How much would the Earth benefit if humans were to suddenly drop dead and go extinct? What would be the short and long term effects?
>>16927660the GDP would go down and the market would crash. (perfect time to buy the dip)
>>16927660Nature would take back whats rightfully hers. in 100,000 years there would be no evidence whatsoever of humans even existing
what is earth if not homes for humans
>>16927660number of species would probably increase again after a few tens of millennia
Define "benefit."
>>16927660When Bison dominated the Plains of the Midwest, it was a pock mark shit filled wasteland called the Great American Desert, but when humans began to dominate and become the caretaker, it became The World's Breadbasket, one of, if not the most fertile regions of earth in the history of humanity.
>>16927726Plastics and many other materials and structures would last a lot longer than that. A geological layer indicating human activity would be discoverable for many millions of years
>>16927660>earth benefitmaybe the earth instantiated humans to make pfas. once that is complete the destructor is invoked
>>16928621>Bison dominated the Plains of the Midwestpredator-prey computation suggest that was anomalous. so its primary predator had been eliminated some 200 years prior allowing the bison to multiply unbounded
>>16928621That is 100% a lie straight from the pit of hell. That is absolutely not what happened.
>>16927660I wouldn't mind going out with a whimper. My only hope is that I fall in a way that I slam the door open for my dogs to roam free. I don't want them to starve to death in a house where they can't get out.
It would be very bad for livestock.
Without humans to preserve it all life will go extinct in 500 million years from solar expansion. We are literally Earth’s only hope lmao
>>16930535>The most catastrophic thing is that all nuclear reactors will meltdown after a couple of weeks and will irradiate the fuck out of earthThat’s a meme. Pretty much no reactor on earth today will meltdown as severely as say Chernobyl thanks to better containment and safety systems, and even Chernobyl is far from the ecological disaster people think it. Animals live around it just fine. Much bigger consequence will be the runoff from all the breaking down containment and infrastructure for all the thousands of chemical products we use.
>>16930313Yea and it takes a genius super-predator like humanity to repeatedly do that calculation and make sure the predator-prey balance remains stable.>>16930321https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_wallowhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Deserthttps://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.ii.006.htmlhttps://homesteadcongress.blogspot.com/2011/02/from-great-american-desert-to-american.html
>>16930767Oh no not a Wikipedia article. It's bullshit. I've studied the Pleistocene megafauna for over a decade.
>>16930768>a Wikipedia article>i've studiedYet you can't even count or actually address anything in the articles, its almost like you shouldn't have even bothered to study even though you totally did.
>>16930767>Yea and it takes a genius super-predator like humanity to repeatedly do that calculation and make sure the predator-prey balance remains stable.lol. how did life re-stabilize after the dinosaur extinction event without humans? or did humans exist at that time, not go extinct, have differential calculus at their disposal for predator-prey relationships, sanctuaries to breed animals on an ark? you're one dumb motherfucker
>>16930558And how is that bad? That's the natural cycle of life and death.
>>16930558How do you know some other species won't evolve to become more intelligent than humans in those 500 million years?
>>16930801No, it’s not. It’s just death. There is no life to come afterwards. >>16930802Because if they do all the easily accessible ore and fossil fuel will have been long ago extracted and exploited by humanity, potentially restricting their technological level to Bronze Age at best.
>>16930805More fossil fuel can form in those 500 million years (enough for this new species to use it until they develop solar energy) and the ore which has been extracted still stays on the surface of the planet so that's not a problem.
>>16930806No lol you don’t understand how it works. Pretty much all fossil fuel formed in the Carboniferous, which was an anomalous event because decomposes had yet to figure out how to break down trees. It has never happened since - 300 million years since - and I see no reason to presume it will happen again.Ore cannot just be reused, that’s not how it works either. Once processed it’s done, and Stone Age civilisations depend on easy access to plentiful ore in order to move up the technological ladder (took Homo Sapiens 285,000 years, and other species of humans were around even before that and never managed).
>>16930807Why can't the ore be used after it's processed? It's not like the metals transmuted to carbon.
>>16930808Rust and general breakdown of structure is a thing. No Stone Age society is figuring out how to magically extract the tons of metal they need from millions of fine particles distributed across the surface. We can’t even do that todayWhat they need is ore and ore-rich rocks, which are nearly all gone from the surface. And even if they get that - does not solve the fossil fuel issue
>>16930767>genius super-predator like humanitymm, i wouldn't imagine there was genius involved. humans were the predator that was eliminated 200 years prior to the bison "domination". maybe it was 300. i'm no mathologist
What about 50% less humans. Most humans are just “slaves” making rich people richer anyway.
>>16930798>how did life re-stabilizeIt didn't stabilize immediately, it was incredibly unstable for many millennia, favoring r-selection and high rates of mutation for bug like organisms with large blooms and quick busts until superorganism superpredators like ants and bees came along and started to create stability that mammals could eventually build upon, you ignorant dumbfuck retard.
>>16930802Ants are already more intelligent and durable than humans, the only reason humans seem to dominate is because ants can't domesticate fire and electricity at their scale to use the flashy technology that defines humanity.
>>16930859>humans were the predator that was eliminated 200 years prior to the bison "domination"No, the humans at the time just didn't build ranches to domesticate animals and instead let the wild bison take over the midwest for a plentiful hunting ground, if humans were "eliminated", then they wouldn't have been able to turn that Great American Desert into a Great American Breadbasket.
>>16930807The mining companies must be set to announce that they found some giant ore deposit that is larger than anything previously known since every time I hear some retard going on about how planet earth is running out of some resource, the next day there is a story about how there has been a major resource discovery that dwarfs all the previous discoveries.
>>16931101No, the planet will never run out of ore, duh. What you will need is ever more sophisticated and expensive technology to reach and mine it. The best some Stone Age tribe can do is drag some rocks out of caves. A Bronze Age civilisation can dig a hundred meters at best. Nowadays our mines often extent thousands of meters deep and displace millions of tons of rock. We literally need to dig under the sea floor to meet our fossil fuel needs. How exactly is a civilisation playing with sticks and spears pulling that off?
>>16931095That is literally not what happened, you fucking idiot.
>>16931105Oil can be extracted from animals, steam power can be utilized, natural gasses can be extracted, beast of burden can be trained, before we could dig deep whale blubber was a primary fuel and you are massively underestimating people's abilities and the aqueducts and irrigation that primitive people's hand dug.
>>16931108How can I possibly argue with such a well thought out, encyclopedic information dump. I bet you totally understand that ants invented agriculture and animal husbandry before humans even existed and have many facts to prove it.
>>16931109>Oil can be extracted from animalsUh huh, and what happens when they go extinct? Whales were slowly going extinct from oil demand.>steam powerWith what coal and metal? All the reachable stuff is long gone. Or do you mean you’ll burn wood? That’s not sustainable either. Tree coverage started to rapidly reduce in the Industrial Revolution from trees being used as fuel> beast of burden can be trained, before we could dig deep whale blubber was a primary fuel and you are massively underestimating people's abilities and the aqueducts and irrigation that primitive people's hand dug.And all of this is definitely enough for interplanetary colonisation I’m sure.
>>16931111>Whales were slowly going extinct from oil demand.Sure they were, totally didn't figure out they were being hunted and learned to hide better and whales are totally the only animals that make oils, so once they are gone, that is all.>Tree coverage started to rapidly reduce in the Industrial Revolution from trees being used as fuelNo, tree coverage was rapidly reduced because they were too lazy for sustenance farming and made a sport of decimated large old growth forests for the fun and challenge without actually understanding the consequences and trees aren't the only things that burn and you don't even need to burn to create steam with properly designed magnifying lenses.>And all of this is definitely enough for interplanetary colonization I’m sure.Oh, nevermind, I didn't realize I was talking to an abject retard who thinks we can't make due with quadrillions of tons of ore and oil we have on earth, but can somehow entirely re-engineer entire planets from billions of miles away.
>>16931110>ants invented agricultureLol. Lmao
>>16931134https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_antshttps://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0711024105https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10626344https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7007520/For your giddy ignorance, since you sound just like my daughter when we explained where babies come from.
>>16931114>Sure they were, totally didn't figure out they were being hunted and learned to hide better and whales are totally the only animals that make oils, so once they are gone, that is all.The alternatives are mostly seals, penguins, dolphins, and certain sharks. If you haven’t noticed those species aren’t doing too well with human presence, so I doubt building an entire industry off of their hunting would do them much better. And even if they could withstand it, how far could it really get you?> No, tree coverage was rapidly reduced because they were too lazy for sustenance farming and made a sport of decimated large old growth forests for the fun and challenge without actually understanding the consequences and trees aren't the only things that burn and you don't even need to burn to create steam with properly designed magnifying lenses.I’m sure a primitive civilisation will figure all this out whip-quick. > Oh, nevermind, I didn't realize I was talking to an abject retard who thinks we can't make due with quadrillions of tons of ore and oil we have on earthYou have brought this idea up before. When did I say this? We have more than enough, and we get better and better at reaching it. It just turns out that as we do we exploit more and more and more of these resources and make it harder and harder and more and more expensive to reach, reaching a point where it’s impossible without advanced technology, and you need these to get advanced technology in the first place!>but can somehow entirely re-engineer entire planets from billions of miles away.When did I say that? You don’t need to terraform for space colonisation. O’Neil Cylinders are a much better option, as are simple habitats.
>>16931145>The alternatives are mostly seals, penguins, dolphins, and certain sharks.Those are some alternatives, not nearly exhaustive.>I’m sure a primitive civilisation will figure all this out whip-quick. Primitive civilizations were the ones begging the industrialists not to cut down old growth forests for fun.>When did I say this?>>16930805>ore and fossil fuel will have been long ago extracted and exploited by humanity, potentially restricting their technological level to Bronze Age at best.>You don’t need to terraform for space colonisation.You didn't say space colonization, you said interplanetary colonization, we don't need to go outside of the planet's orbit to colonize space since we already have and its not very helpful, but is incredibly expensive.>O’Neil Cylinders are a much better option, as are simple habitats.Then why don't we have any, why is everyone talking about going to mars instead of every saying anything about building an O'Neil Cylinder and why would an O'Neil cylinder be any more practical than the space stations we have?
>>16931135Next you're going to tell me birds invented airplanes.
>>16931148>Those are some alternatives, not nearly exhaustive.Well, none were reliable enough to be used, clearly. I know they tried livestock, but they weren’t nearly as good and it’s also not a sustainable idea to try and power and feed you society with the exact same source. >Primitive civilizations were the ones begging the industrialists not to cut down old growth forests for fun.Okay. Why would a future civilisation of industrialists make choices any different to ours?It’s also funny that you cut out the “easily accessible” part of my previous post to help yourself pretend I’m arguing that modern humanity doesn’t have enough fuels and ore rather than a future primitive one that comes after.> You didn't say space colonization, you said interplanetary colonizationYou don’t need to terraform for interplanetary colonisation.>we don't need to go outside of the planet's orbit to colonize space since we already have and its not very helpful, but is incredibly expensive.Right now. Give us a century or two to develop better power generation, superconductors and batteries, automation, materials, and the like and see if the equation plays out the same, assuming we don’t blow ourselves up with nukes in that timeframe.> snipI don’t know why we’re discussing the feasibility of space colonisation when that’s not what this discussion is about; rather it’s about what happens if we don’t manage to spread life off world, but okay -Mars is a nice easy way to acquire funding from normies and something every egotistical rich guy wants to put his mark on. It also requires less resource investment to reach (exponentially more to colonise to any meaningful degree, though). We still have several technological hoops we need to jump through before we can do either, but given we are thankfully only presented with engineering problems rather than physics ones it is not something that can be easily dismissed as impossible.
>>16931155Birds didn't even invent flight, plenty of animals were engaging in flight before birds came along.Agriculture is a process like flight, not an object like an airplane.
>>16931156>they weren’t nearly as goodThey don't need to be, they just need to work.>it’s also not a sustainable idea to try and power and feed you society with the exact same source. That is exactly what sustainable means, one renewable resource than can solve several different problems, is it also not sustainable to feed and clothe society with the same resource?>Why would a future civilisation of industrialists make choices any different to ours?Adaptation, they have different resources and catalogues of knowledge at their immediate disposal.>It’s also funny that...Its funny that you would call it a primitive civilization then assume they had the same resource needs and consumption as modern civilization.>You don’t need to terraform for interplanetary colonisation.Of course you do as far as every documented planet in this solar system and galaxy goes.>Give us a century or two to develop better power generation, superconductors and batteries, automation, materials, and the like and see if the equation plays out the sameNo, Morty, you would have to develop nothing short of interdimensional portals for your little fantasy to start to make sense, but the existence of those would completely break down all your calculations and expectations anyway.>rather it’s about what happens if we don’t manage to spread life off world, but okay -No, its about if earth would be better managed without the existence of humans, you are the abject retard that started talking nonsense about your silly buck rogers fantasies because you didn't understand the discussion being had.>Mars is a nice easy way to acquire funding from normies and something every egotistical rich guy wants to put his mark on. Because an O'Neil Cylinder isn't actually practical and actually makes significantly less sense for long term sustainability and independence than terraforming other planets?>impossibleToo bad you admitted that mars is only about elites egos than real possibility.
I’m getting tired of going in circles. My point was always that without humanity to preserve it off world, assuming we can pull it off, all life is doomed to extinction in 500my. That no post-human civilisation to come after would pull it off, because we have pulled up the ladder after ourselves and exploited irreplaceable resources essential for advanced civilisation >>16931171>they just need to work.No, they need to work well enough to allow for space-age colonisation.>is it also not sustainable to feed and clothe society with the same resource? Sustainability won’t save life from being eaten by the sun. And no, because if something happens to your livestock then you are not just without food but power as well. There is a reason whales were preferred>It’s funny that you would call it a primitive civilization then assume they had the same resource needs and consumption as modern civilization.I see that you have always been tilting at a windmill I never put up. See what I have always been arguing for above. It needs to bare minimum hit modern levels of civilisation to preserve life>you do as far as every documented planet Oxygenated habitats are a concept as old as spaceships>you would have to develop nothing short of interdimensional portals for your little fantasy to start to make senseWe’ll see. People would have laughed off the idea of a nuke a century before it happened. >you are the abject retard that started talking nonsense about your silly buck rogers fantasies because you didn't understand the discussion being had.You’re the dull one here. Don’t get your clitty into any more itty bitty twists than it’s already in. All life goes extinct without us, that is objective truth>Because an O'Neil Cylinder isn't actually practical No, because we don’t need to build one, and it’s not worth it with current technology. We could build one if needed
>>16931110You're not arguing at all. You're just making shit up and blathering on about red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You're spreading rancher lobby propaganda like the moron you are and you don't know shit about paleontology.
>>16931595Sure, I am the one just making stuff up on the spot, that must be why I have all the years old links to back up my arguments while you just impotently seethe and namecall.
>>16931183>No, they need to work well enough to allow for space-age colonisation.We have already colonized space.>Sustainability won’t save life from being eaten by the sun.That will affect every planet in the solar system, and if this star will do that, then every star will eventually do the same, your argument is dumb nonsense.>It needs to bare minimum hit modern levels of civilisation to preserve lifeNo, if pre-modern civilization couldn't preserve life, then modern civilization wouldn't have been possible.>Oxygenated habitats are a concept as old as spaceshipsThey are also significantly more expensive and impractical and not intended for permanent use like a planet.>People would have laughed off the idea of a nuke a century before it happened. No they wouldn't have, they had stories about even bigger explosions and more destructive weapons.>All life goes extinct without us, that is objective truthAll complex earth life dies in space and is exponentially more expensive to keep alive in protected habitats kept in space, this is the objective truth you are trying to cope away.>It’s not worth it with current technologyIt never will be.>We could build one if neededSure.
