6th mass extinction event
Discussion
Risonax said:
Caddyshack said:
105.4 said:
Scarletpimpofnel said:
This is overdue. I'd always assumed we'd experience a massive increase in solar radiation with much genetic damage/mutation/evolution happening at that time but it seems (or so I read) that the poles simply rotate around the world so the magnetic field is still there giving protection.
So will the pole flip actually cause any issue for life on earth (or electronics in space) etc?
I’ve been meaning to start a thread about that for quite some time.So will the pole flip actually cause any issue for life on earth (or electronics in space) etc?
The only issue is that unless it’s in NP&E, the thread will likely get little traction, if it did it would be spoilt by the usual a
holes, and I know so little about the subject matter that I wouldn’t be able to meaningfully contribute.From what little I do understand, the North Pole is taking a rapidly brisk jog eastwards, whilst the South Pole remains reasonably stable. Eventually they’ll come a point where things go very badly wrong, very quickly, (as in just a couple of weeks or less).
Again, based upon what little I understand, it would be a rapid “mass extinction event”.
The Suspicious Observers YouTube channel has quite a lot of decent information about this, including links to many peer reviewed scientific studies.
Frightening stuff tbh.
1. Bloke with one bullet pushing a rusty Asda shopping trolley
2. Old man with bin bags for shoes, uttering death is a treat
3. Cannibal with a truck
4. Someone's next meal
Kawasicki said:
Ok, that is possible. Sorry for misquoting you.
It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Extinction of large animals has a massive impact on ecosystems. My key point is that even if humanity had disappeared 500 years ago, a huge amount of damage had already been done. I'm not really why sure the banned poster is downplaying it, given it largely supports his point. It would take many millions of years for those extinct animals to be replaced. Life of course would go in, but nature would be wounded and the world would still bear the scars of humanity for millions of years.It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Coming to the present, damage is of course accelerating. And humanity is still the main driver of a decline in megafauna. Obviously there are other modes of damage, pollution, deforestation, but humanity's inability to prevent extinction of large animals even today, is a decent proxy for our incompetence. But of course there are positives. Reintroduction of wolves to yellowstone is a famous example, of how a single large species can transform an ecosystem. But net, the trend is down.
Which doesn't really bode well for humanity making intelligent decisions to protect it's own future. Much like climate change, the wealthy will be largely insulated from the direct impacts, but continue to make the most impactful decisions.
lizardbrain said:
Kawasicki said:
Ok, that is possible. Sorry for misquoting you.
It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Extinction of large animals has a massive impact on ecosystems. My key point is that even if humanity had disappeared 500 years ago, a huge amount of damage had already been done. I'm not really why sure the banned poster is downplaying it, given it largely supports his point. It would take many millions of years for those extinct animals to be replaced. Life of course would go in, but nature would be wounded and the world would still bear the scars of humanity for millions of years.It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Coming to the present, damage is of course accelerating. And humanity is still the main driver of a decline in megafauna. Obviously there are other modes of damage, pollution, deforestation, but humanity's inability to prevent extinction of large animals even today, is a decent proxy for our incompetence. But of course there are positives. Reintroduction of wolves to yellowstone is a famous example, of how a single large species can transform an ecosystem. But net, the trend is down.
Which doesn't really bode well for humanity making intelligent decisions to protect it's own future. Much like climate change, the wealthy will be largely insulated from the direct impacts, but continue to make the most impactful decisions.
We have now evolved/developed to the point that we don’t normally struggle to find food. So we now have options that mean we don’t have to drive animals to extinction, so we should - and usually do - try to conserve biodiversity.
Kawasicki said:
lizardbrain said:
Kawasicki said:
Ok, that is possible. Sorry for misquoting you.
It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Extinction of large animals has a massive impact on ecosystems. My key point is that even if humanity had disappeared 500 years ago, a huge amount of damage had already been done. I'm not really why sure the banned poster is downplaying it, given it largely supports his point. It would take many millions of years for those extinct animals to be replaced. Life of course would go in, but nature would be wounded and the world would still bear the scars of humanity for millions of years.It’s an interesting discussion. Should we be concerned that humans hunted various large animals to extinction? It’s clearly in our nature, we evolved to do so.
Coming to the present, damage is of course accelerating. And humanity is still the main driver of a decline in megafauna. Obviously there are other modes of damage, pollution, deforestation, but humanity's inability to prevent extinction of large animals even today, is a decent proxy for our incompetence. But of course there are positives. Reintroduction of wolves to yellowstone is a famous example, of how a single large species can transform an ecosystem. But net, the trend is down.
Which doesn't really bode well for humanity making intelligent decisions to protect it's own future. Much like climate change, the wealthy will be largely insulated from the direct impacts, but continue to make the most impactful decisions.
We have now evolved/developed to the point that we don’t normally struggle to find food. So we now have options that mean we don’t have to drive animals to extinction, so we should - and usually do - try to conserve biodiversity.
The fact that shook me is that human made objects (cars, buildings, roads, etc) now have a higher mass than the natural biosphere (trees, animals, etc).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3010-5
In 1900 human stuff was about 1%.
There are people who still claim that humans don’t have much influence on the planet
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3010-5
In 1900 human stuff was about 1%.
There are people who still claim that humans don’t have much influence on the planet
I understand that sections of the Ganges are drying up due to how much water humans are pulling out for irrigation.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Caddyshack said:
I understand that sections of the Ganges are drying up due to how much water humans are pulling out for irrigation.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Have you seen the Pacific Ocean? It’s big.We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Kawasicki said:
Caddyshack said:
I understand that sections of the Ganges are drying up due to how much water humans are pulling out for irrigation.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Have you seen the Pacific Ocean? It’s big.We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Kawasicki said:
Caddyshack said:
I understand that sections of the Ganges are drying up due to how much water humans are pulling out for irrigation.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Have you seen the Pacific Ocean? It’s big.We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
FourWheelDrift said:
Kawasicki said:
Caddyshack said:
I understand that sections of the Ganges are drying up due to how much water humans are pulling out for irrigation.
We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
Have you seen the Pacific Ocean? It’s big.We know that humans are made up of a high percentage of water and the amount of water in the world is a fixed amount, we drink the same water that the Dinosaurs drank…therefore, eventually, we will hit a point of population where the water controls the numbers.
De salinated is not a simple solution to the issue.
Only pure water evaporates so the eco system can provide but if the water does not make it back to the sea then you would end up with a heavily rich soup of minerals and would the sea creatures adapt to that?
Caddyshack said:
Fresh water, not salt water…there is a massive difference.
De salinated is not a simple solution to the issue.
Only pure water evaporates so the eco system can provide but if the water does not make it back to the sea then you would end up with a heavily rich soup of minerals and would the sea creatures adapt to that?
A warming earth means more precipitation, more fresh water. As long as we can avoid an ice age we will be fine.De salinated is not a simple solution to the issue.
Only pure water evaporates so the eco system can provide but if the water does not make it back to the sea then you would end up with a heavily rich soup of minerals and would the sea creatures adapt to that?
Mr. Potato Head said:
Kawasicki said:
It's clear that a considerable, and growing, number of people see mankind as a plague on earth.
It's an insincere platitude. If they truly believed it they would and should kill themselves.Kawasicki said:
I don’t think you can call the outcome of evolution “damage“. We contributed to the extinction of some megafauna. That’s not damaging nature, that just is nature.
We have now evolved/developed to the point that we don’t normally struggle to find food. So we now have options that mean we don’t have to drive animals to extinction, so we should - and usually do - try to conserve biodiversity.
I guess it depends on far you zoom out.We have now evolved/developed to the point that we don’t normally struggle to find food. So we now have options that mean we don’t have to drive animals to extinction, so we should - and usually do - try to conserve biodiversity.
If you want to talk million years, yes of course. Asteroids clearing out dinos cleared the way for some interesting evolutions such as humanity. And humanity is a kind of asteroid itself that might carve out space for some unimaginable evolutions.
However for millions of years after the asteroid hit, the world must have been a miserable place. And nature takes a long time to heal from this 'damage'.
So in terms of humanity, that something will grow back in a million years is not a huge amount of comfort. It's quite within our power to conserve biodiversity and halt the 'damage' to make nature healthier in teh short term
You say we usually do conserve it, but that's not true on balance. Net, the trend is steeply down, we destroy much more than we save . And ecosystems will become increasingly more fragile.
kerplunk said:
Mr. Potato Head said:
Kawasicki said:
It's clear that a considerable, and growing, number of people see mankind as a plague on earth.
It's an insincere platitude. If they truly believed it they would and should kill themselves.You really are a bunch of loons. You talk about the earth as if it's something we understand at all, not to mention it's history. Long after we are dead it'll be happily orbiting as it has done for millions and millions of years, and you, my little tin foil hat brigade will not only be dead, but irrelevant 
carlo996 said:
You really are a bunch of loons. You talk about the earth as if it's something we understand at all, not to mention it's history. Long after we are dead it'll be happily orbiting as it has done for millions and millions of years, and you, my little tin foil hat brigade will not only be dead, but irrelevant
Looks like you have some understanding about the earth and it's historyEdited by kerplunk on Tuesday 28th November 09:40
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff