[QUOTE=Falchion;44112305]we have gained the capacity to break it and make a whole planet uninhabitable.[/QUOTE]
Extremely arrogant statement, that is also untrue. We don't actually have the capacity to make planet uninhabitable. Actually, all the talks about "wrecking the planet" and all that are simply wrong, we're physically incapable of wrecking shit. We're just way too small. We're perfectly capable of destroying some species by outright exterminating them, we're perfectly capable of wrecking our own existence by making the environment uninhabitable [b]for ourselves[/b] and some other species, temporarily too, but that's about it. The life has survived air-less atmosphere, thousand years of outer space bombardment, realignment of tectonic plates, disasters of geological scopes, and it's still around.
Strictly on topic, I'm not sure anything regarding evolution of or species can really be said at this point. We're around for less than one hundred thousand years, and that's incredibly small a scope for any noticeable effects of evolution to be definitively observed. However, in my opinion, it's pretty safe to say that evolution and natural selection is still going, just not in the usual way, you can only stop it by not existing. And even if somehow the life on this planet will be totally eradicated for some fantasy reason, in a few hundred million years it'll start again, like it happened several times in the past.
[QUOTE=gudman;44220338]Extremely arrogant statement, that is also untrue. We don't actually have the capacity to make planet uninhabitable. Actually, all the talks about "wrecking the planet" and all that are simply wrong, we're physically incapable of wrecking shit. We're just way too small. We're perfectly capable of destroying some species by outright exterminating them, we're perfectly capable of wrecking our own existence by making the environment uninhabitable [b]for ourselves[/b] and some other species, temporarily too, but that's about it. The life has survived air-less atmosphere, thousand years of outer space bombardment, realignment of tectonic plates, disasters of geological scopes, and it's still around.
Strictly on topic, I'm not sure anything regarding evolution of or species can really be said at this point. We're around for less than one hundred thousand years, and that's incredibly small a scope for any noticeable effects of evolution to be definitively observed. However, in my opinion, it's pretty safe to say that evolution and natural selection is still going, just not in the usual way, you can only stop it by not existing. And even if somehow the life on this planet will be totally eradicated for some fantasy reason, in a few hundred million years it'll start again, like it happened several times in the past.[/QUOTE]
People with no sense of proportion annoy me. This is like quibbling that the sun is technically not a renewable source of energy.
Just like a car or a house, you can certainly wreck the planet without destroying it. And we most certainly are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Human_influence_on_extinction"]doing[/URL] so.
And I'm also pretty damned sure we can dredge up enough nukes to make life permanently inhabitable on the planetary surface.
[QUOTE=ThreePennyJim;44220862]People with no sense of proportion annoy me. This is like quibbling that the sun is technically not a renewable source of energy.
Just like a car or a house, you can certainly wreck the planet without destroying it. And we most certainly are [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Human_influence_on_extinction"]doing[/URL] so.
And I'm also pretty damned sure we can dredge up enough nukes to make life permanently inhabitable on the planetary surface.[/QUOTE]
The planet's biosphere is not a car or a house for obvious reasons, this analogy is bollocks.
It comes down to the definition of "wrecking". For me it means permanent damage. Extinction of even as high as 40% of all species (which is bullshit and won't happen) won't constitute permanent damage to the world as a habitat. Considering the fact that the Earth has already suffered likely more than one [b]complete death of almost all living things[/b] and entire ecosystems being abandoned for the time being, and yet we're still here to see the living world, I'm positive that it takes quite a lot more than all we have to FUBAR the planet.
So unless you consider some species going extinct to be somehow a permanent damage, you're simply not right here. ATM if we suddenly decide to completely obliterate all life, all we're going to manage to do is make environment uninhabitable for ourselves. Which is what across the board meant by "fucking up the planet", but what I don't agree with here is arrogance - humanity != biosphere. The planet's biosphere is going to be fine, it had it worse.
[QUOTE=gudman;44221405]The planet's biosphere is not a car or a house for obvious reasons, this analogy is bollocks. [/quote]
Apparently not so obvious. Perhaps you need a quick [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule"]reminder[/URL] of what constitute and don't constitute proper arguments.
[/quote]It comes down to the definition of "wrecking". For me it means permanent damage.[quote]
Oh, so we're redefining words to suit our own personal interpretations, are we?
[quote]Extinction of even as high as 40% of all species (which is bullshit and won't happen) won't constitute permanent damage to the world as a habitat. [/quote]
Your personal incredulity is noted. As it stands, you should actually read the fucking[URL="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm"]literature[/URL] before making bold assertions.
[QUOTE]There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.[/QUOTE]
Even the most conservative reports suggest that we'll surpass 3.5 °C by 2100, while the [URL="http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22566"]Met Office
[/URL](UK's national weather service), [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/19/us-climate-warming-idUSTRE54I6PF20090519?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews"]MIT[/URL] and the [URL="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2863.1"]American Meteorological Society [/URL] figures that number to be closer to 5 or 6 °C. These are short term projections that stop at the end of this century; in all likelihood, our next-century descendants will face even harsher temperatures.
[QUOTE] So unless you consider some species going extinct to be somehow a permanent damage, you're simply not right here.[/quote]
[I]"In the long run we are all dead."[/I] John Maynard Keynes. Your fucking point being?
[quote]Which is what across the board meant by "fucking up the planet"[/quote]
First thing you said that resembles something like common sense.
[quote]but what I don't agree with here is [B][I]arrogance - humanity != biosphere.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE]
No, that's what Let's revisit a quote from your original passage.
[QUOTE]We don't actually have the capacity to make planet uninhabitable.[/QUOTE]
So what's your claim here? That we're [I]unlikely[/I] to make the planet uninhabitable, or that we [I]can't?[/I]
Here's a few examples I thought of for ways in which humans could make Earth uninhabitable. Atomic bombs are a pretty surefire way of making our planet uninhabitable though this isn't necessarily permanent. Man-made climate change could wipe out all life and if the climate becomes chaotic and unstable Earth may end up like Venus one day. This is far-fetched but may be achievable with enough resources: altering the orbit of the moon such that it spirals towards us rather than away from us, either through carefully placed explosions (inertial plate) or perhaps a big rocket to alter it's angular velocity.
-snip- Weird ass shit is going on with this post.
I honestly don't think we can eliminate [I]all[/I]​ ​life on planet earth even if we explicitly tried, but we can certainly set it back quite severely and cause some major biosphere collapses that will fuck ourselves over big time. And possibly even cause levels of extinction from which the earth could not recover. Honestly though I think we'd still persist even in the most extreme conditions simply because we have the technology to do so, and because there's probably always going to be enough life to support even a small amount of us.
[QUOTE=gudman;44221405]The planet's biosphere is not a car or a house for obvious reasons, this analogy is bollocks.
It comes down to the definition of "wrecking". For me it means permanent damage. Extinction of even as high as 40% of all species (which is bullshit and won't happen) won't constitute permanent damage to the world as a habitat. Considering the fact that the Earth has already suffered likely more than one [b]complete death of almost all living things[/b] and entire ecosystems being abandoned for the time being, and yet we're still here to see the living world, I'm positive that it takes quite a lot more than all we have to FUBAR the planet.
So unless you consider some species going extinct to be somehow a permanent damage, you're simply not right here. ATM if we suddenly decide to completely obliterate all life, all we're going to manage to do is make environment uninhabitable for ourselves. Which is what across the board meant by "fucking up the planet", but what I don't agree with here is arrogance - humanity != biosphere. The planet's biosphere is going to be fine, it had it worse.[/QUOTE]
Although I think it is highly unlikely that it will happen, we are indeed capable of destroying the planet, maybe even the whole solarsystem. I have had this discussion many times with my friends who are physics students (I used to be one as well) and actually know of ways to do it.
OT I don't think that there is a universal limit on intelligence because all species are subject to evolution. For the sake of simplicity, imagine an alien planet with only two different species on it. There is only one kind of food on this planet and both species are fighting each other to get it. In order for one specie to get the food before the other they have to be smarter, otherwise they will die. Natural selection will occur in both species since only the smart members of the species will survive.
However Hundreds of thousands of years later there is still not enough food for both species for some reason. Although all members of the species are ultrasmart only the über-ultrasmart members will survive. Fastforward another hundreds of thousands of years and only one extremely intelligent specie is left on the planet.
In other words, the intelligence of specie nr.1 is determined by specie nr.2 because specie nr.1 needs to outsmart specie nr.2 and vice versa. The intelligence of other animals on earth is not very high compared to humans, but what if we had übersmart cows that we had to outsmart in order to not go extinct?
I hope that you will see my point in this long possibly confusing story.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
