For sure.
But tbf it's still a bold assumption that afte only a million years biodiversity would rebound to the point to support (mega)fauna like that again.
Hoping for the best.
Actually the fauna comes back really quick. After only a hundred years when nothing is maintenaned the plants will cover most of our infrastructure.
After probably 500 years most constructions are probably only hills.
No, not extinct species.
I don't believe we will leave isolated, big, and diverse oasis of specimens to just repopulate vacant areas.
We are well into a huge (and particularly very fast) mass extinction event, sure only a few headline megafauna species get press coverage, but the amount of invertebrates alone that go extinct and in contrast a single or a few species temporary takes its place in turn expediting the imbalance levels & collapsing entire ecosystems is staggering.
Insect die offs really scare me, so many fruits and plants are pollinated by them, or things just up the food chain from them. Then I just can’t help imagining a chain of collapse from there.
I think humans will be the last living things to go unless we engineer our own extinction early.
I think humans will be the last living things to go unless we engineer our own extinction early.
Evolution happens as long as there is life. Unless we turn the planet surface into a giant ball of lava, it is impossible to kill all life and it will continue without us. Even if there is only bacteria left after we go, they will simply evolve into complex life all over again, in fact it's not the first time that has happened. In the grand scheme of what life has withstood on this planet, humans are a speed bump at best.
Yes, debates don't really center on the issue of sterilizing the whole planet (fyi there are deep-rock bacteria everywhere so "just" molten surface isn't enough), but rather on the loss we are causing.
Ie ending species that without us would have no issue evolving & continuing to be part of the ecosystems.
Also from bacterial life to complex fauna its easily a billion years (+/- a lot).
Ie ending species that without us would have no issue evolving & continuing to be part of the ecosystems.
That's not true though. Even the animals we've created, like cats and dogs, can live on just fine without us. As can most small and micro herbivores like mice, rabbits, certain songbirds, and most of the "pest" insects; as well as mesopredators (middle of the food chain predators) like foxes and the aforementioned cats and dogs. Plenty of plants are asexual and do not require external pollination, including many of the invasive plants that we can't kill despite our best efforts.
Actually, invasive species in general are a major counterexample. We've been trying to drive many of them to extinction, they are not going extinct. Australia is trying to kill feral cats, that's not working. The US spends billions on herbicides against invasive plants, that's not working and many argue that it's doing more harm to native plants in some cases than the invasive plants themselves. They also tried to kill European sparrows and starlings which are also not working. Same with fire ants. Same with invasive fish. Same with invasive seaweed and algae.
In fact, in environmental sciences which I majored in, there is increasing discussion on whether calling species "invasive" even makes sense. Humans are also part of the ecosystem and of "nature" despite us claiming to be the masters of it. We are subject to its laws just like all other life, so if a mite can hitch a ride on a bird across the ocean and that's considered natural migration, why shouldn't a mouse that hitches a ride on a human boat across the ocean be considered natural migration? There is no morality in nature, it just is and everything is fair game, so we really need not worry "for nature," we should be worrying for ourselves about losing our place in it by going extinct. Adapt or die, that's nature's one and only rule, so if we don't want to die we need to adapt and clean up our act basically.
Exactly. Plus the whole underwater portion of ecology we have basically no data on (yet it's of huge global importance). Scary, sad, infuriating stuff.
Unfortunately I too think that we will outlive our consequences for long enough to take a proper mass extinction event levels of biodiversity collapse with us.
But let's focus on the positive - biodiversity boom between mere 10 million years from now to like 50 or 100 million years from now (which in the scheme of things isn't that long, just very unnecessary that it will come to that for something like capital/amassing of power of one species over others of the same species).
We have maintained huge megafauna populations though, who are ready and able to take over the moment we go. Cows, sheep, and yes, horses like shown in the comic, are prime examples. We're also doing a damn good job of killing all their natural predators, namely wolves and big cats.
Horses have actually become an invasive species in some parts of the Americas and driving out native large herbivores. Ever heard of American wild horses? They're technically "feral horses" because they did not exist in this hemisphere before Europeans came.
You need only look at how our species treats one another, despite claiming to know better, to understand why. Endless styles of cruelty of the many by the few in the name of greed, gluttony, power lust, and schadenfreude. The few voices of sanity and compassion assassinated, mowed down, blacklisted, and threatened into contrition. Literally destroying civilization pumping carbon shit into the air, fully aware of what we're doing, to continue stoking the ego scores of a handful of sociopaths.
If you're proud of our species, good for you. Take the bliss, Cypher
I do think there's something positive about being the only species we know of with the intelligence and knowledge developed over generations to even realize these things and much such judgements. The plants that filled the atmosphere with oxygen killing almost everything couldn't know any better or do anything about it. Past species and humans before modern times changed their environments and caused extinctions without even knowing. And while we might not end up doing so, we do have the capabilities to do better.
I've thought about that and to me it makes it worse. We have glimmers of knowing better, of doing the right thing, just enough to demonstrate that we *can, * but 99 times out of 100 we don't.
You can't get angry at a lion for following it's genetic programming, it doesn't have the capacity for introspection about its nature. Its sentient, but not sapient. We can know better, with our cognitive abilities combined with tools of historical recording most of us do know better, but when presented the chance to take either our share of the pie with our brothers and sisters, or to take the whole pie and leave them hungry, we pick the latter like clockwork.
The tragedy is knowing that we have the capacity to be a great people that accomplishes wonders together, but we still choose to fight one another for the biggest banana pile like impulsive beasts almost every time throughout recorded history. We refuse to learn. We refuse to heed the lessons of history for longer than a single generation. We can glimpse enlightenment, but choose the easy dopamine hit. It's maddening.
Are the horses a million years old or did humans go extinct recently and are they being snarky about it?
They are paleontologist supersmart-horses, many generations after their ancestors killed the last human.
They are also in a dome, decorated with a picture of mountains and a blue sky, that they set up to protect themselves from the remaining of the recent nuclear war.
Ha ha, no. In a million years, mankind would have paved the entire planet's surface, including the oceans. Our numbers would be in the hundred billions and most will live underground. The few elites would live on the uppermost levels and even have real gardens and plants. Wildlife would be extinct, save for a few robotic simulacra in the Imperial Zoo. Ironically, you would have to go to the Outer Colonies to see some animals that are extinct on Terra.
the cyberpunk 2077 universe just keeps looking more and more plausible every day, down to the corporate decisions and design
An asteroid hit the earth and blanketed it in ash for ten thousand years, a force many times bigger than all the nukes humanity could ever hope to build, and life still thrived eons later. The Earth and nature doesn't need saving, we need saving.
Don't forget that we're still apart of the ecosystem and "nature" and subject to every single one of its laws, including the biggest one: adapt or die.
That's not even the worst one, before the dinosaurs a large volcano in What is now Siberia errupted, throwing Earth's climate into a catastrope, the oceans became stagnant and putrid, belching poisonous gases from anaerobic bacteria across the land and sea, an estimated 90% of all life on Earth was smothered by the event.
It's called the End Permian extinction and it's the closest life on earth has come to being snuffed out entirely. Though for some reason it's forgotten about a lot.
or getting booed, saw that happen once. I don't think i'll ever forget it. i literally came armed to my own wedding because No One was going to get away with booing at my wedding. But hey, to each their own insult.
•
The fact that you mixed elements of utopia and dystopia together makes it rather difficult to infer what opinion on the comic you're trying to convey
In a million years we'd have had a Dyson sphere for nearly a million years and colonized almost the entirety of the galaxy already.
We unfortunately wouldn't have colonized Andromeda quite yet though.
Any utopia first requires the basis of free energy. Dyson spheres are the start and the logical first outcome for any sufficiently advanced civilization. Fusion reactors being used as needed where we can't donate from the former.
The rest is all politics. The vast majority of people are good. When everyone isn't fighting for the same resources, the population of earth stabilizes in 2100 to about 11 billion people.
The growing pains until then through space colonies and terraformers will be admittedly rough though. Space radiation and the classism in that vacuum will be terrible for the poor and disenfranchised.
https://science8sc.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/2/7/132773018/milky-way-galaxy-light-years_orig.jpg
https://interestingengineering.com/science/what-would-it-take-to-create-a-dyson-sphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpcTJW4ur54
I believe it's more like a hundred thousand years for humans on earth to go extinct, and another nine hundred thousand to clean the traces.
Whatever comes after us will be a consequence of us. Sort of like how all our modern bird species are echoes of the giant lizards of the crestatous period.
The world will never be "clean" of humanity's traces. No more than it is clean of trilobites that gave us all this limestone or the carboniferous plants that gave us coal and oil.
The future will be whatever species are most fit to live in the world we have created.
Or a hundred (not thousand) to become transhuman and have every short living species forget we existed.
(my regards to SkyNet, StarlinkNet, The Matrix, or whatever)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Earth's new dominant life form
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
That's cute and all, but it ain't gonna be birds and deer who gets life off this rock once the Sun starts threatening to swallow it in a few billion years. We're screwing up badly in the short term, but we're the only hope Earth life has in the long term.
So? Death from old age is inevitable too, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop breathing or eating. All of life is just postponing the inevitable, but just because the inevitable is inevitable doesn't mean we should stop postponing.
If human beings were the only intelligent life in the universe, then the difference between being wiped out by the sun versus the heat death of the universe is so mind boggling big, that it beggars belief.
So many - near infinite - civilisations could come and go.
Perhaps one of them would find a way to endure.
Where did this heat death of the universe idea originate? First time I've heard of it here in this thread.
It came from Kelvin's work on thermodynamics in the 1850s, and has been refined by many scientists since then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
It's also the subject of a famous short story by Isaac Asimov: http://www.thelastquestion.net/
because I hated Reddit and this is rapidly becoming Reddit 2.0, just without spez
lmao this place is already worse than reddit. Somehow more reddit than reddit.
I recommend investing your time into a different instance and letting this one collapse.
Earth will become a molten blob in a few billion years... then over a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion times later...
Whatever lives on Earth in a billion years from now, if it spreads out, will have a few billion times more billions of years to live.
You're assuming an eternal universe (as opposed to, e.g., a big crunch), which seems likely given the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
Love seeing someone act like a smug know-it-all while being ignorant to a pretty basic concept in cosmology.
When the tectonic plates collide again to form another supercontinent, it will create enough heat to kill off most, if not all, mammals. And it will happen before the sun destroys everything, probably in around 250 million years or so.
The collision itself will generate heat. And a super continent with less water will also absorb more heat energy without having water near its center.
Mammals’ Time on Earth Is Half Over, Scientists Predict https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/science/future-earth-warming-mammal-extinction.html?unlocked_article_code=i-Vz9jIKNFOAz9W461kSfuXdwSaNLqY1OA6-RZUjsXXCFqdC3ZYi5fzATecJES9S5U55iemPY0VVELjOxBte3G2-M5XW3LZ5x0wuvCGDe85590sumzR9EYMPibkT_EUEnWQ65UT0fgYejXoFiqiwwLPaO5VtNWlz187tW6MRjycS3Q4iSAbvCHj4Ga9QI6WR-xod26K-0yKDaHB_iqod3s9o3MBh722dNZmHIUBcVwG_iJ-ocfLFLQFJrSs2kS0JihLKWpETwiCd9EcgcbwCh58HVCY1sN0wg-wX1ThT0TbY5CZCdDXsKwQYsG-F6efLTTF0aSaRxIudb1g9WoWdhmRF4NBChEigjxDOJO2NM2Y2&smid=nytcore-android-share
eh, birds are already very intelligent. one of the species wil probably end up creating technology at some point (assuming all humans die without ending all life on earth)
There is enough time for another intelligent species to evolve after us, the problem is that we've already used up all the easily accessible fossil fuels. That means they won't have the energy sources necessary to have an industrial revolution and will be stuck at a pre-industrial tech level forever (or rather until the oceans boil off).
•
Is that true? My understanding was that there's still plenty of coal, oil, etc, we just can't keep burning it cause of the greenhouse effect
There are still plenty of fossil fuels, but we've used up the deposits that are easily accessible with 1700s technology.
•
Ah, thanks. I guess our technology probably wouldn't be around by the time another species replaces us, but it'd be cool if they could just pick up where we left off technologically (of course, they'd have to make good choices to not end up like we did except way faster, and I don't have that much optimism lmao).
Then again, I wonder if there'd be new fossil fuel deposits by then. I mean, if the conditions were right and given enough time. I don't know a whole lot about how this all works, it's fun to think about though.
Then again again, maybe if they had no fossil fuels, they could sidestep the whole anthropogenic (pls don't bully my spelling, I have no idea) climate change problem. I'm sure it would take longer, but maybe they'd eventually figure out how to produce lots of energy without ruining the planet for themselves (or at least ruin it differently than we did). ¯\(°_o)/¯
I wonder if there’d be new fossil fuel deposits by then.
Probably not. Coal is basically trees that didn't rot, and the reason they didn't rot is that there were no microorganisms that could digest wood at the time. Between the evolution of wood and the evolution of organisms that could digest it, dead trees would just pile up on top of each other and sink into the ground under the weight of new layers of dead trees above them. Now that there are microorganisms that digest wood and dead trees rot away, new coal is not forming.
Oil does continue to form in some ocean areas where there is a layer of water without any oxygen on the ocean floor. Since these areas support no life, any organic remains that descend to the bottom (mostly plankton) remain unconsumed and eventually get buried and turn into oil. But it is a slow process. Estimating oil reserves is notoriously difficult, but it seems there's about as much left in the ground as we've burned in the last fifty years. So in other words, four billion years of oil formation gets you about a century or two of industry. Since the Sun is about halfway through its lifespan, that means the Earth can potentially create enough juice for one more industrial civilization like ours. That's assuming that those oil reserves are allowed to build up and don't just get used up piecemeal by smaller civilizations arising in the interim. And also assuming that that final civilization is even able to make use of that oil, which is much harder to handle than coal (extraction, refining, transportation, etc.), without using coal as a stepping stone. And also assuming that no anaerobic microorganisms evolve that can survive on the ocean floor without oxygen and consume those organic remains, which could put a stop to oil formation just like wood-eating microorganisms put a stop to coal formation. Yeah, that seems like a lot of ifs to me...
It's only recently been proven untrue... IIRC... because it apparently turns out crude oil is actually the poop of a particular ancient microbe that is still around and that's partially (along with Oil Fracking) why we still have fossil fuels and why a far future non-human civilization will have plenty of fossil fuels to work with.
You're right, though, we have 5x more fossil fuels than have been burnt since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we DO use the rest, the climate would be so unrecoverable that 99% of multicellular life will die, but even the most corrupt oil executive would be dead years before the last animal because most - especially the wealthiest - humans need agriculture to eat, and if shit hits the fan the poor outnumber the rich and the crop-killing pests outnumber the poor.
A thousand times this.
I've used this argument before arguing with hippies about "integrating with nature".
Any society that isn't on track to developing the science and engineering necessary for interstellar tavel is a dead end.
It's a tragic waste of human intelligence to keep making the same bamboo huts indefinetly.
So some noble savage can live their lives on repeat for hundreds or millenia, and that's somehow better than inventing an arc that can save every form of life on this unique Planet?
Bloody stupid hippy nonsense.
What makes life on another planet more worthwhile than life here? Also humans didn't take that long to evolve so there's plenty of opportunity for a successor to us to reach the stars in a way that causes less suffering. For that matter, we could have simply taken a couple hundred extra years to get there and reduced human suffering by like a thousandfold with a more equitable society. Bloody stupid capitalist nonsense.
there’s plenty of opportunity for a successor to us to reach the stars
No, there isn't. We've already used up all the easily accessible sources of fossil fuels, so whoever comes after us won't have the energy sources necessary to have an industrial revolution and will be stuck at a pre-industrial tech level forever.
Great! So they'll skip the fossil energy era and jump directly to renewables? We paved the path for them to avoiding another climate change.
We're having quite a bit of trouble making that transition even with the benefits of a couple centuries of fossil-fueled industry. I find the idea of jumping directly from horse-drawn wagons to wind turbines and solar panels rather implausible.
That’s right, if we kick the bucket, a new intelligent civilization would not have the resources to advance at our pace. They may figure out the atom, but they won’t have the resources to utilize their knowledge. Then there is the ever looming threat of a disaster, and these preindustrial civilizations will be wiped out with zero warning or preparation.
Also: what are the chances a species similar to us in intelligence will emerge again on this rock? I’m going to bet it’s pretty darn tiny.
We're not going to make it until the sun swallows the earth. If there's anything related to us left at that point then it wouldn't be recognisable to us.
Amen, all those movies where "All tech stops working, people learn to do things for themselves! Utopia acheived!" are garbage
As individuals, a lot of people are content to live a simple life of prosperity. They have a basic job, and a small family, and some basic luxuries - and they call it enough. Some people have a one-eyed focus on increasing their wealth throughout their lives; but not everyone is like that. People generally recognise that their lives are finite. Some try to aim for some kind of imaginary high-score in their life, and others just live a 'normal' life.
I'm now making an analogy. As a species, we can recognise that are time is finite; and we can choose to live that out in a stable simple prosperity, where we just look after our world (house) and get what we need for some basic luxuries, and be content. We could have a billion years of that. It's a very long time. Or... we could aim for endless growth. We could consume as much as possible, and always aim for more. As we run out of resources and livable habitat on Earth, we must look to interstellar travel and spread to other planets. I don't necessarily think that is a better choice.
When I was young, I use to think that humans needed to settle on other planets. But I don't think that any more. Partially because I learnt about special relativity, and decided that unless we're very very wrong about science so far, having connected colonies on other planets is not possible. But also because I realised that there is no intrinsic goal to spread human life as much as possible. There are other things of value. We don't need that particular goal. I also use to think that personal immortality would be a good thing. I don't really think that any more.
Until you find out unity with nature allows humans to transcend human form and ascend to a higher plane of existence. While technology fights a losing battle to compete with the universes slow entropy into darkness. Oops.
I call bullshit. You know why?
I literally had a dream that predicted the worst year of my life, 5 years in advance, by having a friendly dream character tell me I died and went to a dream afterlife.
The catch was that I am autistic and I acted and act much like I did when I was 10 years old, and that was reflected by me taking the form of the kid sidekick in the fictional world that I was trying to write a story about at the time. I was told I was adorable and intelligent-looking (I was not the smartest kid but I was well-read and paid attention to what was in my textbooks) and not particularly unlikeable, and all of that was because that dream afterlife was a place where your personality determined your appearance. Yet despite the fact that I did not look monstrous or untrustworthy and that people who died quickly realised that in the dream world people are exactly what they appear to be, I was warned people would discriminate against me anyway, and there was nothing I or my apparent dream friend could do; said dream friend told me they thought I at least deserved to know it would happen and to just try and enjoy eternity, since I would never wake up, but that it would be hard because people would hate me unfairly.
I woke up anyway. That's not why I call BS. I recorded that dream in a text file and I keep backups of all my unique files.
I'll finish editing this soon but my phone is at 2% battery...
Please do.
I will say, though, I don't really have any stakes in this argument especially when you consider my contribution to humanity will probably be dead end evolutionary branch responsible for creating higher order carbon based polymers.
5 years later, sure enough, everything I value became critic-repellant in the writing industry; "you have to grow up", "dark and edgy is realistic and realistic is mandatory", "escapism is evil", "children are spoiled little shits", etc.
I now am extremely certain the dream characters who talk to me are avatars of my unconscious. I know that sounds really weird and I have no proof, so believing me on that detail can be taken with a grain of salt. As for my sanity, if I was crazy, I'd be seeing or hearing my unconscious while awake, I swear this is just in dreams that this being talks to me and it gives advice like "don't worry about the average fictional character, they're just inanimate puppets, it's the ones who are people's favorite hats to wear that - like you - are important because some hats are helmets that keep the wearer alive" rather than "KiLl EvErYoNe It WiLl Be FuN!!!11!1!" so my best guess is my unconscious mind is trying to communicate with me on a level my conscious and subconscious mindstates can understand.
I damn well know there's more to dreams than they appear, that's WHY I call BS, because a year ago, a dream character that was the first character to appear in two different dreams of mine since ever, and I asked it "Is there really a dream afterlife?" and it said "No."
I also asked it in another dream to be sure, even broadening from "dream afterlife" to "any afterlife at all", this time using an old red landline telephone and voice contact. In a snooty french accent, it confirmed and warned me very strongly and angrily not to ask again. The only upside is it said it didn't know for sure whether it is possible to create an afterlife using technology and/or biology.
I'm sorry but unless someone builds one, there is no afterlife or ascension to another plane. I literally have the info directly from the source.
I think Harry DuBois just traveled to our reality to write this post after taking a large amount of "Magnesium"
I wish I was making this up or delusional or cynical. I want more than anything for souls to be immortal. I would have no problem living in my dreams forever, but I'm not the one who said it (or if my unconscious counts as being me, I'm not able to type a fediverse post using the part of my mind which is more aware of why there's no afterlife).
If anyone can post scientific evidence disproving how I've come to interpret what I experienced, I'm content to let that have the final say rather than make any attempt to dispute it. For now, I know it sounds insane but this is literally a Cassandra Truth, so at least recognise that I don't expect you to believe it's the truth, only to recognize that if ascending to the astral plane could be done, I would be persuing doing so at this very moment.
I'm sorry, but I know what happened between me and my unconscious mind, and I'm not just relying on my memories but also my now-decade old dream logs. I asked it for the honest truth. It said the truth is what I feared, death is not (yet?) followed by anything but oblivion.
To be fair, if you're not happy about that concept, neither am I because fuck the Atheists and screw the guy who wrote His Dark Materials. I'm just one poorly-recieved sci-fi writer, though, I never even got to go to university. I am not qualified or capable of building an afterlife, or determining whether souls are singular entities unto themselves or merely a process that our minds use as "the third rail of the subconscious train of thought", or testing if continuity of self across time is real or illusionary.
Aside from that, I will say one thing; I have never ingested hallucinogens, at least not to my knowledge, and I don't go to parties or have any IRL friends. So no, you don't get to say I'm high when the only way I got OUT of the maddening despair I experienced in 2017 was because my dreams helped pull me out of a complete mental breakdown. Fight me, I don't care if you think I'm telling the truth and I don't need you to believe your unconscious mind is somehow independently acting on your behalf, but don't fucking tell me I'm not sober when I've been completely sober of everything including tobacco and alcohol my entire life.
In the year one million and a half/
Humankind is enslaved by giraffes/
They will pay for all their misdeeds/
When the treetops are stripped of their leaves!
Of course, the year one million and a half is a mere 997,977 years from now. And 996,990 years from when they used the time machine.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
🎶 We are a fluke
of the universe.
We have no right to be here.
And whether we can hear it or not,
The universe
is laughing behind our backs. 🎶
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughin' as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you!
Do you think humans became extinct, transferred into computers, moved onto other corners of the universe, or became the horses?
Growing up, I wanted to believe humanity could become like the humans of the Federation.
The reality is, we are significantly morally inferior to the Ferengi.
The Ferengi became warp capable before they allowed women to wear clothes. I think you're underselling us.
Between climate change and nuclear proliferation, I think extinction is what I'd put my money on.
We have way too much hubris about how we're going about life. Acting like we own nature, and we aren't actually a part of the ecosystem. And we have an existential crisis with climate change on our hands, and we're basically doing fuck all about it.
In fact, we are increasing oil production in many places right now. Probably the dumbest thing people will look back on when there's no more oil and climate change is in full swing. Why didn't we try harder to change course when we had a chance?
Yeah I don't disagree. But people are also pretty adaptable, I think we can survive some pretty apocalyptic stuff. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything we can to stop climate change, I just think it's pretty likely at least two people will survive)
I'm reading a lot of variation about the minimum viable breeding population of humans from around 100 to over 1000, but no one says two.
Yeah inbreeding would be terrible. But anyway, I think it's likely some people could survive an apocalypse.
Humans have almost gone extinct several times in our history. What makes you think we are special? Species go extinct all the time, just not usually by their own hands.
I hope so badly that it's transferred into computers. We need to get there in the next few decades though or I'm gonna miss the boat. :-D
Reality doesn't include the ability to upload ourselves yet though, so I base my enthusiasm on what could be, rather than a cynical assessment of what is. You do you though.
Image Transcription:
A four-panel War and Peas comic.
The first panel shows two horse-like creatures standing in a field, munching on grass. Text in a yellow box at the top of the panel reads "One Million years from now...". Palm-like trees with yellow leaves and mountains are in the background. The creature on the left is brown and the creature on the right is grey. The text "Munch Munch" are over the brown creature.
The second panel shows the brown creature with its head raised up and a concerned look on its face, saying "Hey. Remember humans?"
The third panel shows the grey creature now with its head raised up, the background of nature has been replaced by an orange background, which is lighter in a circle around the area of the panel where the creature's head and speech bubble are. The grey creature is saying "No."
The fourth panel is a slightly zoomed in version of the first panel with the onomatopoeic munching text moved over the grey creature's head.
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜 We have a community! If you wish for us to transcribe something, want to help improve ease of use here on Lemmy, or just want to hang out with us, join us at !lemmy_scribes@lemmy.world!]
The sad thing is, if we want life as we know it (that includes horses happily munching on grass) to continue existing, humans are it's only shot.
It might be edgy and cool to wish humanity would go instinct, but with it, potentially all life will go instinct.
I mean not really once costal areas flood and the locations best for growing food change we will see massive issues with humanity surviving, the rest of the ecosystem would adapt, migrate and evolve to survive. Hell even chernobyl basically shows us even if we went the full nuclear option wildlife would bounce back better than before with just maybe shortened life expectancies. We are a lot more prone to die from changes than the wildlife on this planet is.
I think you're underestimating our ability to save our own asses through technology.
Even if all the soil for growing food goes to crap, we can just engineer food crops that can grow in that soil. Hell, NASA has a research project exploring how to grow crops in moon (Or maybe it was martian) soil. Humans are one of the most adaptable species, because if natural processes are too slow we can just augment it through our technological prowess.
Even if all the soil for growing food goes to crap, we can just engineer food crops that can grow in that soil.
It's not about soil going to crap its about the climate surrounding those areas changing. Moon and Mars experiments are about indoor climate controlled greenhouses which sure can be done anywhere but not at the scale needed for our current civilizations or to replace the agriculture infrastructure at scale we have now.
Short term, yes, no question. But long term (a million years and beyond) we look at different challenges life on earth will face.
It's a fact that it won't simply continue existing indefinitely. And definitely not in the diversity we know now. It's not likely for rabbits or another species to suddenly rise up to the task of inventing space travel. That would need way more time than what it takes for earth to be hit by an asteroid big enough so that life won't bounce back. The same goes for other types of mass extinction. Only humans have at least a slight chance to make life endure beyond earth.
I mean realistically even then we don't know for sure, it took humans and our ancestors a couple hundred thousand years to develop to to where we are at now. It's not to say any other of our closest relatives could end up on a similar path without us in the picture in a much more tropical climate as they are used too. The question is will the earth stabilize itself when we get to that point or will we take it out of balance so severely that it goes into run away warming like Venus ending all life.
Why shouldn't we care, though? Personally, I see no reason why we should not try to preserve life, especially when perhaps it's the only example of life there is.
Rationally, since we don't know whether there is a reason for anything, the only thing we can do is to insure that someone in the future will be able to find it. That chance is 0 if life stops existing altogether.
All Tomorrows mantelopes last cohearant thoughts after slowly losing their sapience with each generation.