
Holocene Extinction - rapind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
======
jungletime
Humans can have a beneficial impact on the environment too, by terraforming
and making the land more productive.

There's some evidence that the Amazon mix of fruiting tree and nut species
were selected for by humans.

"The Supposedly Pristine, Untouched Amazon Rainforest Was Actually Shaped By
Humans"

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-
untou...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-untouched-
amazonian-rainforest-was-actually-shaped-humans-180962378/)

Since some people us this as political grounds for eugenics and population
control. Such as one child policies, like China used to have. I think the
proper way need to view ourselves, is as "gardeners" and caretakers. What we
destroy in one area, we should rebuild in another, or make better.

For example, we could make connected "green corridors" that span the entire
country, through which animals can migrate and live in. We have disrupted the
migration paths of some species with out cities. But nothing says that we
can't make it better by providing routes for these animals around our cities
and farms.

~~~
rbg246
May I kindly ask, why do you feel the need to jump out and defend the human
species as also being good in the face of what is described in the article?

I am genuinely interested in understanding what motivates this reaction.

~~~
jungletime
You are here, so obviously you feel "good" enough and worthy to exist. With
population control its always the "others" need to be eliminated. No one wants
to start with themselves. Its an extremely selfish position really. Its also
not very logically viable, since those that feel the world is over populated
and kill themselves, will just be selected out of the gene pool. Leaving only
those that want to live, procreate and prosper behind.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Many times there is a heavy dose of misanthropy in these environmental
discussions. Phrases like "humanity is a virus", etc.

I would like to share a different perspective.There is a saying, "It is better
to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

Even if humanity overburdens the planet and goes extinct in the next 100
years, I prefer what we have now, than if we had remained hunter-gatherers or
pre-industrial.

We have spread out to every corner of the world. With irrigation, farming,
heating, air-conditioning, etc, we have transformed the most inhospitable
habitats into thriving cities. Members of our species have even set foot on
the moon.

We have improved the quality of life for members of our species, especially
the poorest. If you had to be born as a female child to a random mother, there
is no other time in the humanity's existence where you would be better off
than now.

We invented language that can express the deepest and most profound thoughts
to the person standing next to us, and invented writing that can encode it in
a form that can be understood millennia later, and invented telecommunication
that can transmit it instantly anywhere in the world.

Our concept of the "universe" has grown. It is no longer the local grassland
or forest. It is no longer a steppe or continent, or even our globe. Our
concept of the universe includes solar systems and galaxies and super-
clusters, and even the possibilities of a multi-verse.

All animals try to control their environment, but we have learned to do so on
an unprecedented scale. We learned early how to control the large fauna that
could eat us. Most humans walk freely about, safe from large predators. We
also, much later, learned how to control the small predators - the bacteria
and viruses.

We have also learned how to control ourselves. We learned how to control
reproduction. We can keep from getting pregnant when we have sex, if we
desire, or get pregnant without having sex. We can organize into communities
and coordinate and cooperate at a scale and sophistication beyond any other
animal.

So, if this time is the time that we have ultimately outstripped the earth's
capacity to support us (unlike the many, many false alarms in the past), then
I say, cheers to humanity: we have lived, we have loved, we have laughed, we
have wept, we have left our mark in our corner of the universe.

Yes, let us try to develop technology and do things that help ensure humanity
can stay like this for much, much longer. But let us not disparage humanity
and all we have accomplished.

~~~
CalRobert
100 years may be optimistic.

And I don't think young people or children today deserve an agonizing life
watching their loved ones, their own children, perhaps, starving to death or
dying in a water war.

Also you don't need to be a hunter gatherer to not rape the planet.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> watching their loved ones, their own children, perhaps, starving to death or
> dying in a water war.

Sadly, this was close to the default condition throughout much of human
history. It is only recently, with the benefits of industrialization and
globalization that we have made that kind of thing much rarer than it was.

~~~
new2628
I think this is far less evident than usually assumed. The life of the last
hunter gatherer tribes is probably the best approximation we have on how our
ancestors may have lived. And while death is a more common (and swifter, less
problematic) occurrence for these people, they were hardly unhappy compared to
us -- sure, they didn't have iphones.

------
mehrdadn
"Fun" statistic: in less than half a century, we've gotten rid of around _60%
of Earth’s wildlife_. [1]

[1] [https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-
report-2018](https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018)

~~~
derivativethrow
This is an incorrect interpretation of the report. Or at least, the way it's
stated is misleading. We have not "gotten rid of" 60% of wildlife on Earth.
What has actually happened is (since the 1970s), the _average_ reduction _per
species_ is 60%. Some species lost more than 60%, some (far) less.

This is still bad news, but I feel it's important to point out that we haven't
(for example), lost 60% of all species on the planet.

------
alex_young
A huge chunk of our net impact on global warming and deforestation is a direct
result of our food system, namely animal agriculture.

There is disagreement about just how inefficient turning an acre of corn into
slabs of cow, but it should be clear that it is some fraction of the
efficiency of just eating that corn as food itself.

~~~
raiflip
What about in the case where animals can extract more nutrients from plant
food than we can? Cows in particular have specially built stomachs that can
extract nutrients from plants than we can. I don't think this would be enough
to make eating meat more efficient, but it may be necessary to eat some meat
to get nutrients you wouldn't otherwise get from plants.

~~~
tejohnso
> but it may be necessary to eat some meat to get nutrients you wouldn't
> otherwise get from plants.

It is not necessary to eat meat.

~~~
raiflip
Necessary is not the right word. More efficient might be better. It's entirely
possible to get protein from plants and omega-3 from vitamins, but from a
human health point of view, is it more efficient?

------
almost_usual
The Biomass of mammals on Earth is sobering.

Livestock, mostly cattle and pigs (60%) Humans (36%) Wild animals (4%)

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Oh, just wait until you include avians. There are so many chickens. Soooo
many.

------
Endlessly
Struggling to find a word for it, but it’s obvious that humans lack the will
collectively to avoid certain types of systemic multigenerational issues.

Climate change is the most obvious, but there’s long list of issues like this
that if suddenly every human on Earth magically expected to live 1000 to
10,000 years would become more pressing issues.

As a semi-futurist, this is the core issue, it’s not that humans don’t see the
future, they’re unable to change... the issue is that humans simply do not
care about the future.

~~~
shrimp_emoji
Even if humans did care, that doesn't mean they could organize a meaningful
response.

COVID-19 is affecting people right now. It, and other viruses like the flu,
are just a giant rhythm game: if everyone could be isolated for 2 weeks, it
would be over in 2 weeks, and we'd never have to deal with it ever again.

We just have a fundamental coordination problem. A lot of foresight and
resources are required, and only a Central Overmind that mind-controls
everyone would be a practical way to implement that kind of coordination. When
the price of non-coordination is extremely jacked up, like in a crazy future
where anyone can cook up an antimatter bomb or an extinction-tier supervirus
(or super AI?) at home, it's obvious that the only tenable mode of operation
is massive surveillance + censorship (and perhaps hivemind motor control) by a
Central Overmind. :D

~~~
rapind
I've thought about how a hive would manage, but I suspect there are other
weaknesses a hive would have that would come to light pretty quickly (you know
besides lack of free will, and extinction from depression or lack of
motivation). We probably need something new, but seem unable to experiment
quickly with new ideas.

~~~
Endlessly
“Hive mind” as it relates to a singular species is a work of science fiction
to my knowledge and barriers to such a systemic centralized existence appear
to defy the laws of physics, information theory, etc.

Even the human mind in my opinion does not exist as a hive and at best
described as an ecosystem that eventually experiences systemic failure.

------
CM30
This makes me wonder if perhaps sentient life/civilisation is simply
incompatible with nature by default. That doesn't make the former bad or mean
that we shouldn't try and preserve the nature world, just that I suspect any
species that evolves to be like humanity is probably going to have a similar
effect on its ecosystem. Any alien world with a sentient species might also be
in a similar situation for many of the same reasons.

That might be why space travel is so important to focus on too. A single
planet simply doesn't have enough resources for a species with a planet wide
civilisation and modern/advanced technology. So you're stuck with the choice
of either expanding outwards, sticking with extremely basic tech, or having a
far lower population.

~~~
jarpschop
You don’t need to have intelligence. Intelligence is just a form of fitness,
but other species have had ecological hyper-fitness before (look at what
happened with rabbits in Australia). All of them display the same behavior:
massive growth and then overshoot and collapse. We’re exactly on the same path
right now. I don’t think is very plausible to make an inhospitable planet
livable.

~~~
mc32
This exactly. If animals with intelligence didn’t exist there would still be
nothing to keep an imbalanced species from taking over and wreaking
destruction upon other species.

~~~
cheerlessbog
Yet billions of years in, until we arrived, there was no failure to be
sustainable. We're the first species to potentially cause a global extinction
event (arguably we already did)

~~~
throwphoton
> We're the first species to potentially cause a global extinction event

There's evidence that cyanobacteria did it earlier, on an even more massive
scale:

"...biologically induced molecular oxygen (dioxygen, O2) started to accumulate
in Earth's atmosphere... causing almost all life on Earth to go extinct." [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event)

------
jarpschop
This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We
are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!

~~~
throwaway894345
Are there any resources for determining which US politicians support
environmentalism (specifically meaningful, evidence-based policies as opposed
to vapid virtue signalling) and/or where the "battleground" states are? I
guess in general I'm looking to get involved more in climate politics, but I
don't know where to start.

~~~
godtoldmetodoit
Check out Citizens Climate Lobby. citizensclimatelobby.org

Non-partisan group attempting to get a carbon tax and dividend law passed, and
they are making progress. They continue to get new co-sponsors on their bill,
they do a lot of training on how to get involved, how you can speak to your
Congressperson etc.

~~~
throwaway894345
Thank you! I'll dig into this. This sounds like exactly the thing I've been
looking for!

------
raiflip
My question to people who think this is objectively a bad thing - given the
usual line of thought to get that conclusion is that we shouldn't be
prejudiced towards valuing humans any more than other living creatures (which
makes sense), then why would the replacement of non-human biomass with human
biomass necessarily be good or bad?

Now I kinda know some sensible answers to this question. For one, genetic
diversity in life is critical for survival given diversification means at
least a few strands can survive sudden unexpected events. i.e if everything
were giant dinosaurs there may have been no life left after the dinosaur
extinction. The other answer is that we are pre-built to aesthetically enjoy
thriving nature (which is probably meant to drive us towards protecting
genetic diversity).

However given the human backlash to human trashing the environment, I could
easily see us settling on an equilibrium where life is not, at least for the
most part, the kind of wild chaotic world that it was before us, but a world
where the environment is increasingly managed to some degrees by humans. You
see this as nations getting richer stop eating cats, dogs, care more about
preserving the environment, raising better treated wildlife, etc.

In that case, perhaps humans can help facilitate a new epoch in nature where
genetic diversity is not just a biproduct of a random process, but a conscious
goal. Granted this would require a much deeper knowledge of nature, humility
to know when we can't control everything, and a cultural shift towards being
stewards of nature. But given the shifts that have already occurred in human
thinking around nature, I don't think this is outside the realm of
possibility. Given our increasing energy usage, it's probably the only route
in which we don't end up causing environmental catastrophes that either kill
us off, or our civilization. That and finding new planets.

------
Medicalidiot
I'm optimistic that a few things will help save us from ourselves: lab grown
meat, electric cars, and solar power.

My undergrad degree is in biology and it was depressing to learn how humans
have eviscerated nature. I remember joking with a classmate during my
evolution class saying "what way are we going to learn about how humans
destroyed nature today?"

------
sylvain_kerkour
The problem is that too many of us do things with a marginal utility near 0
which are bad for the environment just to buy food, pay debts and pay
landlords.

The solution is obvious. Do nothing. Just do nothing (obviously you can read,
ride a bike, write poesy and so on...).

States should pay people to do nothing rather than destroying the world.

------
SOMMS
'Ecologically, humanity has been noted as an unprecedented "global
superpredator"'...

</sigh>

------
lihaciudaniel
Now imagine survivorship bias applied , six times

------
ryanmarsh
Misread Holocene as Holodomor. Both extinctions being man made of course. So
Holocene is the macro of Holodomor.

