Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   According to scientific analysis of millions of years of data, Earth is doomed to see its sixth epic mass extinction thanks to habitat destruction, pollution and global warming   (sfgate.com ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4729 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Dec 2009 at 11:12 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-22 01:43:18 AM  

Scruffinator: Damnhippyfreak: jjorsett: How do you think evolution happens? Organisms get stressed and adapt. Did you think the earth was going to be static from now on? If we kill ourselves and 99.9% of every other life form, the earth will recover and new species will emerge. Species come and go and the universe doesn't give a crap. Momma nature's a biatch. Deal with it.


Most people would consider the extinction of the human race setting the bar just a wee bit low. As far as weak excuses for not taking responsibility for our actions, 'because we shouldn't care if we even survive' has got to be one of the weakest.

Maybe the Earth is better off without intelligent life. To my knowledge, no other species has farked things up as much as we have(assuming we are responsible, which we more than likely are at least to an extent).



I would suggest that this is why many people are strongly advocating for us to simply stop farking things up as much as we have. Our choices are not limited to either business as usual or 'death to all humans'. I'm sure you don't intend this, but what you're talking about seems to be just a variation on the post I criticized - it also completely ignores the fact that we have a choice as to how we collectively interact with the environment.
 
2009-12-22 01:44:42 AM  

Jon Snow: Sun God: In the book there are many interesting arguments about global warming/climate change.

Having footnotes, repeating long debunked talking points, and misrepresenting the work of people you cite is a hallmark of antiscience.

That guy was smart.

In his memoirs he talks about being able to see peoples' auras and bend spoons with his mind. "Smart" isn't the word I'd use, especially in the context of real-world knowledge. Successful, perhaps.


I think you might be not smart because you haven't read the book.
 
2009-12-22 01:46:02 AM  
So who's dead yet?

If we could just cut down the carbon footprint of liberals alone, think how much better the world would be. If they were serious about their convictions, they would go ahead and do themselves in. The planet cannot take you being here anymore.
 
2009-12-22 01:49:20 AM  

Sun God: Jon Snow: Sun God: In the book there are many interesting arguments about global warming/climate change.

Having footnotes, repeating long debunked talking points, and misrepresenting the work of people you cite is a hallmark of antiscience.

That guy was smart.

In his memoirs he talks about being able to see peoples' auras and bend spoons with his mind. "Smart" isn't the word I'd use, especially in the context of real-world knowledge. Successful, perhaps.

I think you might be not smart because you haven't read the book.



I think you might not know what 'smart' means if you are using whether one has read a particular book or not as a criterion.
 
2009-12-22 01:52:18 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Sun God: Jon Snow: Sun God: In the book there are many interesting arguments about global warming/climate change.

Having footnotes, repeating long debunked talking points, and misrepresenting the work of people you cite is a hallmark of antiscience.

That guy was smart.

In his memoirs he talks about being able to see peoples' auras and bend spoons with his mind. "Smart" isn't the word I'd use, especially in the context of real-world knowledge. Successful, perhaps.

I think you might be not smart because you haven't read the book.


I think you might not know what 'smart' means if you are using whether one has read a particular book or not as a criterion.


Okay. I think you're a dick. Is that helpful for the global warming debate?
 
2009-12-22 01:53:42 AM  
Humanity is impossible to wholly eradicate so long as some portion of the Earth's land mass is still habitable. If cockroaches were sentient I don't doubt they'd harbor grudging admiration for our comparative tenacity.
 
2009-12-22 02:01:19 AM  
My 9th grade science teacher once told me that if you put a frog in boiling water, it'll jump out but if you put it in cold water and heat it up gradually, it'll just sit there and slowly boil to death.

What's that, harry, your recipe for frog soup?

That's my recipe for disaster, if we got here today, we'd know we were in hot water and we'd put this town on alert!


/What the hell if we can have an alarmist article may as well have an equally alarmist quote. Truth is that the disaster happened in a movie. WE on the other hand are smart enough to adjust.

//If you want me to take things more seriously go build me my farking flying car that runs on water or solar power at a reasonable price and we'll talk.
 
2009-12-22 02:01:30 AM  

Sun God: Damnhippyfreak: Sun God: Jon Snow: Sun God: In the book there are many interesting arguments about global warming/climate change.

Having footnotes, repeating long debunked talking points, and misrepresenting the work of people you cite is a hallmark of antiscience.

That guy was smart.

In his memoirs he talks about being able to see peoples' auras and bend spoons with his mind. "Smart" isn't the word I'd use, especially in the context of real-world knowledge. Successful, perhaps.

I think you might be not smart because you haven't read the book.


I think you might not know what 'smart' means if you are using whether one has read a particular book or not as a criterion.

Okay. I think you're a dick. Is that helpful for the global warming debate?


What special-ed school did you go to?
 
2009-12-22 02:12:07 AM  

Zamboro: Humanity is impossible to wholly eradicate so long as some portion of the Earth's land mass is still habitable. If cockroaches were sentient I don't doubt they'd harbor grudging admiration for our comparative tenacity.


Actually we're better at survival than cockroaches AND rats....
 
2009-12-22 02:16:10 AM  

dopeydwarf: What special-ed school did you go to?


Why are you satirizing mentally handicapped people?
 
2009-12-22 02:20:08 AM  

Sun God: Damnhippyfreak: Sun God: Jon Snow: Sun God: In the book there are many interesting arguments about global warming/climate change.

Having footnotes, repeating long debunked talking points, and misrepresenting the work of people you cite is a hallmark of antiscience.

That guy was smart.

In his memoirs he talks about being able to see peoples' auras and bend spoons with his mind. "Smart" isn't the word I'd use, especially in the context of real-world knowledge. Successful, perhaps.

I think you might be not smart because you haven't read the book.


I think you might not know what 'smart' means if you are using whether one has read a particular book or not as a criterion.

Okay. I think you're a dick. Is that helpful for the global warming debate?



Nope. Unless, of course, you're as wrong about the meaning of 'dick' as you are about 'smart'. ;)
 
2009-12-22 02:24:55 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Nope. Unless, of course, you're as wrong about the meaning of 'dick' as you are about 'smart'. ;)


Relax, chimpy. I didn't say whether Michael Crichton's writings were wrong or right. I said they were interesting.
 
2009-12-22 02:28:16 AM  

Sun God: Damnhippyfreak: Nope. Unless, of course, you're as wrong about the meaning of 'dick' as you are about 'smart'. ;)

Relax, chimpy. I didn't say whether Michael Crichton's writings were wrong or right. I said they were interesting.



Heh. Neither did I. Maybe you really are onto something with your ideas around 'smart' and reading ;)
 
2009-12-22 02:30:44 AM  
I forgot to add the ;) wink emoticon. I hate that stuff.
 
2009-12-22 02:36:46 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Sun God: Damnhippyfreak: Nope. Unless, of course, you're as wrong about the meaning of 'dick' as you are about 'smart'. ;)

Relax, chimpy. I didn't say whether Michael Crichton's writings were wrong or right. I said they were interesting.


Heh. Neither did I. Maybe you really are onto something with your ideas around 'smart' and reading ;)


What a lovely chat we've had this fine day.
 
2009-12-22 02:41:01 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Scruffinator: Damnhippyfreak: jjorsett: How do you think evolution happens? Organisms get stressed and adapt. Did you think the earth was going to be static from now on? If we kill ourselves and 99.9% of every other life form, the earth will recover and new species will emerge. Species come and go and the universe doesn't give a crap. Momma nature's a biatch. Deal with it.


Most people would consider the extinction of the human race setting the bar just a wee bit low. As far as weak excuses for not taking responsibility for our actions, 'because we shouldn't care if we even survive' has got to be one of the weakest.

Maybe the Earth is better off without intelligent life. To my knowledge, no other species has farked things up as much as we have(assuming we are responsible, which we more than likely are at least to an extent).


I would suggest that this is why many people are strongly advocating for us to simply stop farking things up as much as we have. Our choices are not limited to either business as usual or 'death to all humans'. I'm sure you don't intend this, but what you're talking about seems to be just a variation on the post I criticized - it also completely ignores the fact that we have a choice as to how we collectively interact with the environment.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with you for the most part. My biggest beef is with the "save the planet" people, when we should have a "save ourselves" mentality. Sure, it would be sad to see just about any species going extinct(with a few exceptions, I'm sure), but I sure as hell would rather see Polar Bears go than us. As you said, I'm not advocating the extinction of our species, but I do feel a noticeable drop in our population would benefit just about every species on the planet, be it directly or indirectly.

To my understanding, we emerged as we know ourselves today about 12,000 years ago, around when the last ice age ended. As the person we both quoted above stated, the Earth is not likely to stay static. Our planet will not warm or cool based on what is comfortable for us. What scares me more than anything is that we're essentially trying to control our climate. A goal I'm sure at some point we'll be able to achieve. In the meantime, we should be prepared for both extremes--a warm period, and a cold period. Evolution teaches us that as climates and environments changed throughout history, plants and animals adapted to the new changes or died out. I shudder to think, lets say for the sake of the argument, in 200 years we'll enter a warm period, and instead of being prepared for a warmer climate, we're just trying, unsuccessfully, to cool things back down. We do need to be friendlier to our only home, but we should be prepared for the worst. The seed bank people have the right idea, but to my knowledge there isn't much else in that department.

/sleep deprived, so enjoying this conversation more than I should
 
2009-12-22 02:43:10 AM  

cryinoutloud: BunkyBrewman: The earth's population is going to more than triple in the next century. (less than 7 billion today to more than 21 billion) Do you really believe we can reverse climate change?

It's not going to go that high. We'd all be dead before the planet could support anything like that. Most estimates think it's going to level out at about 10 billion.

Or else.


Food distribution is key. We could easily support a good chunk of the world if Americans ate and wasted less food.
 
2009-12-22 02:46:54 AM  
Oh! And Hippy, the post you quoted me on was merely meant to offer alternative viewpoints.

One of the issues I see with the whole situation is that we don't have a precedent for this type of thing. As far as we know, nobody has ever done what we're attempting to do: save ourselves from extinction. We're mostly at a "hope what we do is right" standpoint. That's one of the reasons I feel we should prepare for the worst, we simply don't know what's going to happen next. It might be great, but it might suck pretty hard.
 
2009-12-22 02:53:08 AM  
6 extinctions
6 days
if ever a species was too big for it britches...
 
2009-12-22 02:59:44 AM  

Zamboro: Humanity is impossible to wholly eradicate so long as some...


// ...other Animals have a use for them.

Finished that for you, LoL
 
2009-12-22 03:13:29 AM  
The planet used to be one farking continent. It's gonna change, like it has been changing since it parked its fat blue ass in orbit around the sun.

Someday, man likely will be extinct. I don't give a shiat.

Does my position suggest that mean we shouldn't try to improve air quality, and work towards spewing less crap into the atmosphere? No. Those are good ideas. They would improve our quality of life. But stop trying to scare me with this global warming crap. Even if you're right, which I doubt, I still don't give a shiat.

I don't care about polar bears, who would eat me if they could. I don't care about indigenous tribes of people on remote islands who are too dumb to move if their island starts shrinking. You want to help them, without pissing away gazillions of dollars on cap and trade garbage? Build them some farking apartment buildings somewhere on dry land.

If all the jackalopes who spend their days and nights trying to prove that industry is heating up the planet would instead spend their time on creating technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we'd be a hell of a lot closer to solving pollution problems than we are now.
 
2009-12-22 03:16:35 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Does my position suggest that mean we shouldn't


/tired, FTFM
 
2009-12-22 03:18:07 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Occam's Nailfile: Does my position suggest that mean we shouldn't

/tired, FTFM


Never apologize.
 
2009-12-22 03:20:33 AM  
I don't think anyone is missing the giant beaver.
 
2009-12-22 03:20:54 AM  
Gentlemen, it has become clear to me now. This is clearly a plot by the marsupials to destroy native species around the world so they can claim their "rightful" place as the dominant form of mammal.

Our course of action is clear: We must nuke Australia.

/I'll just "fudge" the data using "tricks" to prove it.
//Also, the movie "An Inconvenient Mammal" will explain it further.
 
2009-12-22 03:34:01 AM  

General Vayo: Our course of action is clear: We must nuke Australia.


What will happen to the beer?
 
2009-12-22 03:36:01 AM  

IKanHazaBukkit: We need a government run program which implements action to sterilize the general population. This would be best done by tainting the water supply and run a negative population growth rate. Right now, in the U.S. we are about 2.1-2.3 so barely above replenishment. Uneducated individuals on the continent of Africa, South America, the middle east and parts of Asia run far higher population growth rates.

We need an international effort by Western countries to keep those populations from growing. The same tactic should be used to sterilize large portions of the population. We need to see an equal percent population decrease in all races and sectors.

I'd be willing to make the decision and i believe, in the long term if there is no consensus on global population control we could be farking towards extinction. I'd be willing to give my rights up to procreate if others would too.

Do your part world. If you care for posterity you will wrap your tool and/or realize you're going to die someway, somehow. Save this planet for others because, you are not the end all be all of this race.

P.S.
/1/4 of the defense budget should be repartitioned to investigating the possibility of inter-planetary colonization.


You've been reading John Holdren's book, 'Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment' again, haven't you?
 
2009-12-22 03:49:53 AM  
"Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and co-author of the study"

That's about where I stopped reading.
 
2009-12-22 03:56:14 AM  

slayer199: "Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and co-author of the study"

That's about where I stopped reading.


So you're dumb.
 
2009-12-22 03:56:47 AM  

Molavian: Unless we get off this planet and to the stars humanity is dead anyways.


Space travel or not, our descendants a few million years from now won't be the same species as us. A billion years from now they might not even walk, talk, or breathe air.
 
2009-12-22 04:13:07 AM  
We will be starving on barren rocks and still debating whether humans have had an impact on the planet.

The problem is the only solution is a lower population and that cant be enforced without genocide so its hopeless.

Buckle in!
 
2009-12-22 04:17:13 AM  

mister13: We will be starving on barren rocks and still debating whether humans have had an impact on the planet.

The problem is the only solution is a lower population and that cant be enforced without genocide so its hopeless.

Buckle in!


you know who else thought that genocide was the only solution to humanity's problems?
 
2009-12-22 05:43:41 AM  
Eh... so? We drive species extinct because we tend to control our environment to a much greater degree than other species, and we don't need all that many species around to support ourselves so we don't go out of our way to preserve things that aren't necessary to the ecosystem. And we certainly weren't going to preserve the things that actively harmed us (large mammals, etc).

In all honestly, there's no real argument for preserving species in general beyond "eh, you never know". Which is a pretty decent reason, but it'll only go so far when our population reaches the point that it becomes irrelevant niche species for which a niche no longer exists, or segments of human populations.

slayer199: "Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and co-author of the study"

That's about where I stopped reading.


Berkeley's environmental sciences, biology, and forestry (which amounts to the engineering version of environmental science to some extent... yes, 'environmental engineering' also exists, but not quite the same thing) are all well-known. For bits related to husbandry and direct preservation you might got a few minutes north to UC Davis, but for general assessments of biological fields Berkeley's as good a place to go as any, and better than most.

Or are you saying you had to stop because you got to a four-syllable word and it gave you a headache? I'm sorry you never learned to read, I guess. Too bad your mother never loved you, or she might have taught ya better.
 
2009-12-22 06:14:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Eh... so? We drive species extinct because we tend to control our environment to a much greater degree than other species, and we don't need all that many species around to support ourselves so we don't go out of our way to preserve things that aren't necessary to the ecosystem. And we certainly weren't going to preserve the things that actively harmed us (large mammals, etc).

In all honestly, there's no real argument for preserving species in general beyond "eh, you never know". Which is a pretty decent reason, but it'll only go so far when our population reaches the point that it becomes irrelevant niche species for which a niche no longer exists, or segments of human populations.

slayer199: "Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology and co-author of the study"

That's about where I stopped reading.

Berkeley's environmental sciences, biology, and forestry (which amounts to the engineering version of environmental science to some extent... yes, 'environmental engineering' also exists, but not quite the same thing) are all well-known. For bits related to husbandry and direct preservation you might got a few minutes north to UC Davis, but for general assessments of biological fields Berkeley's as good a place to go as any, and better than most.

Or are you saying you had to stop because you got to a four-syllable word and it gave you a headache? I'm sorry you never learned to read, I guess. Too bad your mother never loved you, or she might have taught ya better.


No, I stopped because UC-Berkeley is about as radical as they come...and until such fear-mongering is peer-reviewed, I'm going to dismiss it as more radical BS coming out of UC-Berkeley.

As for your last ad hominem, clearly your momma didn't teach you critical thinking...otherwise you'd be more of a skeptic and less likely to jump on ad hominem when you have nothing intelligent to add.
 
2009-12-22 06:50:49 AM  
15 to 42 percent? You gotta love statistical manipulation.
 
2009-12-22 07:16:32 AM  

jjorsett: How do you think evolution happens? Organisms get stressed and adapt. Did you think the earth was going to be static from now on? If we kill ourselves and 99.9% of every other life form, the earth will recover and new species will emerge. Species come and go and the universe doesn't give a crap. Momma nature's a biatch. Deal with it.


Exactly. The planet, and most of it's life forms will be fine. The main thing we are going to extinct with our piggish habits is ourselves - and I doubt the rest of the planet will mourn us when we are gone.
As far as the "escape to space" theory - that isn't going to happen - we don't have the resources, or that much time left.
We'll either learn not to foul our own nest, or we will go extinct, like some stupid bird that drinks it's own pee.
But you're right - it won't be any big, Earth-shaking deal. The only thing in this universe that cares about us is us - and we don't even seem to care a hell of a lot.
 
2009-12-22 07:19:39 AM  
Finally saw "The Road" the other day, and I have to say- Worst Romantic Comedy EVER!
 
2009-12-22 07:28:38 AM  

yarnothuntin: Finally saw "The Road" the other day, and I have to say- Worst Romantic Comedy EVER!


Yeah - the running gag about the lead and his romantic interest continually misinterpreting each others text messages got old fast.
 
2009-12-22 07:31:43 AM  

jjorsett: If we kill ourselves and 99.9% of every other life form, the earth will recover and new species will emerge. Species come and go and the universe doesn't give a crap. Momma nature's a biatch. Deal with it.


"Momma nature" has no conciousness, no abilty to judge right from wrong, and no sense of worth.

We have all of those things, which equips us to do things like decide that the species that are here with us now are worth preserving, precisey *because* they are so fragile and 99.9% of them are out of our reach; gone before we got here.
 
2009-12-22 07:37:38 AM  
I've got the perfect solution: All the global warming activists who make their living perpetuating this issue and all the other assorted mislead dillweeds who ignore the facts that the Earth has cycled through ice-ages and extinctions without us, could off themselves in protest! That would remove a vast source of pollution and unhappy people, and those of us left wouldn't have to send our money to some other country so they can build a windmill and study dog farts!
 
2009-12-22 07:51:01 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: But stop trying to scare me with this global warming crap. Even if you're right, which I doubt, I still don't give a shiat.


Fine, if you stop trying to scare me with this gravity crap. Trying to tell me that you *will* fall to your death if you jump off a tall building even though you have no proof at all! Then you try to get me to spend billions on a "space" program that works using the same unproven theory.
 
2009-12-22 07:57:36 AM  

EliminateNinniesAndTwits: could off themselves in protest! That would remove a vast source of pollution


I know this will come as a shock, and I apologize for that, but our records indicate that you are not, in fact,
the first person to come up with this insightful idea.

Furthemore, I see a footnote here that indicates that around the three
millionth repetition of this meme, it was pointed out that it is pretty much utter garbage. With the technology we have today, a population 10% of what it is now could do just as much damage.

/And breathing is carbon neutral you half-witted moran.
 
2009-12-22 08:42:26 AM  
*Sigh* of course there were mass extinctions hundreds of thousands of years ago, that's because the world didn't even exist then.
 
2009-12-22 08:55:38 AM  
Don't worry... Swine flu Global Warming Ebola SARS LHC Zombies Asteroids Acid Rain Aliens .. uh.. "the next big scare" will destroy us all..
 
2009-12-22 09:52:30 AM  
I love how when everybody is stumped by actual facts about the damage that we are undeniably doing, people retreat to vague philosophical statements or arguments about whether or not it matters if we wipe ourselves out. Either it doesn't matter, or if it does matter--we're all going to dead before the bitter end, so who cares?
 
2009-12-22 10:54:15 AM  
An interesting lay summary of mass extinctions from paleo to modern.
 
2009-12-22 11:03:07 AM  
slayer199:

No, I stopped because UC-Berkeley is about as radical as they come...

Berkeley's faculty isn't really more liberal than any other world class American research university. Like Caltech, Stanford, etc., they have a generic "hire the smartest people we can find" policy. Ideology doesn't enter into it.

(And besides, this is a joint Berkeley-Penn State project.)

But since university faculties in general tend to be more liberal than the population as a whole, I'm sure you will use that as a convenient cognitive filter to dismiss all academic research, everywhere.

and until such fear-mongering is peer-reviewed,

This study is published in PLoS ONE, which is a peer reviewed journal.
 
2009-12-22 11:03:25 AM  
This thread is all the proof I need that humans need to be extict-ified.

We are an evil, wretched, greedy bunch.
 
2009-12-22 11:25:55 AM  

mynameismark: We are an evil, wretched, greedy bunch.


We are no more evil, wretched or greedy than anything else. Humans are only doing what everything else does, that is, seeks to make itself flourish. If you want to live in a technological advanced world, a utilization of the natural world is a must. That comes with a price.
 
2009-12-22 11:27:47 AM  

Ambitwistor: study is published in PLoS ONE, which is a peer reviewed journa


That it's published in a Journal doesn't mean it's relevant or widely peer-reviewed.

Point is, I'm a skeptic about most things....particularly things that are geared to spread fear.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report