investing in such a thing is seen as necessary. Renewables are cheaper and more desirable to invest in. But that doesn't mean that we couldn't make a sunshield if we wanted to.
    And you can't prove it.
    Your thinking is the same as "Primary's" (who cites Star Trek) claiming technology that doesn't exist which is no better than wishful thinking. The whole "Don't worry, we'll figure it out" is a flight of fancy.

  8. #48
    The Lightbringer Shakadam's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    And you can't prove it.
    Your thinking is the same as "Primary's" (who cites Star Trek) claiming technology that doesn't exist which is no better than wishful thinking. The whole "Don't worry, we'll figure it out" is a flight of fancy.
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...2.2018.1436360

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...global-warming

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade


    The technology exists. It's just a matter of cost and necessity.

  9. #49

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Shakadam View Post
    The technology exists. It's just a matter of cost and necessity.
    Much better.
    But you have to know that it won't ever happen in the current political climate.

  11. #51
    From what I understand, the trees are best at breathing in carbon dioxide and breathing out oxygen. They help provide are clean air. Also if we chop down all the forests for more farming, that would mean more nitrogen fertilizer for crops. The nitrogen from the fertilizer runs off into our rivers, streams, and oceans. The extra nitrogen causes bacteria to grow that kills everything else in the water.

  12. #52
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Death.

    /10stupidyuppiethreads
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  13. #53
    Immortal hellhamster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    Posts
    7,031
    Biodiversity, which is the bedrock of our environment, is also the fundamental layer that supports negative feedback, which is pretty much all the biological mechanisms to absorb shocks and drastic environmental changes. Generally speaking, the bigger the biodiversity, the bigger the chances of adaptation and survival of ecosystems, as there are enough biological agents to absorb the shock. If ecosystems are monocultured, negative feedback is at a low and there are no agents at all in place to absorb the impact whenever a drastic change occurs in that environment. Normally, any ecosystem can adapt when change happens at a low pace, but it becomes increasingly difficult whenever the change is drastic. Equilibrium changes and ecological chain reactions of dependancy break, leading to a never ending spiral of death and changes in equilibrium.

    This leads to erosion, toxicity and acidity of the soil, bacterial diseases spiraling out of control, increase of air toxicity as plant leaf volume, our natural filter, decreases, and billions of tons of toxic materials pollute the air, hydrological issues that almost always lead to flooding, and eventually death of a big portion of life that depends on that equilibrium.

    For example if a portion of earthworms in the forests die out due to soil toxicity, you can kiss entire forests goodbye, which are the most complex and biodiverse ecosystems on the planet. All because of one little worm that handles the role of an agricultural engineer by creating nutrients in its stomach by converting dead organics to inorganic ions.

    Another example is the death of mycorrhiza, a little known symbiotic, fungal lifeform that is pretty much on every tree root. Mycorrhiza help out with ionic absorption, being essential in the absorption of ground nutrients through epidermal cells in the roots.
    Last edited by hellhamster; 2021-07-18 at 07:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •