Your right in the sense that there is nothing catastrophic from a the perspective of geological time. There have been mass extinctions before. The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us. There is nothing particularly magical about the environment we want to live in, other than it happens to be about what it would be now if not for recent human actions. Unfortunately, those actions didn't just change the system, they re-introduced raw materials that have previously been removed from the system. There is no reason to believe that the new equilibrium is the same as the old one.
An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. For billions of years it has been using up the planets supply of carbon and trapping it in what is now called fossil fuels. If this continues unchecked, we will run out of available carbon and life on this planet will die off. Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment.
If only we had a large number of planets at varying stages of having life (including being long dead).
> The problem is that we would like to continue living in an environment similar to what we evolved in, and we would like to continue to have large amounts of bio-diversity and biological services available on a timeline that is useful to us.
I'm adept of the view that the environment influences the organisms as much as organisms influence their environment, or rather that there isn't a clear distinction between environment and the organisms in it [1].
It should be an unrealistic notion to have living human beings and expect the environment to stay the same as before humans [2]. Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes. These events are what push back on our species, and we are expected to either adapt (be it consciously, with counter-measures, or by accident) or die altogether.
> An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. (...) Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment.
This is indeed an interesting perspective, which I subscribe too, and aligns well with the Gaia theory.
"Events like increased CO2 levels in the ocean should be seen as the way things are, rather than one-off catastrophes."
This is a false dichotomy. Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens. I'm not saying an extinction event, but it could be a catastrophic event.
In other words, taking the long view here (as you're doing) is way too abstract in this case. There will be real costs to change of this magnitude.
> Just because these events have happened regularly, on geological time scales, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a one-off catastrophe from the point of view of homo sapiens.
I agree. Without the environment pressuring us back though, what would keep us from dumping CO2 in the atmosphere forever, or at increasing rates? We wouldn't even be discussing this.
That's the whole point of my comment: why don't we see humans as a force of nature themselves, as opposed to the more popular view that nature is static and humans are supposed to leave it untouched.
I understand the idea you're putting forward -- you have in fact repeated it three times.
I think the idea is less novel than you seem to. And more to the point, I don't think it provides guidance.
In a situation where we have no expectation of linearity, waiting for significant pressure back from the environment (as you say, "it might not be as catastrophical as the article pictures it") may prove very foolish.
It is sort of incredible that on one post you admit to knowing little about the subject, and then on the next you make authoritative (albeit unsurprisingly asinine) arguments such as "it's unrealistic to expect the environment to stay the same, and we should just treat these events as normal and see if we adapt or go extinct."
I think it's pretty clear I'm giving my beliefs on the bigger picture (how we see human interaction with the environment), as a commentary on gizmo686's post, not providing any kind of guideline to the human race from my godly wisdom.
Would add more to the discussion if you elaborated on why you think it's foolish.
I agree with him : your belief that it's possible for humans to keep our environment constant over significant time frames is what's ridiculous.
You're turning around the argument. He's not suggesting anything insane, you are.
You're defending Disney reality (poor little animals ! We must help !) against the idea of evolution (adapt or die ? Can't adapt by the thousands ? Too bad). Guess which one is going to win in the real world, irrespective of what the entire human species decides to do ?
What do you consider "significant time frames"? 10 years, 1000 years, 100,000?
If human activity is destabilizing the environment (ie, we have burned an amount of carbon which is suspiciously congruent with the amount of excess carbon in the atmosphere/oceans) why is it unreasonable to expect human activities to provide a similar amount of stabilization, even if greater amounts exceed our grasp?
I gave you point because you asked the right question about the timeframe.
Consider it 12000-28000 years. Because this is timeframe between quite regular Ice Ages. And any tech-based civilization is wiped by serious icing event. Its inevitable. Thus it is not hypothetical global warming you shold be afraid of, but global cooling. And it is right about to start. Your grand-grand-grandson must get a skill of flintcnapping from you, not server administration, or stock brokerage, if ou want him live.
Everything in nature happens along exponential growth curves, so those years are meaningless. This means that not much appears to happen for long periods (few 100k years at most though), then suddenly exponential growth changes everything. As soon as the growth factor increases I would expect to see massive, unpredictable changes 5-10 generation lengths later, assuming a growth factor of 2.
> why is it unreasonable to expect human activities to provide a similar amount of stabilization, even if greater amounts exceed our grasp?
Because of thermodynamics. Given that you start from a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium (the earth is not, nor would it be desirable if it was), large sudden changes are par for the course, not an exception.
There is disagreement on whether it is even possible to halt the changes. You can certainly make the change turn out differently (does not mean better, just different). Thermodynamics takes it as an assumption that it is not (you cannot stabilize (ie. "cool") a gas by adding energy, no matter how large the amount, you can only let it expand into a larger area or bring it into contact with something much more stable than it is, and you'll destabilize the large thing in the process).
The causal problem here (in mathematical terms) is that while it is certainly true that "X" caused change "Y", and that Y is large, the absence of "X" would have lead to an equally large change "Z". Take for example the "3-body" phenomenon : Take the solar system. Move one 1kg rock in the asteroid belt (or almost anywhere else) 1 meter in any direction. Wait 10000 years. Look at the effect it had. Counterintuitively, planetary orbits will differ significantly as a result of that tiny movement. It won't take long for that rock to affect the paths of rocks near it through gravity. The change will grow, and before you know it it significantly affects the paths of the thousands of huge "temporary comets" that get catapulted out of the asteroid belt on a regular basis. A few of those will come close to a moon, and "slingshot" around them, significantly affecting the orbit of said moon, which will affect the path of the planet it's orbiting. Any small difference in orbit will build up over time into the positions and orbits of those planets and before you know it, nothing looks alike anymore.
Dude, climate always changes. But humans have nothing to influence it in any significant way.
All climate change research is paid by cunny people who create carbon quota trade market out of thin air, and seek political control in their own coutries.
Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating area of research.
It's amazing to me that people can believe, utterly, such obvious tripe. "All climate change research is paid by cunny people who create carbon quota trade market out of thin air, and seek political control in their own coutries."
An interesting corollary to this is the idea that the natural environment is itself unsustainable. For billions of years it has been using up the planets supply of carbon and trapping it in what is now called fossil fuels. If this continues unchecked, we will run out of available carbon and life on this planet will die off. Thankfully, we humans have averted this catastrophe by finding a way to recycle the formerly lost carbon and return it to the environment. If only we had a large number of planets at varying stages of having life (including being long dead).