101–110 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I am. That's how it happens and how it should happen. Coral systems live, spread, and die. That's what they do. These processes happen over thousands of years.
Then the consequence will be vastly reduced fish populations for thousands of years, which may affect human populations.
Perhaps a dumb question, but wouldn't we expect the rise in ocean temperatures to be cause nature to be doing this selective breeding right now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, there is no law of the universe that says that change will only occur at a survivable rate. Thousands of species are already going extinct every year, and we're still burning just as many fossil fuels as what got us into this mess. We don't have thousands of years to wait for animals to adapt, we have mere decades.
Correct, there's no law of the universe that says change will occur a survivable rate. Species have been going extinct long before humans. We should help those species who environments we damage and we should mitigate or nullify the damage in the first place, but we should not play God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, there's no law of the universe that says change will occur a survivable rate. Species have been going extinct long before humans. We should help those species who environments we damage and we should mitigate or nullify the damage in the first place, but we should not play God.
We are playing God now by artificially and dramatically altering Earth’s set point.
That is still unknown and constantly shifting in predictions.
Yes we should minimize our effects on the environment as much as possible, and we are doing a lot better in that goal, but we still need to live.
I wouldn't say living our lives is playing God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are playing God now by artificially and dramatically altering Earth’s set point.
How much are we altering it over coming out of the last ice age and the natural effects of volcanos and vents? That is still unknown and constantly shifting in predictions. Yes we should minimize our effects on the environment as much as possible, and we are doing a lot better in that goal, but we still need to live. I wouldn't say living our lives is playing God.
No, it's not an unknown. Please stop with this cowardly delusion. Human activity is changing the Earth's climate at unbelievable rates compared to the historical norm. XKCD for scale: https://xkcd.com/1732/
I understand the issue is complex, fraught with incentive, and has disparity between the developed and undeveloped world. But if the outcome is a clear collective benefit, why don’t we do it?
More practically. What will it take to create a world where humanity can align to help ourselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are playing God now by artificially and dramatically altering Earth’s set point.
How much are we altering it over coming out of the last ice age and the natural effects of volcanos and vents? That is still unknown and constantly shifting in predictions. Yes we should minimize our effects on the environment as much as possible, and we are doing a lot better in that goal, but we still need to live. I wouldn't say living our lives is playing God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nature doesn't do selective breeding. "Survival of the fittest" means "whatever doesn't die, wins." First you need things capable of not dying in x circumstances. After adversity kills everything else, you have the "winners." This will incline species to develop tolerance over time, usually several generations. Human caused climate change is happening on a timescale that isn't very supportive of that process.
At least some corals must be able to survive the current transformation? At least some past extinction events must've been very abrupt and things like corals lived through that?
Dragonflies used to have like two foot or four foot wings spans. Now their relatively small and presumably play a very different role in the ecosystem.
Mother Nature isn't some Christian God that loves you and looks out for you. The fact that nature isn't looking out for our welfare is likely why things like Christianity are popular: Because actual reality scares the hell out of people and they need some kind of emotional opiate so they can go "La la la not listening!" and get through the damn day.
I find it tragic that it’s easier for scientists to perform miracles than it is for humanity to care for the planet. I understand the issue is complex, fraught with incentive, and has disparity between the developed and undeveloped world. But if the outcome is a clear collective benefit, why don’t we do it? More practically. What will it take to create a world where humanity can align to help ourselves?
Ask yourself why you (apparently) prefer degrowth to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the consequence will be vastly reduced fish populations for thousands of years, which may affect human populations.
Or the fish will continue to live in the reef skeletons and move on to healthier reef systems.