There is no such thing as polluting substances, only an accumulation of those. The problem lies in the fact that our technological process graph has too many sinks leading to an accumulation of 'dead-end' by-products. There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
Contrast this with current ecological recommendations: they boil down to reducing the production rate of such substances, which can only asymptotically delay the looming apocalypse.
> There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
It is actually recent earth's biosphere with its many negative feedback loops which is the exception here. Earth could have turned into a Venus or Mars if conditions were just slightly different, and it almost did several times.
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Life never appeared on Venus or Mars as far as we know.
The question I want to ask is: why is there almost no existential pollution problems in nature ? Why does the way civilization lays out its own process graph lends itself so easily to dead ends ?
There is no such thing as polluting substances, only an accumulation of those. The problem lies in the fact that our technological process graph has too many sinks leading to an accumulation of 'dead-end' by-products. There is almost never such occurrences in nature, and when it does (great oxygenation event), the system manages to circle it back into the process graph.
Contrast this with current ecological recommendations: they boil down to reducing the production rate of such substances, which can only asymptotically delay the looming apocalypse.