Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Global Warming
- Thread starter sydney
- Start date
Ok, please explain why it would “be tragic for the planet, and possibly the universe, if we ceased to exist” ?
Mustafa II
Well-known member
From what we know about the universe, life is extremely rare. From what we know about life, advanced intelligence is extremely rare and unique to human beings on this planet.
It's not clear what the purpose of life and universe is, or if even there is one. But regardless, it is quite clear that life is special and that humans are, by some margin, the only species on earth capable of achieving whatever is needed to be achieved, through scientific, technological or other creative means.
If we ended, and all our creations, discoveries and inventions were forgotten, while the world returned to a primal landscape without technology or understanding, of course it would be utterly tragic.
What's your argument why it wouldn't be tragic?!
Good topic for a genuine debate!
Human extinction might be tragic for humans but would be a relief for the planet. We have not contributed anything positive but have caused the extinction of endless species that would have otherwise thrived and we have even managed to alter the planet's temperatures, weather and sea levels in just a few hundred years. Everything we have 'achieved' has been entirely self serving for the benefit of the human race. We have even managed to turn space into a junk yard.
Returning the world to a 'primal landscape' wouldn't be tragic but would simply allow nature to return to where it left off before the human destroyers evolved. No one or no being (apart from humans) cares whether 'our creations, discoveries and inventions' are forgotten. Could you give me an example of one of these that has benefited anyone apart from humans AND/ OR has served to benefit the planet or non human inhabitants, apart from merely attempting to mitigate the negative impact of humans?
I agree that 'advanced intelligence is extremely rare and unique to human beings on this planet' (but perhaps as only we, as humans see it) but we have misused this intelligence to the self serving extent that the planet would be better off without it. Maybe that is the real tragedy?
Yes. But we have been the only species that have done anything significant in the long history of life on the planet. In a short period of time 200 thousand years modern humans have completely changed the planet, walked on the moon and sent space craft throughout the solar system.
Who knows what we can achieve in another 200 thousand years if we don't go extinct by then.
If we do and cockroaches become the dominant species, then that wouldn't be that exciting.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 4,877
That unfortunately will never happen - there is very little ‘natural’ self-sustaining landscapes left anywhere in the world and many of the species around before human habitation are now irrevocably extinct, including the habitat flora and fauna upon which they depended. Conversely, there have been hundreds of species that have evolved within the past 200,000 years alongside human occupation.
While we have been busy being the most destructive species on the planet we have also altered ecosystems with so much artificial engineering to support our own survival, that many species that have thrived under human ‘guardianship’ would go extinct if we were ‘gone’ - including all domesticated animals, many bird species reliant on habitat management, including pest control and flood defences. Forest fires would rage unabated around the world because we were not there to distinguish them creating an ecological disaster of its own.
People talk about cities/infrastructure reverting back to nature but in truth, these ‘nature’ reversions around human infrastructure will largely consist of dominant and invasive, non-indigenous rambling plant species like Japanese knotweed and cotoneaster and other species that have been artificially introduced; like domestic cats (which will go feral, preying on vulnerable ground nesting birds; and RATS! Rats will be fcuking everywhere.
Creepers, such as Ivy and bindweed, brackens, nettles etc and trees that seed profusely (like Alder, Sycamore and Budlejas ) will throttle large swathes of the landscape - Nuclear facilities would start irradiating as they crumbled and plastics already accumulated in our seas and rivers would continue to release toxins into the environment when degrading for another thousand years because we wouldn’t be there to remove them.
Any one event ie an ELE, that destroys humanity is unlikely to leave much else surviving other than insects …and bacteria.
The biggest hope for our planet IMO, is actually us surviving but with a very significant fall in the world’s population growth, a commitment to zero fossil fuel use and removal of disposable plastics and other rubbish that has accumulated through the ecosystem as well as a radical curtailment of deforestation and other forms of habitat destruction.
I think we are the most dangerous animal on the planet but ironically, many species now depend on us for survival. Even if we are removed from the equation, I don’t think it would be the Eden people imagine - it’s too late for that imo.
We need to stay and clean up the mess we’ve made.
Last edited:
sydney
tinky ****in winky
- Thread starter
- #168
Brian Cox recently made a speech where he said that although other lifeforms in the cosmos cannot be ruled out , we are currently the only known , intelligent life and that if the human race was to perish then in theory that could leave a lifeless galaxy/cosmos whatever you want to call it ....soberring.
cunning fergus
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 4,747
This planet at the current best scientific analysis is 4.5bn years old, give or take a margin of error of 50 million years. This best guess is based on the analysis of the oldest rock that has so far been tested. It will be a brave scientist that suggests there isn’t another rock out there that moves the dial.
So, I will keep an open mind on the “settled science” theory, Newton was right before Einstein. Before Newton we had evangelical religious nut jobs putting Galileo in prison for his theory that the earth went round the sun.
History indicates Enlightenment is relative.
And then we can go and ruin another planet for our own benefit.
I’ve never thought about the possibility that we have damaged the planet so much that it won’t recover with out our help. You might be right in the short term but as the planet thinks in terms of millions of years I think your apocalyptic vision will be only a short term blip.
Whilst I don’t agree that “The biggest hope for our planet IMO, is actually us surviving” I do agree with your statement that “a very significant fall in the world’s population growth, a commitment to zero fossil fuel use etc” would make a difference.
Cleaning up our mess and learning to be a benign partner with the planet would be fantastic. And taking your point about us being so advanced and intelligent, I am confident we have the ability to do so.
However, I do not think that it will happen because that requires a different level
of ‘intelligence’ that the human race appears to be lacking in.
nicko31
Well-known member
CF - I think I'll go with 99% of Scientific community, sorry...
AstroSloth
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2020
- 1,000
Hence why the term Man Made Climate Change is used to refer to the impact humans are having on accelerating climate change.
No climate scientists are arguing against the natural climate change, they're pointing out that we are massively accelerating it.
As you say, neither of us know the future butIt’s all speculation…and certainly not ‘visionary’ on my part - tbh I haven’t got a fcuking clue what the next 6 months is going to look like let alone in 2 million years time.
All I can say isthe
better.
the better is the answer
nicko31
Well-known member
Close to 20c in Scotland, previous record smashed
www.theguardian.com
Scottish village may have set record for warmest January weather, hitting 19.6C
Temperature recorded on Sunday in Kinlochewe in north-west Highlands has provisionally beaten previous record of 18.3C
www.theguardian.com
Bob'n'weave
Well-known member
Good question. None of CO2 agenda makes any sense. In instead of actual scientific discourse, we get banal propaganda messaging, from self appointed 'climate experts' and celebrity sock-puppets. Most of the hysteria is based on premise that CO2 is evil and is killing our planet, when the opposite is true. https://co2coalition.org/about/
The members of this coalition are all qualified in actual science and are opposed to the COP agenda.
Harold Shipman was a qualified Doctor.
Bob'n'weave
Well-known member
What contribution did he make to the climate debate?
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
There definitely appears to be an industry, on both sides of the argument, around the politics of climate change. What we are sadly lacking in my opinion is a pragmatic and informed approach from that discourse to looking after our environment - with 'stop it' on one side, and 'we can't afford to stop it' on the other being seemingly entrenched positions.
There doesn't appear to be any dispute in the scientific community that there is currently a correlation between an increase in global temperatures and an increase in CO2 levels, though there isn't necessarily a consensus that one is caused by the other. There is probably more consensus that the increase in green leaf coverage of the planet is caused by the increase in CO2 for instance.
I actually think that our potential impact on climate change is over-egged, and we shouldn't be panicked into rushing into changing the way we live if it is going to result in a significant amount of people in this country becoming rapidly impoverished, especially when we have no idea of the actual consequences of climate change and the fact that it changes irrespective of us. Yes, we should absolutely be mitigating our contribution by taking advantage of renewable energy sources, but that shouldn't be at the expense of energy security, or the security of material supply, in this country - for instance I think we absolutely should not be importing coal when we have an abundance of it here, and we shouldn't be banning the use of coal in steel production - I'd actually advocate a ban on foreign ownership of both the coal and steel industries in this country, and state ownership if that is not possible, as we should retain the capacity in both industries, even if it is loss making, as it is strategically important to the country.
We also need to recognise that this island's impact globally is negligible, and act accordingly. We should be looking to balance our energy supply using nuclear, with gas and coal covering that balance whilst that nuclear capacity is being built up - and kept in reserve thereafter. The aim should absolutely be to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, but do it gracefully and keep the costs to the end user low whilst it is done.
The way to effect change at an individual level is to make it economical to do so. If it becomes more cost effective to work where we live, to use public transport, and to make our homes more efficient then people will do these things. For instance I've recently taken advantage of the Solar Together scheme to get solar panels and a battery fitted to my house - which is great, but it isn't going to supply all of my house's electricity on a cold dark day in the middle of winter.
There doesn't appear to be any dispute in the scientific community that there is currently a correlation between an increase in global temperatures and an increase in CO2 levels, though there isn't necessarily a consensus that one is caused by the other. There is probably more consensus that the increase in green leaf coverage of the planet is caused by the increase in CO2 for instance.
I actually think that our potential impact on climate change is over-egged, and we shouldn't be panicked into rushing into changing the way we live if it is going to result in a significant amount of people in this country becoming rapidly impoverished, especially when we have no idea of the actual consequences of climate change and the fact that it changes irrespective of us. Yes, we should absolutely be mitigating our contribution by taking advantage of renewable energy sources, but that shouldn't be at the expense of energy security, or the security of material supply, in this country - for instance I think we absolutely should not be importing coal when we have an abundance of it here, and we shouldn't be banning the use of coal in steel production - I'd actually advocate a ban on foreign ownership of both the coal and steel industries in this country, and state ownership if that is not possible, as we should retain the capacity in both industries, even if it is loss making, as it is strategically important to the country.
We also need to recognise that this island's impact globally is negligible, and act accordingly. We should be looking to balance our energy supply using nuclear, with gas and coal covering that balance whilst that nuclear capacity is being built up - and kept in reserve thereafter. The aim should absolutely be to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels, but do it gracefully and keep the costs to the end user low whilst it is done.
The way to effect change at an individual level is to make it economical to do so. If it becomes more cost effective to work where we live, to use public transport, and to make our homes more efficient then people will do these things. For instance I've recently taken advantage of the Solar Together scheme to get solar panels and a battery fitted to my house - which is great, but it isn't going to supply all of my house's electricity on a cold dark day in the middle of winter.
Last edited: