Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 295 posts

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#221

Post by dr_dshiv »

derefr wrote: post #82
tsunamifury wrote: post #2

I think it’s wild and deeply inspiring to imagine how the surface of the earth had radically different forms over billions of years. Huge landscapes of unrotted dead plants. Then massive landscapes of fungus and decomposing bacteria breaking that down into dirt. And on and on. I think it is wise to understand that earth has been through many eras and is not as homeostatic as our narrowly imagined “natural” state we s…

Rather than motivating environmental conservation out of some species-level nostalgia for "the biodiversity of our youth", there's another, forward-looking motivation for it: the species that evolved at the same time we did — our "evolutionary cohort" — are the species of our own Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. While they may not share our ecological niche, they all share a dependency on the same air mix we…

Don’t forget all the thousands of species we’ve created ourself through agriculture! (Artificial selection)

That is another important source of aligned biodiversity

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#222

Post by Ma8ee »

ke88y wrote: post #114
Ma8ee wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The time scale for new species adapted to a completely new climate is many millions of years, not a few thousands. What we destroy today won’t be replaced while humans as a species as we know it today even exists. It will always be many orders of magnitude easier to terraform Earth, even after we screwed it up, than trying to terraform Mars.

> It will always be many orders of magnitude easier to terraform Earth, even after we screwed it up, than trying to terraform Mars. It's many orders of magnitude easier to afford a $100,000,000 home if you make $10,000 per year than if you only make $1 per year. But you're never going to afford that home either way.

Certainly. What I was trying to say was that the notion of terraforming Mars as an escape when we screwed up here is absurd.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#223

Post by CM30 »

biotech wrote: post #186
eastof wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a dangerous perspective. Why would we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth!?! We already have 7 Billion people here to take care of and we're already witnessing mass heat, flooding, and famine deaths from climate change. People focusing on colonizing Mars when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnerable people in the…

> People focusing on colonizing Mars when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnerable people in the world. I don't agree with the logic that we cannot focus on two things at the same time. It's like saying, "People focusing on making movies when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnera…

> I don't agree with the logic that we cannot focus on two things at the same time

This times a million. I see it all the time on social media when it comes to news stories too, and it's as ridiculous there as it is here. People have different interests and skillsets, and they don't all need to focus on the same thing at the same time. The folks looking to explore Mars colonisation/space exploration and those working to slow down or prevent climate change are usually entirely different groups, who have studied what they're interested in for years. You can't just chuck them all at a single 'project' and refuse to allow anything else, in the same way we can't pause the rest of human civilisation because your pet issue isn't being sorted quickly enough, or have the entirety of a media organisation reassigned to a single story.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#224

Post by lproven »

nradov wrote: post #100
miroljub wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our planet is both chaotic and stable, depending on the timescale we are looking at. Chaotic on the long timescale, but pretty stable given the much shorter timescale of known human history.

If you believe that then I think you haven't spent much time out in nature. Some wild species populations boom and crash in chaotic ways even in areas that haven't been impacted much by humans. Nature is far from stable on any time scale longer than a year.

ISTM like you haven't fully grasped the fractal nature of, well, nature.

At one scale, it's chaos. 1 or 2 scales up or down (in time or in space) it's stable. It's like that all the way up and all the way down.

Oh, and not only are the scale levels not just spacial or temporal but both, but the number of levels is itself non integer.

But the point is that even chaotic systems often display order if you find the right place or perspective to stand and look.

You can't say "it's not stable". Not ever. Rocks aren't stable over aeons. Galaxies aren't. Protons aren't if you wait long enough.

But it is often possible to measure the rates of change and of complexity and say, look, given greater levels of complexity, then lower rates of change will probably hold...

Even given a famine or a plague that's currently devastating one region.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#225

Post by adammarples »

tootie wrote: post #170
finnh wrote: post #6

> The largest organism on Earth, says ABC, is still a huge fungal mat, a single organism spread over 2,200 acres of forest in eastern Oregon. Largest by area. By mass you need to go a bit south, to the faint grove of Aspens in Utah known as "Pando". ofc, Aspens are weird enough that they may be thought of more like a fungus with tree-like fruiting bodies rather than trees per se.

Another super interesting fact that never occurred to me is that trees are not a taxonomic grouping of their own. Rather a broad set of characteristics that have separately evolved into a convergent set of traits. So, it's unnecessary to say Aspens are not like other trees because they aren't actually related to other trees. The MCRA of all trees would not remotely be a tree.

Palm trees are closer to grass than tree

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#226

Post by holoduke »

eastof wrote: post #167
sclarisse wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth, it’s not going to take 2C and a feedback loop. It’s going to take like 75C.

This is such a dangerous perspective. Why would we want to make the temperature on Mars like the one on Earth!?! We already have 7 Billion people here to take care of and we're already witnessing mass heat, flooding, and famine deaths from climate change. People focusing on colonizing Mars when we have such an immediate problem to address TODAY are delusional and actively endangering the most vulnerable people in the…

Amount of floodings and deaths because of natural disasters and famine have never been so low compared to what history tells us. In no way I want to argue against climate change. But it's important to not become a hysterical Greta type of person and to approach our climate issues with proper factual science. Not emotions.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#227

Post by bheadmaster »

derefr wrote: post #82
tsunamifury wrote: post #2

I think it’s wild and deeply inspiring to imagine how the surface of the earth had radically different forms over billions of years. Huge landscapes of unrotted dead plants. Then massive landscapes of fungus and decomposing bacteria breaking that down into dirt. And on and on. I think it is wise to understand that earth has been through many eras and is not as homeostatic as our narrowly imagined “natural” state we s…

Rather than motivating environmental conservation out of some species-level nostalgia for "the biodiversity of our youth", there's another, forward-looking motivation for it: the species that evolved at the same time we did — our "evolutionary cohort" — are the species of our own Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. While they may not share our ecological niche, they all share a dependency on the same air mix we…

This is one of the best rational arguments of environmentalism that I've heard. I wish more environmentalists used this kind of rigor in their arguments, instead of relying on emotional talk and guilt tripping.

The very reason we care about the ecosystem in the first place is because we depend on it. That's the most important point - environmentalism is first and foremost about our own survival. Nobody gives a shit about plants and animals for their sake.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#228

Post by tootie »

astrange wrote: post #204
tootie wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another super interesting fact that never occurred to me is that trees are not a taxonomic grouping of their own. Rather a broad set of characteristics that have separately evolved into a convergent set of traits. So, it's unnecessary to say Aspens are not like other trees because they aren't actually related to other trees. The MCRA of all trees would not remotely be a tree.

Neither are fish; whales are more related to salmon than sharks are. (So are we.) And yet everyone complains when you say whales are fish.

Fish are ancient and sharks in particular. Obviously the record will never be entirely complete but it's possible that sharks have been on Earth longer than plants have been on land.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#229

Post by daveslash »

bheadmaster wrote: post #227
derefr wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than motivating environmental conservation out of some species-level nostalgia for "the biodiversity of our youth", there's another, forward-looking motivation for it: the species that evolved at the same time we did — our "evolutionary cohort" — are the species of our own Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness. While they may not share our ecological niche, they all share a dependency on the same air mix we…

This is one of the best rational arguments of environmentalism that I've heard. I wish more environmentalists used this kind of rigor in their arguments, instead of relying on emotional talk and guilt tripping. The very reason we care about the ecosystem in the first place is because we depend on it. That's the most important point - environmentalism is first and foremost about our own survival . Nobody gives a shit…

Some people do, but I definitely see your point.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#230

Post by nunobrito »

carlmr wrote: post #218
nunobrito wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wood was once used to power engines, then coal, then oil and in current days electricity. The sooner you move to the next stage of evolution, the more efficient you can become and better afford to preserve natural resources. What most people forget is that pollution comes from the basic need of survival and improving life quality. So you need efficiency and balance what matters for most humans. Instead of forcing eve…

>Instead of forcing everyone to become vegan and to stop flying, how about supporting the industries that create artificial meat cheaper than the real thing and airplanes that run on electricity? I was saying everybody turning vegan and stopping flying entirely wouldn't be enough. Flying on electricity and lab grown meat still use a lot of energy compared to not having those. You're actually making my point really we…

Now I'm confused. Are you actually advocating for the world to stop eating meat or is that one of those things people call sarcasm?

Don't see a problem in using more energy. There is already nuclear power since decades, just use it.

Post reply on HN