Sky is falling -- redux.

Valjean · Jul 11, 2017

omega2xx said:
Basic tree-hugger theology.
While some species are critical to our survival. bees for example, most are not.

Is "our survival" the be all and end all of existence? That's a dangerous hubris.
I think you need to bone up on your ecology. That's like saying most parts of a Swiss watch are unnecessary.
We are not the crown of creation. Earth was not created just for us.

Thief said:
I saw ten scenarios offered by ten scientists
only one made sense
this planet has just so much chemistry and the quantities are known

And these 'quantities' have ecologists worried. Tweaking a single molecule/species can alter the whole equation.

the earth can support 9billion people

Not comfortably, and not permanently.

Revoltingest said:
The mass extinction will make our planet a less interesting place.
It's a real tragedy, but alas, only to some of us.
Sure, sure, they'll argue that we only need necessary species for our
survival & eventual covering of the planet with teeming humanity. But
I would like to have seen flocks of passenger pigeions so numerous
that they darkened the sky.

The 'necessary' species would be the biological crusts, mycrorrhiza, zooplankton and phytoplankton, fish and mosquitoes. Without these foundation organisms, the big, charismatic mammals, plants -- and bees -- wouldn't survive (note: this includes us).[/quote][/QUOTE]

Valjean · Jul 11, 2017

Revoltingest said:
Nah, we'll survive loss of forests, reefs, fish in the ocean, bees, etc.
Our future could be like the planet, Trantor (Foundation Triology)....growing yeasts to survive upon.
Who needs steaks, apples, bacon, blueberries, etc when we can eat some gelatinous goo grown
in industrial sized underground vats?

I think you need to bone up on your ecology, too.
No forests, no oxygen, no Co2 sinks, massive climate change...

Valjean · Jul 11, 2017

Revoltingest said:
I'm painting a particular dystopia (a simple drama free one).
Sure, you can add nuclear war to it.

How about climate refugees? A handful of war refugees is already causing problems and political shifts. What will happen when half the world's population become refugees?

omega2xx · Jul 11, 2017

LuisDantas said:
The environment itself is. The biodiversity can't very well be divorced from it.

There is a place for tree-huger theology, but IMO, they go to far.

And then there is the matter of, you know, food.

Click to expand...

If our food supply ever runs out completely, we will be down to only 1 problem and it will only last a coupe of weeks.

omega2xx · Jul 11, 2017

Valjean said:
Is "our survival" the be all and end all of existence? That's a dangerous hubris.

I haven't mentioned our survival., and what makes you think what I said was prideful?

I think you need to bone up on your ecology. That's like saying most parts of a Swiss watch are unnecessary.

Not a valid example. In mechanical things, all parts are dependent on all the other part. That is not true in ecology. Over the years many species have become existence. Nothing significant happened.

We are not the crown of creation. Earth was not created just for us.
And these 'quantities' have ecologists worried. Tweaking a single molecule/species can alter the whole equation.
Not comfortably, and not permanently.
The 'necessary' species would be the biological crusts, mycrorrhiza, zooplankton and phytoplankton, fish and mosquitoes. Without these foundation organisms, the big, charismatic mammals, plants -- and bees -- wouldn't survive (note: this includes us).[/quote][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

omega2xx · Jul 11, 2017

omega2xx said:
I haven't mentioned our survival., and what makes you think what I said was prideful?

Not a valid example. In mechanical things, all parts are dependent on all the other part. That is not true in ecology. Over the years many species have become existence. Nothing significant happened.

We are not the crown of creation.

Click to expand...

Yes we are. ?God angels are to serve man, not animals

Earth was not created just for us.

Click to expand...

IMO God created it for Himself. One who is "LOVE" NEED AN OBJECT TO LOVE.

And these 'quantities' have ecologists worried. Tweaking a single molecule/species can alter the whole equation.

Click to expand...

How?

Not comfortably, and not permanently.
The 'necessary' species would be the biological crusts, mycrorrhiza, zooplankton and phytoplankton, fish and mosquitoes. Without these foundation organisms, the big, charismatic mammals, plants -- and bees -- wouldn't survive (note: this includes us).

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You don't know that.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 11, 2017

I don't see how anyone can still be in denial over just how much of the Earth we have wasted, squandered, and destroyed, and how hostile we have been towards the other inhabitants who also call this planet home. We've had hundreds of nuclear explosions throwing radiation in the air (the guy who made the Tzar bomb thinks the fallout from that one is still effecting us), and people want to say we aren't killing off countless species and tampering with the climate? We burn tons and tons and tons and tons of coal and oil, and all that pollution has no long-term detrimental consequences?

Thief · Jul 11, 2017

Valjean said:
Is "our survival" the be all and end all of existence? That's a dangerous hubris.
I think you need to bone up on your ecology. That's like saying most parts of a Swiss watch are unnecessary.
We are not the crown of creation. Earth was not created just for us.
And these 'quantities' have ecologists worried. Tweaking a single molecule/species can alter the whole equation.
Not comfortably, and not permanently.
The 'necessary' species would be the biological crusts, mycrorrhiza, zooplankton and phytoplankton, fish and mosquitoes. Without these foundation organisms, the big, charismatic mammals, plants -- and bees -- wouldn't survive (note: this includes us).

I don't think we are discussing the aspect of evolution here

tweaking a gene (as in the garden of Genesis) is not the topic

the sky will fall
it will land on us ....first

Revoltingest · Jul 11, 2017

Valjean said:
The 'necessary' species would be the biological crusts, mycrorrhiza, zooplankton and phytoplankton, fish and mosquitoes. Without these foundation organisms, the big, charismatic mammals, plants -- and bees -- wouldn't survive (note: this includes us).

Alas, I think we'd manage to survive with greatly reduced biodiversity.
This possibility means that humnanity might gravitate towards that option.

Revoltingest · Jul 11, 2017

Valjean said:
I think you need to bone up on your ecology, too.
No forests, no oxygen, no Co2 sinks, massive climate change...

Ecology to the rescue!
Forests can be replaced by phytoplankton.

Revoltingest · Jul 11, 2017

Valjean said:
How about climate refugees? A handful of war refugees is already causing problems and political shifts. What will happen when half the world's population become refugees?

It will be bad.
I've already predicted that global warming will cause this.

sayak83 · Jul 11, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
I don't see how anyone can still be in denial over just how much of the Earth we have wasted, squandered, and destroyed, and how hostile we have been towards the other inhabitants who also call this planet home. We've had hundreds of nuclear explosions throwing radiation in the air (the guy who made the Tzar bomb thinks the fallout from that one is still effecting us), and people want to say we aren't killing off countless species and tampering with the climate? We burn tons and tons and tons and tons of coal and oil, and all that pollution has no long-term detrimental consequences?

It's easy... live in manicured suburbia and watch fox News...

I have named it the Nero syndrome.

Valjean · Jul 11, 2017

Revoltingest said:
Alas, I think we'd manage to survive with greatly reduced biodiversity.
This possibility means that humnanity might gravitate towards that option.

I'm picturing a very small population surviving in sealed habitats, like Martian colonists.

Revoltingest said:
Ecology to the rescue!
Forests can be replaced by phytoplankton.

The Ocean of the Future Is Slime | RealClearScience

sayak83 · Jul 11, 2017

The science

Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction | Science Advances

Abstract
The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota is entering a sixth “mass extinction” depends on clearly demonstrating that current extinction rates are far above the “background” rates prevailing between the five previous mass extinctions. Earlier estimates of extinction rates have been criticized for using assumptions that might overestimate the severity of the extinction crisis. We assess, using extremely conservative assumptions, whether human activities are causing a mass extinction. First, we use a recent estimate of a background rate of 2 mammal extinctions per 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2 E/MSY), which is twice as high as widely used previous estimates. We then compare this rate with the current rate of mammal and vertebrate extinctions. The latter is conservatively low because listing a species as extinct requires meeting stringent criteria. Even under our assumptions, which would tend to minimize evidence of an incipient mass extinction, the average rate of vertebrate species loss over the last century is up to 100 times higher than the background rate. Under the 2 E/MSY background rate, the number of species that have gone extinct in the last century would have taken, depending on the vertebrate taxon, between 800 and 10,000 years to disappear. These estimates reveal an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way. Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversity and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services is still possible through intensified conservation efforts, but that window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

Revoltingest · Jul 12, 2017

Valjean said:
I'm picturing a very small population surviving in sealed habitats, like Martian colonists.

Or a very large population, all living a claustrophobic miserable existence.

The Ocean of the Future Is Slime | RealClearScience

Oh boy!

Shadow Wolf · Jul 12, 2017

Revoltingest said:
Or a very large population, all living a claustrophobic miserable existence.

I also don't see how people can be in denial over the horrible conditions that come with crowded and cramped living as we have plenty of evidence of the starvation, plague, and just general all round nastiness. And people want to claim we can just keep expanding and expanding and keep reproducing? Too bad the people saying this probably won't be around to see the first truly global pandemic plague that leaves bodies piled high even in remote areas.

Valjean · Jul 12, 2017

Revoltingest said:
Or a very large population, all living a claustrophobic miserable existence.

I don't see where a large population would get the resources to survive.

We're already extracting resources faster than they can be replaced. Topsoil is thinning, aquifers disappearing, deserts spreading, greenhouse gasses increasing. All the biological systems are degrading. We're already beyond the planet's carrying capacity.

I'm picturing either enclosed communities, scattered feudal manors; or wandering bands of hunter-gatherers. Maybe all three.

Revoltingest · Jul 12, 2017

Shadow Wolf said:
I also don't see how people can be in denial over the horrible conditions that come with crowded and cramped living as we have plenty of evidence of the starvation, plague, and just general all round nastiness. And people want to claim we can just keep expanding and expanding and keep reproducing? Too bad the people saying this probably won't be around to see the first truly global pandemic plague that leaves bodies piled high even in remote areas.

Imagine a planet covered by Mumbai India with NYC prices.

Revoltingest · Jul 12, 2017

Valjean said:
I don't see where a large population would get the resources to survive.

The planet would be covered with not just people, but also yeast farms, fish farms, etc.
And the ocean would have lots'o jellyfish.

We're already extracting resources faster than they can be replaced. Topsoil is thinning, aquifers disappearing, deserts spreading, greenhouse gasses increasing. All the biological systems are degrading. We're already beyond the planet's carrying capacity.

We can expand much much more.
But we'd concentrate more on surviving than on expanding resource intensive a technological lifestyle.

I'm picturing either enclosed communities, scattered feudal manors; or wandering bands of hunter-gatherers. Maybe all three.

A Mad Max scenario.....nah, we'd be even more organzed (& regimented) than we are now.

Shadow Wolf · Jul 12, 2017

Revoltingest said:
Imagine a planet covered by Mumbai India with NYC prices.

That's pretty much what won me over to the pro-choice side. We have no natural predators, and abortion helps buy us some more time for before a very great crisis (more likely a domino effect of them) that we are just are not prepared handle or manage. Ultimately, those aborted today is more water we have for tomorrow.

Sky is falling -- redux.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Rogue Theologian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Pragmatic Libertarian

Certified People sTabber