Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Outcast on 05/05/2020 16:40:55
-
Enough to get by the next mass extinction? We don't seem to have any sense of urgency. The fact that we can't predict the date makes the next mass extinction no less inevitable. There have been (at least) five mass extinctions on the planet before. We are the only species that ever lived that is capable of foreseeing their own extinction...and possibly averting it.
The planet was formed and evolved in incredible and unfathomable violence. The Early Bombardment period responsible for the wall-to-wall cratering on the moon has largely subsided. This was equally true when the dinosaurs had a bad day. And the skies almost daily provide us with more surprises.
At a more local level, the entire Yellowstone Valley is the huge caldera of a super-volcano, and it's due to blow again anytime. Add extreme atmospheric changes to the dangers. Venus didn't require any man-made boost to render it uninhabitable. These are but a few of the possible extinction events we know about.
Should we heed the advice of the world-famous cosmologist and scientist, Moe Howard, who admonished his colleagues, Larry and Curly, "Spread Out!"?
(Please, no moderator responses.)
-
(Please, no moderator responses.)
Until you provide a well-reasoned argument why moderators should not reply, I will comment on your threads as I see fit.
At a more local level, the entire Yellowstone Valley is the huge caldera of a super-volcano, and it's due to blow again anytime.
It's very unlikely that a Yellowstone super-eruption would render humanity extinct. It would devastate the world economy, cause mass food shortages and kill an enormous number of people, no doubt. I don't deny that. But kill all of us? I don't think so.
The last Yellowstone super-eruption happened 630,000 years ago, when Homo erectus was still around. Despite their significantly smaller population compared to ours and very primitive technology, they were not rendered extinct by the eruption. Even more recently, the Taupo supervolcano erupted 26,500 years ago, when Homo sapiens had arrived on the scene. We obviously did not go extinct.
Add extreme atmospheric changes to the dangers.
Climate change certainly is a danger to civilization as we know it, but it is also unlikely to lead to our extinction. We have survived major climate change events due to supervolcanoes, so we will probably survive anthropogenic climate change as well. I suppose it is possible that anthropogenic climate change could indeed exceed that of supervolcanoes in time. However, I find it rather unlikely that we would mess up the climate so badly that no area left on Earth was suitable for human habitation within the next few hundred years. That's not to say that we shouldn't do something about it. I heartily agree that we should do what we can limit its impact, given how devastating it has the potential to be.
These are but a few of the possible extinction events we know about.
This is a wild card and they certainly could be a threat. Part of the problem with this is that, by definition, we don't know what they are therefore don't know how to properly defend against them. Becoming a multi-planet civilization could, in itself, go a long way towards protecting us from unknown threats.
-
Nature is (a) much bigger than humanity and (b) completely indifferent to humanity. There is no reason why this species, or indeed any, should survive any geological or biological event.
If the planet becomes completely inhospitable, would you want to live on it?
-
the next mass extinction...The fact that we can't predict the date...
We can predict the date, and it is now.
And the cause is not a supervolcano or meteorite, it is us.
A species stocktake shows rapid declines in most areas.
We are replacing a healthy range of species by a small number of species - us, our dogs, cows, sheep, potatoes, wheat, etc...
And this is unhealthy, because there is little resilience in a smaller gene pool.
As the current COVID pandemic shows, humanity is so tightly connected that a 5-day incubation period is enough for a bat disease to rapidly spread around the world. If it had a 14-day incubation period, the situation would be far worse for us.
From the fact that there are 400,000 species of beetles on this planet, but only 8,000 species of mammals, he concluded that the Creator, if he exists, has a special preference for beetles.
With our overuse of pesticides, there are significant reductions in numbers of beetles (and other insect pollinators), unfortunate impacts are starting to appear.
Which is more important in the big scheme of things - us, or the beetles?