For better or worse, we are currently in the midst of another mass extinction. It's something that will play out for generations as humans continue to modify the planet for our needs. We don't really know yet what the end result will look like. Our grand kids probably won't know either.
Just one example: somewhere around 1995 a nursery in California, most likely in Marin or the North Bay, imported some plants from Asia. What they didn't know at the time was the leaves of those plants were infected with the fungus-like organism Phytophthora ramorum. That organism would eventually escape and infect tanoak and coast live oak throughout central California. A few years later it was found in Oregon. That organism causes the disease called sudden oak death. While it is difficult to make predictions, the impact on oaks in California will likely be profound. One study predicted that 90% of the coast live oak and black oak in California will be dead within the next 50 years. Animals that use acorns from these species for food will probably experience a decline, and one could imagine further ripple effects throughout the ecosystem.
If you live or work in Silicon Valley, and you look to the west at the coast range, most of that green stuff that you are seeing on the mountains is coast live oak woodland. Now imagine 30%, 60%, 90% of those trees dead.
(The above information is based on a talk by Matteo Garbelotto, a plant pathologist at UC Berkeley.)
By the way, you may of heard of California's "golden hills"? Non-native annual grasses. Brought to California by the Spanish when they first explored the state. Over time, the non-native grasses crowded out most of California's native perennial grasses. If you had lived in California 700 years ago, many of the hills wouldn't be golden, they would have been tinged green.
The same thing happened to the American chestnut and various species of Elm. Around 100 years ago, the chestnut was the most common deciduous tree east of the Mississippi. The chestnut blight, an accidentally introduced Asian fungus that causes the bark to fall off, effectively wiped the species out in less than 40 years. Only suckers from ancient root stocks remain. As soon as a stem grows thick enough to support a thick bark, the fungus kills it.
During the second half of the 20th century, the Elm effectively became extinct in the wild, both in Europe and North America, due to the Elm disease.
More recently the Hemlock came under attack from the hemlock woolly adelgid, an accidentally introduced Asian insect. The next generation will not be able to imagine what a mature hemlock looked like.
I remember catching monarch butterfly caterpillars, as a child in New York, and keeping them with milkweed stems until they formed their chrysalis and eventually "hatched" as butterflies. Amazing.
We moved West eventually, and I've rarely seen monarchs since. I figured it was just because of the different habitat (no milkweed), but apparently it's not just that.
All insects are amazing in their own ways, but monarchs just have that extra curbside appeal to humans. Sad to hear they are in decline.
Regardless of the link-bait/fear-mongering at play in any environmental journalism these days... I have genuine concern about growing the impact of humans on the earth. It's hard to remain optimistic sometimes, even as a technology-positive person.
I'm starting to wonder seriously if we haven't already passed an inflection point in the wanton destruction of the environment from which we'll never fully recover. Someone please convince me we haven't broken our planet beyond its ability to carry us.
We already have. You think the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to go away by itself?
The only question is how long we're in for the ride. The most pessimistic but fact-based theories speculate thirty years before the increase in methane and CO2 emissions produces a 4+ degree increase in temperature and begins the truly profound changes that could result in the death of billions.
The rest is just speculation; depending on how big the exponential curve is (that's the problem with exponentials, small variations in the parameters have huge long-term impact), it's anywhere between 30 and 300 years.
Now, if we get the more drastic theories out of the way or if we pretend that the melting of the Siberian peat bogs won't matter (that is, nothing that I wrote about is particularly outrageous scientifically), then we're looking at 80 years before the ocean's Ph drops to the point where a substantial amount of molluscs simply die off because of their inability to incorporate calcium to their shells.
The thing is, the only thing that can save us at this point is incredible developments in energy technology (10x battery storage capacities, fusion power, more politically acceptable nuclear) coupled with a global reduction in per-capita consumption on a massive scale.
None of the superpowers in the world are willing to drop the current model of the consumer society, and fusion is, thus far, just a dream, so in most ways we're at the mercy of the climate now.
There is a very real possibility that we'll be the last generation before the Earth becomes a profoundly different, far less ecologically diverse, desert planet, at least as far as the tropics go.
Doom sells and fuels consumerism. The plane crash gets reported while thousands land safely unmentioned. Allow me to take a contrary tack. Humans are now in a position to find and divert a world ending impact event. The slope of progress has never been steeper and we survived the biggest threat, global nuclear war. We will prevail with quiet aplomb and all that will be deemed too uninteresting to be reported.
The phenomena of modern times are exponential in nature and difficult to predict, but past success is no guarantee of future survival. Nuclear war is peanuts compared to climate change; this is an issue several orders of magnitude worse.
According to our 95% accurate climate simulations, we can also use geoengineering and inject reflective particles into the stratosphere, Pinatubo style.
The scientific case for this is stronger than the case that climate change is caused by CO2, since we have multiple natural experiments rather than simply one (specifically, multiple large volcanos).
I'm in favor of pretty much anything that can help, but releaseing soot into the atmosphere isn't free, and particulate pollution impacts our health in many other ways, not to mention that the reduction of sunlight has some very well-known effects on plant life.
The awesome thing about climate engineering is it isn't even "we". It's "one guy who skips buying a new Global Express and spends that money doing it."
Why the focus on CO²? We're finding new potential disasters every other month.
There's really no telling what CO² will do to the planet, even though we can guesstimate the result. What about the jellyfish boom? The consequences for that are pretty straight forward. What about the immunization of various diseases? We're already resorting to burning crops and land.
I'm not concerned about the planet; I'm concerned about our continued presence on it, in a manner worth enjoying.
EDIT: Don't mistake me; I'm actually deeply concerned about the planet. But it, and life, will survive pretty much anything we could possibly do, and most things the universe at large could, too. Not us, though, and if we aren't around to appreciate this place, its continued support of life, while consolation, is only academically such.
Some geologists are starting to talk about the "Anthropocene", a new geological epoch characterized by the influence of humanity on the planet. The idea being that humans are having such a huge effect on the environment that it is the beginning of a new epoch.
As a geologist, the most astounding part of this is that humans have become a (and in some cases, "the") major player in a lot of natural processes. That's the basis for calling the industrialized era the Anthropocene.
Humans are now the primary "shapers" of the earth (e.g. [1]).
We likely move more sediment than natural processes. More than glaciers. More than rivers.
For me, that's simply mind-blowing.
[1] Hooke, R. L. (1994). On the efficacy of humans as geomorphic agents. GSA Today, 4(9), 217.
Wait until we start becoming a Type II civilization on the Kardashev scale and start exploiting the resources of the entire solar system. What sort of epoch will that be?
Assuming we don't get wiped by the apocalypse of our own making...
I don't see us colonizing other planets, the timescale required for us to start colonizing other planets, is probably hundreds of years with presumed prosperity (you don't see African countries launching that many spacecraft). We are looking at 50-100 years of prosperity at best, assuming we get out of the financial crisis.
That is incredibly pessimistic. We shouldn't be figuring out how to cut back and be austere, we should be making smart bets that will pay off big in the future. The libertarians are dangerous this way.
I don't think it's austerity, as much as learning to be considerate. And using almost literal "scorched earth" approach with RoundUp isn't considerate.
Also, please don't confuse my thoughts on ecology, with thoughts on economy.
I have long worried about this. Apparently the fish populations in some areas are past this point already, the African rhino is now near or officially extinct, tigers and lion populations are in danger too.
Sorry, If we didn't get there yet I think our "destruction inertia" is too big to stop on time for this environment that currently exists.
I bet you that every single one of us here that like outdoors and are 20+ can remember some animal that we can't find anymore as easy as we used to. That must means something! I am not sure what, but it doesn't look good.
For me the marker are sea horses. I been diving since very young and I can remember seeing them close to the south of my country like a pest. Several at once. Now it's been more than 10 years since I saw the last one.
The thing is... Humans will survive. Nature made us way to good at that. The problem is that we will probably be living in a blue and green empty desert.
Another point it that Earth will also survive us... So in the long run, Life as a entity is mostly safe. We are just going to be another event of mass extinction in the history of this planet. Evolution must be so proud :D
"Another point it that Earth will also survive us... So in the long run, Life as a entity is mostly safe. We are just going to be another event of mass extinction in the history of this planet. Evolution must be so proud "
A couple of million years is piss from the planets point of view. And in those millions of years we will evolve (despite what certain religions say). Even the mass extinction of the dinosaurs resulted in birds (among other things). We are all part of this world. And life goes on. No matter what.
The question is what will our impact have on a future us? What will life be like say in 10,000 years? Hell, even 5,000 years?
> "And in those millions of years we will evolve (despite what certain religions say)."
It is possible that we will do much more than just evolve. Normally organisms change over extremely long periods of time through 'natural' processes but humans uniquely have insight into the mechanism of how this happens. We may, in the future, develop the ability (and desire) to take things into our own hands.
Just starting it out nice and slow, we could 'finish the job' in a few cases. Knock out wisdom teeth once and for all (somewhere between 9 and 30% of people are missing some or all of them anyway). No real reason to wait around a few dozens to hundreds of thousands of years for those to finish disappearing if we can do it ourselves.
I think we're a lot farther away from being able to exploit another planet than we are from the point where the only one we can exploit now can no longer meaningfully carry us.
That is to say, if we don't check our approach to resource exploitation now, I don't think we'll be in a position to exploit another planet, ever.
Given that this is the only known planet on which life is sustainable, I think your view is kind of shortsighted. Humanity happened because of our planet, not in spite of it. Good luck moving to Mars.
Do you think environment should never change?
Without some changes (thanks cyanobacteria) we wouldn't even be there to speculate about it.
More than 80% of species were wiped out without any help from humans at least twice.
GP problem is not the continuity of life on the planet, just the continuity of human life on the planet.
Sure it is unlikely that humanity will be wiped out by anything else than ourself. Still life could become a lot harsher.
Of course, even a few billions less people is not big deal. They were going to die anyway and it solves overpopulation in one shot. From a high level perspective, with enough time spent after the events almost everything is no so bad after all. Look how good was WW2 for the US.
Still at some point you have to take a step back. We pretend we are above animals. Consuming all your resources without planning, survival of the fittest, don't care and see what happens is what animals do. We can design wonderful piece of technology, think in abstract math, understand the intricacies of the universe, but somehow our legacy for the next few hundred years will a destroyed environment and much later be labelled in history book as a clever monkey.
> Consuming all your resources without planning, survival of the fittest, don't care and see what happens is what animals do.
Animals don't consume more than they need. We as humans, no matter how much we have, always crave for more, a hunger that will never be satisfied. No, we are not animals. We are worse.
Our ability to modify the environment at an unprecedented scale (deliberately, or often otherwise) is nothing to scoff at. We'll continue to do damage to the ecosystem, serious damage, but as long as any life continues to survive we will continue to find ways to exploit it. We are really good at that. Furthermore, life is remarkably resilient. For all the damage we will do to the ecosystem, some of it will manage to hang on.
I find it more likely that we will eventually all kill ourselves in some more direct manner than "humans kill ecosystem, humans die without ecosystem". My money is on something along the lines of "increasingly deadly war combined with logistics induced famine kills humans".
That would require quite the famine, to kill every human. We are omnivore foragers: we eat whatever we can find. To kill us all would require something that got rid of damn near every edible food we know. Including things like dandelions and mongongo nuts. I doubt that's likely.
What seems far more likely to me is that humanity will survive, but for a few generations it will be a survival in a food desert, until our population rebalances to the resources available, and, much like what happened in the aftermath of the wars of the Khans, our environment starts healing. I don't think this will happen within my lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s), but I'd be surprised if, in my lifetime, humanity's quality of life, purely in terms of our ability to feed, clothe, and treat ourselves, didn't noticeably drop.
Growth must not be humanity's end goal. If that's all we work towards, then we literally are cancer of the environment: abnormal creatures with uncontrolled growth.
It does not make much sense to talk about fresh water supply on scales larger than aquifer.
Some are strained, and wars may be started over some, but Egypt and the Sudan starting a war over the Nile really doesn't have many implications at all for people who get their fresh water elsewhere. It won't make water more expensive in North Dakota; wells in Australia will still produce fresh water as Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers burn on the battlefield. Fresh water isn't like oil, it is not a traded commodity (and if we consumed it in small enough quantities to ship around like we ship oil, then there would be no shortage concerns).
There are plenty of concerns, but they are regional concerns with regional solutions. Some of those solutions may be "Find somewhere else to live", or even "Wait until enough of the population in this area dies, so that the water supply is sufficient for the survivors". These possible resolutions are not pleasant resolutions.. but the world seems to have a knack for being less than pleasant.
My point here is that there is no reason for these regional issues and their potentially horrific resolutions to threaten the survival of the species itself. We are too resilient for that. Should that be comforting? Who knows. Probably not.
Sure, they have some problems with hydraulic fracturing... a solution to that problem won't help Egypt, and a solution to Egypt's problem won't help North Dakota. Widespread regional issues are still regional issues.
Honestly, I think we'll survive, but if we do die, it will be because we can either no longer eat or fuck, and since we are so good at finding or making things to eat, I figure the famine must be logistics based.
I also think that, more likely than not, the standard quality of life will continue to rise. It has been getting better for a very long time now, and we seem to have some significant momentum in that regard.
You're betting on deadly wars and induced famine to kill humans and I agree, however most wars are over land or natural resources. So if WW III happens at some point and we exterminate each other, you can bet that the continued destruction of our ecosystem will have something to do with it.
Ironically, where I live in Canada, I've been noticing more and more monarchs (and their close cousin the viceroy) each year in my gardens and the milkweed fields. Perhaps some change in environment/temperature is causing this. Or maybe they just like free healthcare.
I feel the need to point out that global warming doesn't warm every area and is calculated as a global average increase in temperature. Some areas may actually get colder due to the environment changes, not warmer.
Interestingly enough however, Canada are one of those areas that is getting warmer more than average.
>Another major cause is farming with Roundup, a herbicide that kills virtually all plants except crops that are genetically modified to survive it.
now i know explicit answer why GMO is bad. You never know before-fact, yet can always be sure that whatever good at first look thing appear it will ultimately be turned into real bad one.
When I was a kid I had a VHS tape—I think it was a National Geographic—that was about Monarch Butterflies in Mexico and also Fire Eaters in Mexico City.
Does anyone else know what I'm talking about? I can't find any titles or clues on the web.
I know that most species that have ever existed have gone extinct, but every time I hear about a new one I can't help feeling sad. That doesn't just apply to the cute an cuddly ones either. Insects and fish are ace.
Would it be a public service if Monsanto created a roundup ready milkweed and granted it freely to the world? Would that tide us over until Monsanto goes extinct?
Just one example: somewhere around 1995 a nursery in California, most likely in Marin or the North Bay, imported some plants from Asia. What they didn't know at the time was the leaves of those plants were infected with the fungus-like organism Phytophthora ramorum. That organism would eventually escape and infect tanoak and coast live oak throughout central California. A few years later it was found in Oregon. That organism causes the disease called sudden oak death. While it is difficult to make predictions, the impact on oaks in California will likely be profound. One study predicted that 90% of the coast live oak and black oak in California will be dead within the next 50 years. Animals that use acorns from these species for food will probably experience a decline, and one could imagine further ripple effects throughout the ecosystem.
If you live or work in Silicon Valley, and you look to the west at the coast range, most of that green stuff that you are seeing on the mountains is coast live oak woodland. Now imagine 30%, 60%, 90% of those trees dead.
(The above information is based on a talk by Matteo Garbelotto, a plant pathologist at UC Berkeley.)
By the way, you may of heard of California's "golden hills"? Non-native annual grasses. Brought to California by the Spanish when they first explored the state. Over time, the non-native grasses crowded out most of California's native perennial grasses. If you had lived in California 700 years ago, many of the hills wouldn't be golden, they would have been tinged green.