Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 11th, 2020, 5:36 am

arjand wrote:Question: What could explain a potential collapse of nature on Earth?

Answer: The presence of a species of Great Ape whose individuals are relatively large but whose population is vastly, vastly greater than the populations of other species of comparable individual size. 7+ billion, and growing. The number of babies born to this species every single day is greater than the total extant population, of all ages, of all the other Great Apes combined. That's just the number of babies born every day. I think it's worth thinking about that to get a sense of how truly vast the human population of the planet is.

I think the simple fact of population numbers is that we will drive to extinction most other species unless they are deemed useful to us in some way. I don't think anything serious will be done about this. The only way I can think of to look on the bright side of that is to remember that eventually, one way or another, everything is going to go extinct anyway. Maybe the mere fact that they at least existed once is enough, regardless of how long they lived for. Maybe.

You make a good point Steve, “ one way or another, everything is going to go extinct anyway.”! When our own Sun goes supernova and the Earth is consumed and becomes a burnt and barren rock, will it matter that at one time in history, life thrived there? That event may seem like a long way off into the future, but then again, it took 13.7 billion years before I appeared on the planet and from my point of view, that time went by very quickly!

Present awareness wrote:You make a good point Steve, “ one way or another, everything is going to go extinct anyway.”! When our own Sun goes supernova and the Earth is consumed and becomes a burnt and barren rock, will it matter that at one time in history, life thrived there? That event may seem like a long way off into the future, but then again, it took 13.7 billion years before I appeared on the planet and from my point of view, that time went by very quickly!

Thanks, but I was kinda hoping someone would shoot my idea down! . It seems to me akin to the idea that there's no point getting up and dressed because I'll only have to get undressed and go back to bed again tonight. The apathetics' manifesto. Hopefully some other people in the world are less apathetic than I was being on this subject!

No, you're trying to draw me into an argument about details, thus losing the main point under discussion, and descending instead into trivia (your usual MO). The 'point' here is huge, and I did say that insects are just one example (symptom) of a very big problem. Opposing your highly-focussed detail criticism of my tiny example is not appropriate to considering the whole issue. So, if you don't mind, I won't bother.

Dwindling water resources and the inability of our soil to carry on supporting crops - perhaps after pollinating insects are no more? - are surely enough to occupy us? Then there's air quality, logging, plastics in the land, water and air across the globe, bush fires and other events related to extreme weather conditions, the list seems to go on forever. There's no logic in getting bogged down in a detail of a detail, is there?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 6:17 am No, you're trying to draw me into an argument about details, thus losing the main point under discussion, and descending instead into trivia (your usual MO). The 'point' here is huge, and I did say that insects are just one example (symptom) of a very big problem. Opposing your highly-focussed detail criticism of my tiny example is not appropriate to considering the whole issue. So, if you don't mind, I won't bother.

Dwindling water resources and the inability of our soil to carry on supporting crops - perhaps after pollinating insects are no more? - are surely enough to occupy us? Then there's air quality, logging, plastics in the land, water and air across the globe, bush fires and other events related to extreme weather conditions, the list seems to go on forever. There's no logic in getting bogged down in a detail of a detail, is there?

Ooops! Many apologies! I didn't make it clear who I was replying to. I was responding to this:

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 4:03 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 11:43 am Insects, as a whole, have never become extinct before. Individual species have, for sure, but not all of them. So there are no useful comparisons to be done. And this is just an example. Climate change is another one, perhaps the most serious. And then there's overpopulation.... There seems little justification for a denier's viewpoint.

What you'd need to do in order for this to work as a response to my post is to argue against: "Wait--we can't do that very well because the data isn't easy to come by, as we have to rely on fossil records."

Pattern-chaser wrote:No, you're trying to draw me into an argument about details, thus losing the main point under discussion, and descending instead into trivia (your usual MO)

Yes, he (Terrapin) does tend to do that a lot doesn't he? I've noticed it myself. He pulls a single sentence out of a relatively long post and won't discuss anything other than that sentence. But he's not the only one who does it. I suppose a beneficial effect of it might be to keep posts short and single-point. Out of interest, if there was some kind of rule whereby no post was allowed to consist of more than one sentence, and each sentence was allowed to make only one point, I wonder it that would help communication.

I suppose what I'm describing is, essentially, Twitter. Perhaps not then!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 6:17 am No, you're trying to draw me into an argument about details, thus losing the main point under discussion, and descending instead into trivia (your usual MO). The 'point' here is huge, and I did say that insects are just one example (symptom) of a very big problem. Opposing your highly-focussed detail criticism of my tiny example is not appropriate to considering the whole issue. So, if you don't mind, I won't bother.

Dwindling water resources and the inability of our soil to carry on supporting crops - perhaps after pollinating insects are no more? - are surely enough to occupy us? Then there's air quality, logging, plastics in the land, water and air across the globe, bush fires and other events related to extreme weather conditions, the list seems to go on forever. There's no logic in getting bogged down in a detail of a detail, is there?

In other words, you're appealing to a narrative that isn't actually supportable. It's not supportable because we don't actually have good enough data for it.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 8:23 am In other words, you're appealing to a narrative that isn't actually supportable. It's not supportable because we don't actually have good enough data for it.

If, by "supportable", you mean verifiable, I have to agree. The magnitude of our peril cannot be verified with any accuracy. But is it worth the risk, when the consequences are so dire? ...and the scientific evidence is so indicative (but no more than that) of disaster?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 6:43 am Out of interest, if there was some kind of rule whereby no post was allowed to consist of more than one sentence, and each sentence was allowed to make only one point, I wonder it that would help communication.

Yes. Haiku poets swear that the stringent limitation on syllables enhances poetic creativity, so maybe the same might apply?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 1:03 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 8:23 am In other words, you're appealing to a narrative that isn't actually supportable. It's not supportable because we don't actually have good enough data for it.

If, by "supportable", you mean verifiable, I have to agree. The magnitude of our peril cannot be verified with any accuracy. But is it worth the risk, when the consequences are so dire? ...and the scientific evidence is so indicative (but no more than that) of disaster?

Not really verifiable. Just good reasons to believe something--good enough evidence to support a claim.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑February 24th, 2020, 6:47 pm Just good reasons to believe something--good enough evidence to support a claim.

And the existing science, concerning the climate and the environment, is not what you describe above? The science is as close as science can get to confirming that we are in a very serious position. How much more do you want before you will stop quibbling about the existence of this problem, and join together with the rest of humanity to try to do something about it, before it's too late?

As it appears, even letting (millions of) animals go extinct isn't considered a problem for many people.

The problem is clearly a philosophical question. Why should there be respect for animals (or Nature)? Why does it matter if millions of animals go extinct?

The ability to consider animals and insects purposeless, beyond their potential use to humans, may be the core of the problem.

The Amazon rainforest is expected to be gone in decades.

The Amazon rainforest is nearing a threshold which, once crossed, would see one of the world's largest and richest ecosystems morph into arid savannah within decades, scientists said.

The Amazon ecosystem could pass a point-of-no-return as soon as next year, Willcock and colleagues reported.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00508-4
https://earther.gizmodo.com/ecosystems- ... 1842241699

I also noticed an article related to current politics in Brazil (a country almost the same size as the USA), that noted that a large part of the rainforest will be burned in the next years to unlock its industrial treasures.

In burning the Brazilian Amazon, the future of humanity is put at risk
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -bolsonaro

Indigenous People of the Amazon rainforest may be Earth's Last Hope

Brazil's divisive President has taken another step in his bold plans to develop the Amazon rainforest.

A bill he is sponsoring, now before Congress, will allow transportation infrastructure to be built on indigenous territory. Such lands cover 386,000 square miles of the Brazilian Amazon — one-fifth of the jungle.

Brazil's president has long seen protected indigenous land as a treasure trove of resources. In 2015 then-Congressman Bolsonaro told the newspaper Campo Grande News that "gold, tin and magnesium are in these lands, especially in the Amazon, the richest area in the world."

"I'm not getting into this nonsense of defending land for the Indians," he added.

A Brazilian general who last year served on the board of the Canadian mining giant Belo Sun leads Brazil's federal agency for indigenous peoples.

https://www.ecowatch.com/indigenous-peo ... 27056.html

And, I read this morning, all this might come to pass a lot more quickly than we think. The Amazon rain forest, for example, could be gone in 50 years.

Link

arjand wrote: ↑March 11th, 2020, 10:22 am The Amazon rainforest is expected to be gone in decades.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to repeat or diminish what you already posted. I just wanted to add a link to the article I read.

The Caribbean coral reefs could collapse in only 15 years.

Some articles mention that the rainforest will be gone by 2050. The industrial development of the rainforest by Brazil started in 2019 (the president is in office since January 2019) which may speed up the deforestation.
The question is: at what state would the forest be considered gone? When all land is officially classified as desert or maybe when half of it is gone while the remainder is unhealthy? The latter was already estimated to occur by 2050 in 2010, before it was known that the rainforest was to be industrially developed.