Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 146: |
Line 146: |
| | | |
| I wonder if it is getting to be a good time to make a followup, showing the further warming over the last several years and the rightward movement of the 'if we...' paths. 21-Feb-2020 | | I wonder if it is getting to be a good time to make a followup, showing the further warming over the last several years and the rightward movement of the 'if we...' paths. 21-Feb-2020 |
− |
| |
− | ~5000 BCE is <s>higher</s> slightly lower then now [[User:Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 01:47, 10 February <s>2011</s> 2024 (UTC)
| |
| | | |
| == Actual best-case scenario == <!-- please keep this header so it can be linked from off-site discussions --> | | == Actual best-case scenario == <!-- please keep this header so it can be linked from off-site discussions --> |
Line 203: |
Line 201: |
| | | |
| The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, and this graph shows it.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.19|172.68.50.19]] | | The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, and this graph shows it.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.19|172.68.50.19]] |
− | :I agree that it has probably been a disaster (certainly a gamechanger) for the ecosystems, causing changes and challenges that are so much different to what everything else woupd have experienced without such a heavy hand of humans upon the planet. But for "the human race",vI wonder if there'd be so many billions of us if industrial (and post-malthusian) developments had never arisen. By a simplistic numbers game, we are (currently) ranking higher than it seems likely a more nature-tuned alternative 20th/21st-Century would have looked like.
| |
− | :A higher population doesn't guarantee "success", I know, and only hindsight will say for sure whether unprecedented growth leads to unprecedented decline in the same 'scoring' value (indicating that it isn't the best score to use long-term), but some would say this. (Not me, I'm just philosophising here.)
| |
− | :Beyond this, if only by entering the Industrial Age do we have the ability to foresee and forestall some asteroid impact..? Perhaps then the (somewhat damaged) ecosystem actually lives on 'better' (subjectively) from our flawed attempt to industrially improve the planet, to our own ends, the rediscovery of ecoprinciples and then the successful aversion of another planet-killing asteroid (or at least the development of "arks" to let the current biodiversity to ride out the problem, here or elsewhere). Unless you have the view that the post-now changes (like the post-dinosaur/etc changes) are themselves higher scoring on the nature-scale. (But then if an unaverted asteroid is equal to a prior one, then is our polluion of the world equal to when earlier organisms started to fill the atmosphere with deadly oxygen and convert the world to an entirely different phase of life?)
| |
− | :What can definitely be said is that we're doing ''something'', but expect some people (who aren't actually full-on deniers) to suggest that it isn't really a bad thing. Which it probably is, of course. Or at least not the ''best'' thing, and there's probably better outcomes than the one we're tumbling into, by whatever measure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.31|172.70.86.31]] 09:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
| |