man destroying/saving the planet

[chezlaw]

There's a view that man will reduce the planet to a lifeless husk by runaway global warming or pollution to the extent that the atmosphere is destroyed and life becomes unviable.

Hoping to avoid politics and religon I think the reverse is more likely to be true.

Considering the earth as an evolving ecosystem there's no reason to believe that it will always remain in balance. Even ignoring devestating cosmic events its possible that evolution will go down an a path that leads to the atmosphere being destroyed. Although negative feedback helps keep an equilibrium it by no means guarantees it so given enough time a lifeless husk is inevitable unless a species evolves that can interfere with this process.

Hence mankind (or something similar) is the only hope for the survival of life on this or any other planet.

Thoughts?

chez

[guesswest]

My initial thought is that debates like these normally revolve around the idea that we (mankind) can do something that's counter-evolution or counter-natural. Surely evolution applies whatever we do and whatever we do is evolution.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My initial thought is that debates like these normally revolve around the idea that we (mankind) can do something that's counter-evolution or counter-natural. Surely evolution applies whatever we do and whatever we do is evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure but I'm suggesting that evolution is guaranteed to destroy the planet unless it evolves an intelligent self-aware species.

I'm not suggesting we are outside evolution or that we are going to do something unnatural.

chez

[guesswest]

I think if we do destroy the planet it'll only be for one of two reasons:

1. It's to our advantage
2. Error

I'm struggling to envisage any situation in which (1) would apply, at best it'd be neutral. So you have to assume (2). (2) may or may not happen but surely we'd be evolving away from it instead of towards it, and increasing intelligence/awareness would be part of that process. Think I'm agreeing with you here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if we do destroy the planet it'll only be for one of two reasons:

1. It's to our advantage
2. Error

I'm struggling to envisage any situation in which (1) would apply, at best it'd be neutral. So you have to assume (2). (2) may or may not happen but surely we'd be evolving away from it instead of towards it, and increasing intelligence/awareness would be part of that process. Think I'm agreeing with you here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn I hate that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Must be someone out there who think the planet would be better off without mankind.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure but I'm suggesting that evolution is guaranteed to destroy the planet unless it evolves an intelligent self-aware species.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis for this conclusion?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure but I'm suggesting that evolution is guaranteed to destroy the planet unless it evolves an intelligent self-aware species.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis for this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolving systems are not guaranteed to remain in a stable equilibrium therefore given enough time wandering through phase space it will arrive at a lifeless system - unless the system evolves a means prevent this.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure but I'm suggesting that evolution is guaranteed to destroy the planet unless it evolves an intelligent self-aware species.


[/ QUOTE ]

What is your basis for this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolving systems are not guaranteed to remain in a stable equilibrium therefore given enough time wandering through phase space it will arrive at a lifeless system - unless the system evolves a means prevent this.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are implying that there are an infinite number of possible evolutionary outcomes including a lifeless system and therefore it is inevitable, then I disagree. I see no evidence for this in any system I have studied.

Evolution is always about survival (of the individual) which usually ensures that of the species at large. To imply that because the possibility exist along with an infinite amount of time it is inevitable seems flawed to me.

Look at the most lethal virus - you would think that they would end up the last survivor and then die out for lack of a host. But it does not happen. The more lethal the virus the faster the host dies and the less time the virus has to spread. Both species are trying to find a way to survive. In my opinion, only a physical phenomena (like radiation, death of the sun, global warming (man-made or not), etc can wipe out all life.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at the most lethal virus - you would think that they would end up the last survivor and then die out for lack of a host. But it does not happen. The more lethal the virus the faster the host dies and the less time the virus has to spread. Both species are trying to find a way to survive. In my opinion, only a physical phenomena (like radiation, death of the sun, global warming (man-made or not), etc can wipe out all life.

[/ QUOTE ]
nothing like a virues. I'm referring to global warming type processes. I'm suggesting that wihout an intelligent self-aware species global warming (or something similar) that leads to a lifeless planet is inevitable.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the most lethal virus - you would think that they would end up the last survivor and then die out for lack of a host. But it does not happen. The more lethal the virus the faster the host dies and the less time the virus has to spread. Both species are trying to find a way to survive. In my opinion, only a physical phenomena (like radiation, death of the sun, global warming (man-made or not), etc can wipe out all life.

[/ QUOTE ]
nothing like a virues. I'm referring to global warming type processes. I'm suggesting that wihout an intelligent self-aware species global warming (or something similar) that leads to a lifeless planet is inevitable.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying evolution would somehow lead to global warming or something similar - how? In order to affect the climate you would need intelligent life which is capable of modifying his environment. How would this be done by non-intelligent species?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at the most lethal virus - you would think that they would end up the last survivor and then die out for lack of a host. But it does not happen. The more lethal the virus the faster the host dies and the less time the virus has to spread. Both species are trying to find a way to survive. In my opinion, only a physical phenomena (like radiation, death of the sun, global warming (man-made or not), etc can wipe out all life.

[/ QUOTE ]
nothing like a virues. I'm referring to global warming type processes. I'm suggesting that wihout an intelligent self-aware species global warming (or something similar) that leads to a lifeless planet is inevitable.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying evolution would somehow lead to global warming or something similar - how? In order to affect the climate you would need intelligent life which is capable of modifying his environment. How would this be done by non-intelligent species?

[/ QUOTE ]
We seem to be on very different pages. Life altered the composition of the atmosphere, seas and changed the climate long before man came along.

chez

[Lestat]

Even if man makes himself extinct through something like global warming, what makes you think that in time, life won't develop anew? Certainly, man won't kill off every living creature, except for possibly nuclear war and even then I don't see why either some species will survive and/or life can't develop a few hundred thousand years later.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if man makes himself extinct through something like global warming, what makes you think that in time, life won't develop anew? Certainly, man won't kill off every living creature, except for possibly nuclear war and even then I don't see why either some species will survive and/or life can't develop a few hundred thousand years later.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. I assuming the premise that runaway global warming, boils off the atmosphere and that's the end (or equivalent process).

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
We seem to be on very different pages. Life altered the composition of the atmosphere, seas and changed the climate long before man came along.



[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the earlier climate changes were do to physical changes. Once life was established it did contribute to a change in the atmoshere 'for the better'. Are you stating that it would be inevitable that at some point it would be changed to the detriment of all life?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
True. I assuming the premise that runaway global warming, boils off the atmosphere and that's the end (or equivalent process).


[/ QUOTE ]

So you believe that global warming do to 'natural' phenomena is inevitable?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the earlier climate changes were do to physical changes. Once life was established it did contribute to a change in the atmoshere 'for the better'.

[/ QUOTE ] Oxygen in the atmosphere is in part a result of life on earth. No reason why that oxygen couldn't be a cause of runaway global warming, it just happens to not be the case.

Could even have been explosive and burnt the atmosphere up like in that planet of the Apes film. Happens not to be that way.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you stating that it would be inevitable that at some point it would be changed to the detriment of all life?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, eventually something that causes a runaway destruction of the atmosphere will happen. Some say its already happening.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, eventually something that causes a runaway destruction of the atmosphere will happen. Some say its already happening.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think this should have been your original post. The question is whether present global warming is do to man-made changes to the atmosphere or do to normal orbital changes (or a combination of both).

However, I have a hard time believing that it will be inevitable that some natural occurance will lead to the destruction of the atmosphere. Sure, it might but I don't know why it must? Do you believe that is waht happened elsewhere in the solar system like Mars?

[Lestat]

I'm not sure. I'd like to hear more on this. This is where that guy who wanted to move science stuff to the math forum could chime in. But from what I gather...

If man's demise is due to global warming I think we will be killed off long before the atmoshphere disappears. There will be devastating weather, floods, ice caps will melt, etc. etc. This will make the environment uninhabitable for man (or at least enough to put an end to our part in the process of global warming), long before other life forms will be completely unable to survive. WARNING: I'm not a scientist and am just pontificating on my own here. I could be totally wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, eventually something that causes a runaway destruction of the atmosphere will happen. Some say its already happening.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think this should have been your original post. The question is whether present global warming is do to man-made changes to the atmosphere or do to normal orbital changes (or a combination of both).

However, I have a hard time believing that it will be inevitable that some natural occurance will lead to the destruction of the atmosphere. Sure, it might but I don't know why it must? Do you believe that is waht happened elsewhere in the solar system like Mars?

[/ QUOTE ]
Eventually it must because its always possible. Just like losing with a straight flush in poker. It,s just a matter of playing enough.

No idea if that's what happened to Mars but if there was life on mars then we shouldn't be suprised if that's what did happen.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
My initial thought is that debates like these normally revolve around the idea that we (mankind) can do something that's counter-evolution or counter-natural. Surely evolution applies whatever we do and whatever we do is evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it counter-evolution to protect and propetuate and our own species by trying to reduce our part in global warming?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure. I'd like to hear more on this. This is where that guy who wanted to move science stuff to the math forum could chime in. But from what I gather...

If man's demise is due to global warming I think we will be killed off long before the atmoshphere disappears. There will be devastating weather, floods, ice caps will melt, etc. etc. This will make the environment uninhabitable for man (or at least enough to put an end to our part in the process of global warming), long before other life forms will be completely unable to survive. WARNING: I'm not a scientist and am just pontificating on my own here. I could be totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe but the catastrophic idea of global warming (I'm not endorsing this view) is that the warming causes further warming - once the ball is rolling it wont just stop.

its positive feedback processes like:

planet warms - ice melts - ice no longer reflects sunlight out of the atmosphere - earth warms more - more ice melts etc etc

chez

[bocablkr]

The cycle between global warming and the ice age cooling has happened many times in the past. The cycle is not a one way path to destruction. Global warming and the ice ages are linked to precession of the equinox and the Earth's orbital variance. Check out precession - it is very interesting.

However, if man is causing the present day global warming and it is happening way too soon compared to the normal orbital reasons then it is possible that it could cause catastropic damage to the atmosphere long before the normal ice age cooling occurs to counter-act it.

I just question whether this would have ever happened had intelligent life not evolved on this planet.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The cycle between global warming and the ice age cooling has happened many times in the past. The cycle is not a one way path to destruction. Global warming and the ice ages are linked to precession of the equinox and the Earth's orbital variance. Check out precession - it is very interesting.

However, if man is causing the present day global warming and it is happening way too soon compared to the normal orbital reasons then it is possible that it could cause catastropic damage to the atmosphere long before the normal ice age cooling occurs to counter-act it.

I just question whether this would have ever happened had intelligent life not evolved on this planet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can argue its not possible. If its possible then its a queston of when not if, isn't it?

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you can argue its not possible. If its possible then its a queston of when not if, isn't it?



[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

I am not one of those who believe that because something is possible that it must happen given enough time. That actually might be an interesting OP. Some people believe the Universe has an infinite number of outcomes and that all will eventually occur - I don't subscribe to that point of view. But how can we prove anything one way or the other? Hopefully, you and I will live for ever and find out who is right /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[madnak]

It has been mathematically established that over an infinite number of trials, any event with a probability greater than 0 will occur.

Of course, we're not talking about an infinite number of trials. If the probability is 0.00001 for every 1000 years, then it will almost certainly happen in the next 3 billion years. It's more than 99.99999% certain. That's math, not opinion.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been mathematically established that over an infinite number of trials, any event with a probability greater than 0 will occur.

Of course, we're not talking about an infinite number of trials. If the probability is 0.00001 for every 1000 years, then it will almost certainly happen in the next 3 billion years. It's more than 99.99999% certain. That's math, not opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are opening a can of worms. Just because something is possible does not mean it has a non-zero probability.

[madnak]

That is true. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, that's very true. Are you suggesting that the extinction of all life on earth doesn't have a probability greater than 0?

[moorobot]

Environmentalism should fundementally be seen as a way to ensure this planet will continue to be hospitable to humans. It is not about about man destroying the planet or saving it, but making it inhabitable by living creatures.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
That is true. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, that's very true. Are you suggesting that the extinction of all life on earth doesn't have a probability greater than 0?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the probability that all men will turn in their weapons for peace and love greater than zero? I think it is, yet it will NEVER happen.

Your point is well taken that if an event has a greater than zero probability then given enough trials it will eventually occur. No problem with that. But there is a difference between number of trials and infinite time. Man will not get an infinite number of chances to divert from his destructive way. So whether he does, or does not, neither is inevitable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is true. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, that's very true. Are you suggesting that the extinction of all life on earth doesn't have a probability greater than 0?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the probability that all men will turn in their weapons for peace and love greater than zero? I think it is, yet it will NEVER happen.

Your point is well taken that if an event has a greater than zero probability then given enough trials it will eventually occur. No problem with that. But there is a difference between number of trials and infinite time. Man will not get an infinite number of chances to divert from his destructive way. So whether he does, or does not, neither is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this case the probability of non-self aware evolution causing the catastrophy in the next million years is non-zero. Given enough time there are infinitely many trials of 1 million years therefore the catastrophie is inevitable.

Maybe man can never reduce the probability but maybe he can, maybe we need some luck to survive the first n trials.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the probability that all men will turn in their weapons for peace and love greater than zero? I think it is, yet it will NEVER happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know that it will never happen, then it must have a probability of 0 /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
That is true. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, that's very true. Are you suggesting that the extinction of all life on earth doesn't have a probability greater than 0?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think it is zero - but I also don't think the time period is infinite. There is not an infinite number of evolutionary trials available before the earth would be destroyed by the demise of the sun.

Evolutionary trials can take millions of years so the number of different so called paths are limited to a smaller amount than suggested by Chez in a later post. I just think the probability is so low that it most likely won't occur before the earth ends naturally. But I will concede it is possible. Enjoyed this thread so far.

[bunny]

Personally I disagree. I dont think catastrophic global warming or somesuch would cause total extinction (massive, yes but not total) and even if it did - there would be something left and whatever process occurred to begin life could happen again.

It has been mentioned, but I also think that your point about phase space including barren, lifeless husks therefore Earth will reach one eventually is not valid because the time forward is not infinite - the Sun will explode, we will probably be swallowed up by some gravitational collapse eventually, etc

I think sentient beings around increases the risk of environmental catastrophe but makes the life that is present more valuable.

[chezlaw]

Bunny/bocablkr

I specifically excluded cosmic event (I assume the sun exploding counts as cosmic) for two reasons:

Mainly because I was trying to keep things simple (some hope /images/graemlins/grin.gif) to get the idea across. Given a long enough period of time the dead husk is inevitable unless a species evolves intelligent aenough to do something about it. I'm not suggesting that's realistic but hopefully you can see what I mean.

[The second minor reason is intelligent life being the only hope of saving the planet (or life fom the planet) is trivialy true if we include the sun exploding]

The interesting bit about which I make no strong claim, is whether in the real universe man is more likely to destroy or save the planet. My personal view is that the atmosphere (which I assume is neccesary) is fairly fragile over millions of years and there's a fair chance of a dead husk catastrophie before the sun explodes. It seems implausible to me that left to its own devices it will happily self-regulate itself.

Interesting stuff so far. People seem to think a manless earth would survive pretty well.

BTW - I only introduced global warming as an example and with some reluctance. Sadly (or not so sadly) I have no handy examples of a cause of the end of all life on earth.

chez

[bocablkr]

Chez,

You did get your point across - I just have a problem with the inevitability part of it. Remember, life has managed pretty well for over a billion years without mankind, I suspect it could have made it a few billion more.

Would be interesting if we found life somewhere else that had existed for billions of years without sentient life.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You did get your point across - I just have a problem with the inevitability part of it. Remember, life has managed pretty well for over a billion years without mankind, I suspect it could have made it a few billion more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Life having done well for billons of years without mankind isn't evidence of much. It's not like we could be here discussing how life had failed before man evolved /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Would be interesting if we found life somewhere else that had existed for billions of years without sentient life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe when we explore the universe we will come across planets with evidence of life and atmosphere in the past, most (maybe all) showing no evidence of sentience.

That's what I weakly predict will be found.

chez