The dinosaurs, a meteor, and us: a thought experiment.

[MikeF]

[/QUOTE]

I am a victim of circumstance/era, and working my way backward to minimize my technological dependency.
Like raising, growing and preserving my own foods. As well as a belief system built on caring for the non-human persons that inhabit this planet with us, focusing on a cycle of reciprocity and giving.

That sounds great. Best wishes in reaching your goals.

[/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong tech isn't necessarily bad itself, just like fire itself isn't bad. It's what it allows us to do that is bad. With each positive gained through progress also comes it's equal negative. The more we gain, the more we lose.

Phew. I was getting the impression that you vilified any technology, which would include fire, stick and stone tools, etc. If that had been the case, eschewing technology on that scale would make it difficult for Homo Sapiens to survive given current physical characteristics.

 

[The Hammer]

Phew. I was getting the impression that you vilified any technology, which would include fire, stick and stone tools, etc. If that had been the case, eschewing technology on that scale would make it difficult for Homo Sapiens to survive given current physical characteristics.

We probably shouldn't be here then, if we can't survive in the wild.

Thanks tech.

 

[MikeF]

Earth has considerably more sequestered carbon than Venus, and much of it is in the form of methane, which has a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than CO2.

There is also the problem of oxygen. All multicellular life has learned to use oxygen for cell respiration. If the forests and phytoplankton that maintain the planet's O2 levels die, so will the oxygen that multicellular life depends on..
Oxygen is a very reactive element. It doesn't stay around long as a pure gas.

My comments were in reference to @Heyo 's suggestion that Earth could turn into another Venus in terms of atmospheric CO2 concentration and heat. Is that your belief as well?

 

[Little Dragon]

How so?

Well, it is unnecessary to wipe out humanity, they can do that without assistance.

 

[Quintessence]

I am a victim of circumstance/era, and working my way backward to minimize my technological dependency.
Like raising, growing and preserving my own foods. As well as a belief system built on caring for the non-human persons that inhabit this planet with us, focusing on a cycle of reciprocity and giving.

Don't get me wrong tech isn't necessarily bad itself, just like fire itself isn't bad. It's what it allows us to do that is bad. With each positive gained through progress also comes it's equal negative. The more we gain, the more we lose.

Neo-Luddites are a thing these days, yeah? They're pretty awesome. I mean, I'm kind of biased in saying so but...

I’m a Luddite. You should be one too

Why a workers’ rebellion in 19th-century England is relevant in the age of data extraction, gig labour and management by algorithm.

theconversation.com

 

[Little Dragon]

Thanks tech.

Technology, the cause of and solution to all of our problems...

 

[Quintessence]

Also, I'm reminded of another thing that was more or less deliberately killed off by capitalists because it isn't profitable enough, and that's the appropriate technology movement.

About – The National Center for Appropriate Technology

www.ncat.org

And I'm reminded of another another thing that was also deliberately killed off by capitalists because it isn't profitable to the right people.

If the first solar entrepreneur hadn’t been kidnapped, would fossil fuels have dominated the 20th century the way they did?

The 1909 incident may have cost the industry decades of progress – and the planet huge amounts of damaging carbon emissions.

theconversation.com

 

[Little Dragon]

We probably shouldn't be here then, if we can't survive in the wild.

Humans are highly adaptive generalists, for which their problem solving skills have mostly evolved around. They have colonized every type of ecology and climate on their planet. Not bad.

 

[Quintessence]

Humans are highly adaptive generalists, for which their problem solving skills have mostly evolved around. They have colonized every type of ecology and climate on their planet. Not bad.

Technically not quite true - humans tend to forget the oceans exist. There is no meaningful colonization of humans into the ocean, especially when we get off the continental shelf. Oh, and high altitudes for somewhat similar reasons - can't breathe there. Oh, and sulfur pools. And brine pools. Okay... gah... there's actually more exceptions than I thought now that I'm actually thinking about this... because humans are not extremophiles. The organism type that has actually colonized everything are our single-celled friends that humans tend to forget about even more than the oceans... haha.

 

[Little Dragon]

Technically not quite true - humans tend to forget the oceans exist.

True...however humans do live on the surface of a frozen ocean. The Arctic. If you want to get technical.

 

[MikeF]

True...however humans do live on the surface of a frozen ocean. The Arctic. If you want to get technical.

And in submarines and off-shore oil rigs.

 

[Valjean]

I, for one, am quite pleased that humanity has moved beyond the level of animistic hunter/gatherer. I like having ever increasing understanding of how the Cosmos works as opposed to living in ignorance and fear where fear is not warranted. Additionally, with current levels of understanding, I can always choose to live a hunter/gatherer lifestyle if that suits, as opposed to it being the only available option.

Yes. A small number of us are quite clever in deciphering Reality, but we retain a hunter-gatherer psychology. This never selected for future planning or analysis. We're programmed for short-term advantage. Short-term profit + technology = environmental destruction.

 

[Valjean]

There is no mass extinction event taking place right now.

There has been tremendous progress made in the world in terms of worker rights, women’s rights, quality of living conditions, quality of life, peace between neighbors, and so on.

Apples and oranges. Short-term human advantage comes at a cost to all the other life on the planed and, ultimately, yo ourselves.

 

[Valjean]

I agree that my suggestion one can simply choose to live the hunter/gatherer lifestyle was somewhat glib. I suppose it comes down to how hard core one wishes to be and if they are willing to relocate. On the softer end, it seems that one might be able to manage in some acreage of woodland. If they purchased the required acreage they could set themselves up. I don't know how many acres are required to support one person in such a lifestyle in addition to their being some way to meet real estate tax obligations. I assume most of the wilderness areas in the US and Canada are federally owned and their would be restrictions on hunting and fishing, yet it is allowed. I think one might be able to skirt the law if they kept a low profile. Perhaps the Brazilian rainforest could work.

The other issue would be potential competition for open space if this lifestyle caught on somehow and millions of folks wanted to adopt it. It could never work if everyone wanted to go hunter/gatherer.

Depending on the type of terrain, a sustainable, hunting-gathering lifestyle usually requires hundreds of square Km, and frequent migration, to sustain a band of fifteen or twenty persons. It was horticulture, and, later, agriculture and pastoralism that enabled our population increase. Of course, the terrain and resources necessary to sustain a population of two or three billion hominins is going to stress the ecosystem all the other creatures depend on.

 

[Valjean]

That would be news to me. In what ways can human beings break the laws of nature?

That depends on what one means by the laws of nature.

 

[Valjean]

If you mean that we can manipulate natural processes, I agree. And where did we get that capacity? Nature. All points to nature. Again, I don't espouse this thinking, but it is the reality of a naturalist view, and seems to bear on the scenarios in this thread.

Nature is not an unmitigated good. It has no goal or intention. Bubonic plague, tornadoes, earthquakes and famine are all perfectly natural.

 

[MikeF]

That depends on what one means by the laws of nature.

Yes, laws of nature is a terrible phrase. I try and avoid it but sometimes slip. How does physical laws sound?

 

[Valjean]

Humans are highly adaptive generalists, for which their problem solving skills have mostly evolved around. They have colonized every type of ecology and climate on their planet. Not bad.

Not bad for what? Pathogens frequently colonize and exploit every organ and tissue in their host organisms, too; good for the pathogens, in the short run. Bad for the host.
Our cleverness, ability to exploit, and natural, short-term orientation, enable our current, epidemic proliferation -- and the rapid collapse of our host.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, there is. Biodiversity worldwide is crashing, as a direct result of human activity. This has been known to the relevant expert for some decades now. It was honestly depressing to learn about all of this in more detail during grad school, because I pursued higher education in sciences out of love of the greater-than-human world. Then, over and over, paper after paper, confronting us nature lovers with the dire state of ecosystems and biodiversity worldwide. Honestly? While I'm going to throw a paper to read in your direction, please feel free to stay ignorant about all of this and remain in denial of what is happening. Because the truth really, really, really bloody sucks.

World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice

Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the

academic.oup.com

There has. At tremendous cost, unfortunately, that is too often ignored and that check is already coming due. Humanity needs to stop ignoring its impacts on the environment or it will undercut literally all of these gains you talk about here in a few generations.

If things are reversible then it’s not a mass extinction.

Also, do you prefer slavery? No plumbing. No modern medicine?

 

[Watchmen]

Apples and oranges. Short-term human advantage comes at a cost to all the other life on the planed and, ultimately, yo ourselves.

Same question. You prefer slavery, no plumbing and no medicine?