Considering all the changes in the global environment mankind is responsible for; do you think we could be...?

Question

naturally selected for extinction? This planet would be a paradise if not for us. Global warming? Nuclear weapons? Deforestation? Scarey! Yeah?

Answer 1

In the movie Jurassic Park, Jeff Goldbloom stated that, "Life will find a way." He was referring to the breeding and gender restraints genetically programed into the dinosaurs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if a species cannot adapt to it's environment there is a good chance that it will not be around for very long...and in geological terms a million years is a drop in the bucket. Mankind appears to be thriving but we have occupied this planet for say....a blink of the eye? I believe that's accurate enough for this argument. Just a couple of hundred thousand years ago or so two species of humans occupied this planet at the same time. We are one; for some reason we were chosen either over the other or more likely...just chosen. They are extinct possibly just because they couldn't build a better mouse trap. I'm not a learned man but I can see great changes being made to our environment that are indisputably the result of the industrial revolution. Nature is a word but it represents a phenomenon that is the essence of everything we are let alone the rest of the planet (and universe). The scientists are saying that global warming, whatever the cause will overwhelm us by....say, the year 2500....give or take a hundred years. Well Kiddo; the dinosaurs were here for millions of years....millions. They were most likely the victims of a random cosmological event but hey, how many dinosaurs does it take to build a nuclear reactor? Or strip mine a mountain range,....make a hundred trillion toothpicks? Actor Goldblum also emphasized that new sciences are being created out of old sciences without the trial and error phase so necessary for a safe and appropriate progression. We appear to be thumbing our noses at nature and are adhering to a first come, first serve policy. I don't believe we can compel nature to adapt to us but so far that is what it looks like we are doing. Okay, I've said enough; good wake up call. Thanks.

Answer 2

I don't support either candidate yet, but I think you misunderstood Palin. She didn't claim that mankind is not responsible. She claimed that mankind's ability to influence the world's climate is as yet unproven, and correctly pointed out that there are natual climatic cycles caused by the planet's wobble, solar activity, and other factors. Personally, I agree with that assessment. I know the climate is changing, and concede that man's activity *may* be a factor. But I also know that earth's climate has had a history of drastic change since long before mankind could have exerted any influence. Therefore, I find declarations that mankind is the culprit to be premature.

Answer 3

Hoku,


To answer the question in the way that it is phrased, I must say that I do not think that we alone could be the cause of human extinction or planet extinction. Do you know what percent of the United States is still forest? Do you know how much of South America is still forest? Did you know that there have been 4 time periods in which the Earth was completely ice free? I am not going to give you the answers. If and when you look for the answers... your eyes will be opened.

Answer 4

Who says we're slated for extinction? The only real threat I see is overpopulation. There are many natural factors in place to limit the growth of the human population--diseases, natural disasters, wars, cults, etc. all contribute to limit our numbers here on earth. It's quite possible that humans will survive for a very long time.

Answer 5

First, I'd take Al Gore with a grain of salt (and no, I'm NOT a right neo-con!) I am, however, a Geologist who has spent much of my career working in the environmental arena and I believe I have a better understanding of global climate change than "Mr. Average".

To the point: our climate IS changing and it is likely that we are affecting that change through de-forestation and increased "greenhouse gas" emissions. However, these are processes that have also occurred naturally without human's help during previous warming cycles. By all indications we're coming out of a mini ice-age that saw increased continental glaciation and cooler temperatures. Now the planet is warming back up. Ice cores indicate that CO2 levels were much higher during the previous warming cycle. We can also expect atmospheric methane levels to increase as ocean warming frees frozen methane hydrate (which would be a great energy source if we could "mine it").

That's not to say that the warming cycle won't continue to cause dramatic changes such as polar melting and sea level rise, stronger storms, and wild changes in weather patterns. However, humans survived the last ice-age and were probably strengthened by it. I suspect that we'll survive the warming period as well, but we will undoubtedly be changed by it.

Answer 6

I'd humbly submit that at least *some* of us would be selected to evolve and adapt to the changes, instead of dying out. Really, search the site below for "recent genetic mutations in humans":

http://www.sciencenews.org/

The point of it is, people have *been* evolving and have *been* adapting, mainly in terms of intelligence and diet, yes, even *in spite of* civilization. Many others here have pointed out that the eco-system has "had worse" in terms of having to recover from mass extinctions....

But it needs saying that individual species are also tough as well. Search that same site, above, for "Mutation rates", "shrews and voles" and "at Chernobyl". The point of that is, the mutation and evolution rates of shrews and voles--simple, humble mammals, but mammals nonetheless--has increased 10,000-fold since that nuclear reactor blew up. Granted, the bulk of that change has been towards cancer resistance and tumor resistance, but still...

The idea is, even *if* things were failing *much* more suddenly and dramatically than they are now (and they are failing in multiple directions mind you), there's still six *billion* of us. Even if only one in a million of us survived, that would leave 6,000 people left to evolve, adapt and start over. If we could find one another, we'd hardly go extinct.

And even so....we're still evolving *anyway*. Look to the richest people of the poor nations, and the poorest people of the rich ones. That's where the natural selection pressures are at once the most intense and the most *relevant* (the poorest of the poor nations suffer more pressure, but it's too much of a meat-grinder, *no* advantage can be positively selected for when *anybody* can be dropped *randomly* at any time by warfare, famine, and HIV infection, among other things).

But yeah....in brief. I don't think we are *all* selected to die off. I think at least *some* of us are selected--however you want to put it--to adapt and survive. And just from what little I've seen and researched informally on the subject, I'd say some of that is going to hit *sooner* rather than later, because the trends have been with us since the dawn of literate civilization in Egypt. And because while the global *warming* may well have been worse before, the global levels of *pollution* still remain unprecedented.

The only real questions to ask are: "When exactly is human evolution going to hit us?" and "What's it going to do to us?"

I have a rough timetable (in the next 15 to 150 years) but no clue really as to what it's going to do--it could be a blessing, it could be catastrophic in terms of our *remaining* human and civilized.

I hope this helps....thanks for your time! ^_^

Answer 7

Your assumption is that mankind is responsible for things like global warming. The fact is, we dont know that, we don't even know if global warming is really happening.
Nuclear weapons? I thought that scare was over by the end of the 80s.
Deforestation? That is caused by a bunch of farmers in south america. It would doom some tarantulas, not mankind. We get most of our paper and wood products from tree farms in canada.

I guess what I am saying is, no, we are not naturally selected for extinction. We have the ability to adapt to great changes in the enviroment. We lived through ice ages, droughts, and natural disasters of all kinds before arriving where we are, and we are more equipped now then ever.
The only thing that could end mans time on earth anytime soon is God himself.

Answer 8

It is ignorance and arrogance, creed and profiteering the seeds of our self-destruction. The Universe is a vast pool of energy from where we attract energy to achieve our goals. Since our global aim is to gain profits by exploiting natural recourses without caring much about the consequences on the ecosystems involved extinction will be of our making.

Answer 9

Well... This planet was never paradise. True, humanity is self-destructive on itself. Yet, human extinction, is possible but most likely won't happen. That's just my opinion though.

Answer 10

Don't be silly. The earth has been around and survived for 4 1/2 billion years. It has absorbed cosmic punches way beyond what man could ever throw at it. Gosh, we sure know how to inflate our egos don't we??