Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Has Begun According to Scientists

[Eacaraxe]

True, Venus might be the better candidate for colonization, it's upper atmosphere by far the most Earth-like place in he solar system...

Well, that's the rub. It's difficult for people to conceptualize that setting foot on planetary surfaces isn't the end-all, be-all, of extraterrestrial visitation or habitation. That Venus' upper atmosphere is strikingly Earth-like -- other than the logistic benefits I pointed out earlier like more rapid transfer windows, shorter transit times, and more permissive delta-V budgeting -- is why inhabiting Venus would be simpler than Mars, let alone getting back.

Would still be a really shitty place to live compared to Earth.

So is any extraterrestrial body outside Earth, we wouldn't be native to it.

As for the surface, that's a no go unless we can get rid of all the carbon-dioxide and by extension burning hot temps and crushing pressure. Tho if we had the technological capability to terraform to that degree, a much easier and better place to apply it would of course be Earth itself.

And, what we could learn from unmanned and manned missions to Venus in terms of atmosphere and climate data, could very well produce technologies usable here to repair Earth's atmosphere and climate.

 

[tstorm823]

"Make sure that our tribe has more people than their tribe, so that we can kill them and take their stuff before they kill us and take our stuff."

Careful, Seanchaidh might hear you suggesting that things were more violent in the past.

So you believe, legitimately, that human population can continue to expand endlessly without problems?

I mean, the way you used "endlessly", anything can be a problem. But that doesn't make them problems worth worrying about. "What if we have too much gold, and it causes a gold avalanche and crushes us!?" Not a reasonable concern. People have expanded rapidly because we create more than we consume and solve problems faster than they present themselves. In 1894, the people of London were worried because the increasing rate of horse usage was trending to put the city under 9 ft of manure within 50 years, and then the car was invented and the problem never actually appeared. People have been worried for decades that we would hit peak oil and run out of energy, and we've repeatedly found more and invented replacements such that peak oil will be based on falling demand rather than supply. And the way things are going, the population is going to stop growing in short order, any problem you're imagining will be solved before it can even happen.

That's fine, but it illustrates the point that it's really not just about consuming, reproducing, etc. There are other values about how we look our societies and how we interact with the world.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about? We need to stop using energy and shrink the population because we have other values?

We have brought back zero species from extinction. We have saved a few from near-extinction, but then we near exterminated them in the first place, and the list of species we did exterminate is vastly larger than those we pulled back from the brink. Nor is clear many of those species will survive long term anyway, because they've lost so much genetic diversity that they are acutely vulnerable to disease and inbreeding.

I say this understanding the vagueness of speciation, we're basically inventing species at will at this point. Some species may be gone forever, just like when photosynthesis began and poisoned most of the life on earth, but new ones will take their place just like us oxygen breathers have done since then. The world can be different and better.

 

[Kwak]

You suggested we shouldn't use nuclear because then humanity will grow, which is apparently undesirable. If anyone deserves a profane response here, it's you.

Do you even get the topic? It is because of human 'growth' that the other life on this planet is going extinct.
We've grown. We grew. We're grown up. We can stop growing.
I'm for nuclear power actually.
But, imagining humanity with an infinite clean source of energy, - we won't use it to maintain the status quo, we'll use it to keep taking over what little natural world is left. It will just go into bigger factories and new forms of weapons and quicker ways to carpet the ground over in concrete.
The opposite of what we need if we want to actually share this planet with other life.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok, this thread has gotten weirder comments than some of the anti-vax ones.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Careful, Seanchaidh might hear you suggesting that things were more violent in the past.

"more"

incidentally, and while i'm happy to defend the proposition that modern society is not significantly less violent than other brutal periods of history, you haven't actually established any connection between population growth and the supposed moral improvement that you think has happened over time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"more"

incidentally, and while i'm happy to defend the proposition that modern society is not significantly less violent than other brutal periods of history, you haven't actually established any connection between population growth and the supposed moral improvement that you think has happened over time.

Eh, missed a trick there. Obviously China and India are much more moral than the US, because they have much greater populations. And the Vatican, having a tiny population, would be amongst the most immoral of...actually, Tstorm might be onto something there.

 

[Generals]

I mean, the way you used "endlessly", anything can be a problem. But that doesn't make them problems worth worrying about. "What if we have too much gold, and it causes a gold avalanche and crushes us!?" Not a reasonable concern. People have expanded rapidly because we create more than we consume and solve problems faster than they present themselves. In 1894, the people of London were worried because the increasing rate of horse usage was trending to put the city under 9 ft of manure within 50 years, and then the car was invented and the problem never actually appeared. People have been worried for decades that we would hit peak oil and run out of energy, and we've repeatedly found more and invented replacements such that peak oil will be based on falling demand rather than supply. And the way things are going, the population is going to stop growing in short order, any problem you're imagining will be solved before it can even happen.

This is odd, I thought that our fish were already heavily polluted with plastics and heavy metals, that we were already facing more natural disasters due to climate change and people were already getting more and more cancers and neurological diseases due to air pollution. When were those solved? Instead of being hopelessly positive in your speculation about the future what about looking at what is already happening and the actual trend?

 

[tstorm823]

But, imagining humanity with an infinite clean source of energy, - we won't use it to maintain the status quo, we'll use it to keep taking over what little natural world is left. It will just go into bigger factories and new forms of weapons and quicker ways to carpet the ground over in concrete.
The opposite of what we need if we want to actually share this planet with other life.

First off, there is so, so much "natural world" left. I quote that, because not much is totally untouched, but who cares about being that specific. I make the same joke every time I drive up through north-central PA, I look out over the vast, uninhabited forest and say "Oh God! The overpopulation is here!" This state is top 10 in population density, and that area has as much historical pollution as any on the continent, and it's a huge, uninhabited forest. Nature is gigantic, and it does alright for itself.

Second, we aren't building bigger factories and carpeting more space over in concrete. With the exception of modern trends in suburban house sizes (which is already swinging back the other way as people realize more space isn't always better), people are getting more efficient. And we need more energy to do so. You know what it takes to recycle out trash? Energy. You know what it takes to capture and treat pollution? Energy. You know what it takes to make more food in less space? Energy. Rationing our energy is not going to reduce our use of resources in any meaningful way, but it will lock us into our current trends rather than allowing us to solve all the problems you worry about.

You haven't actually established any connection between population growth and the supposed moral improvement that you think has happened over time.

I'm not actually making that argument, so don't expect me to establish that.

This is odd, I thought that our fish were already heavily polluted with plastics and heavy metals, that we were already facing more natural disasters due to climate change and people were already getting more and more cancers and neurological diseases due to air pollution. When were those solved? Instead of being hopelessly positive in your speculation about the future what about looking at what is already happening and the actual trend?

We aren't facing more natural disasters due to climate change. Air pollution has dropped precipitously over the last century and will continue to do so. I don't imagine for a second that the ocean's ecosystem is going to collapse before we manage plastic pollution the same way. The actual trend has been moving the direction you want for as long as any of us have been alive.

 

[Agema]

Air pollution has dropped precipitously over the last century and will continue to do so.

Are you sure about that?

 

[tstorm823]

Are you sure about that?

The kinds causing neurological diseases... sheesh.

 

[Generals]

We aren't facing more natural disasters due to climate change.

Not what scientists say, more often and more severe seems to be the consensus.

Air pollution has dropped precipitously over the last century and will continue to do so.

In developed countries yes. In the world as a whole? who knows. But it sure still kills millions despite being a problem since the industrial revolution.

I don't imagine for a second that the ocean's ecosystem is going to collapse before we manage plastic pollution the same way.

Many are already collapsing. And seeing how plastic waste is still increasing I do not see why we should be optimistic. We are already recommended to limit fish consumption.

The actual trend has been moving the direction you want for as long as any of us have been alive.

Not really, at best air pollution has somewhat improved because it used to be catastrophic and ignored. But our planet has never been under so much stress due to human activity.

 

[Agema]

The kinds causing neurological diseases... sheesh.

Yes, but claiming that air pollution is going down whilst missing out lots of forms of air pollution that are going up is kind of problematic.

 

[tstorm823]

Yes, but claiming that air pollution is going down whilst missing out lots of forms of air pollution that are going up is kind of problematic.

Replying to the intent of the person I'm talking to is not problematic.

Not what scientists say, more often and more severe seems to be the consensus.

If you're going to appeal to authority, you're going to need a source. I expect a bad source, since that's the only kind that is going to validate your position. Natural disasters are not more frequent or more severe, with the single exception I've seen that tropical storms may travel further inland before dissipating.

 

[Silvanus]

First off, there is so, so much "natural world" left. I quote that, because not much is totally untouched, but who cares about being that specific. I make the same joke every time I drive up through north-central PA, I look out over the vast, uninhabited forest and say "Oh God! The overpopulation is here!" This state is top 10 in population density, and that area has as much historical pollution as any on the continent, and it's a huge, uninhabited forest. Nature is gigantic, and it does alright for itself.

I saw a big field once, so the deforestation of the Amazon isn't that big a deal.

 

[tstorm823]

I saw a big field once, so the deforestation of the Amazon isn't that big a deal.

I'm sorry that you live on an island with no nature remaining and have no concept of it.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm sorry that you live on an island with no nature remaining and have no concept of it.

I'm sorry that you believe nature begins and ends with what you can see, and that what lies outside of it has no impact on us.

 

[Agema]

I'm sorry that you live on an island with no nature remaining and have no concept of it.

The Amazon is huge and very important for a much, much wider area by both affecting how much heat is absorbed (and by what) and where a great deal of water is. Chopping down the Amazon has a huge impact therefore on wider rain and climate patterns far distant from the Amazon itself - air currents, droughts, storms, etc. It is simply wrong to think replacing it with sugar and soya plantations has no significant effect.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Eh, missed a trick there. Obviously China and India are much more moral than the US, because they have much greater populations. And the Vatican, having a tiny population, would be amongst the most immoral of...actually, Tstorm might be onto something there.

Manila has the highest population density. Any more and it might approach moral singularity.

 

[tstorm823]

I'm sorry that you believe nature begins and ends with what you can see, and that what lies outside of it has no impact on us.

"Oh My God! Guys! Tstorm gave an example instead of a statistic! Obviously that means he's stupid and we can make up whatever we want him to believe."

Don't embarass yourself.

The Amazon is huge and very important for a much, much wider area by both affecting how much heat is absorbed (and by what) and where a great deal of water is. Chopping down the Amazon has a huge impact therefore on wider rain and climate patterns far distant from the Amazon itself - air currents, droughts, storms, etc. It is simply wrong to think replacing it with sugar and soya plantations has no significant effect.

Stop picking up other people's strawmen, please. It's not productive.

 

[Kwak]

Probably because a forest sustains all manner of other forms of life, whereas rampant urban expansion viciously stamps them out.

Rats cockroaches and invasive birds are big fans of suburbia.

First off, there is so, so much "natural world" left. I quote that, because not much is totally untouched, but who cares about being that specific. I make the same joke every time I drive up through north-central PA, I look out over the vast, uninhabited forest and say "Oh God! The overpopulation is here!" This state is top 10 in population density, and that area has as much historical pollution as any on the continent, and it's a huge, uninhabited forest. Nature is gigantic, and it does alright for itself.

Your puny human scaled pov is not a metric to judge how much natural world is left. Yeah, we can still get lost in a forest, big deal.

Second, we aren't building bigger factories and carpeting more space over in concrete.

Not judging by local councils mania for carpeting over perfectly good grass walking tracks with concrete. Which creates heat.

With the exception of modern trends in suburban house sizes (which is already swinging back the other way as people realize more space isn't always better), people are getting more efficient. And we need more energy to do so. You know what it takes to recycle out trash? Energy. You know what it takes to capture and treat pollution? Energy. You know what it takes to make more food in less space? Energy. Rationing our energy is not going to reduce our use of resources in any meaningful way, but it will lock us into our current trends rather than allowing us to solve all the problems you worry about.

I would love fusion energy to be a viable source and to be used for extreme recycling, like breaking down trash into component molecules and reassembling them into new useful materials. And I do honestly hope it happens.

But, energy creates heat. Heat which is already having trouble escaping the earth. Now we would be introducing an extra source of heat to the system than what we already are trying to deal with.