I strongly urge you to read Collapse by Jared Diamond, @jordanbpeterson. Then you'll learn that human societies have often extinguished themselves through overpopulation and mismanaging their environmental resources.
-
-
-
You seem to not even grasp the very pop-science-level basics of ecology, let alone the textbook-level knowledge. Yet you have a responsibility to your audience that expects your knowledge to be researcher-level. Please be frank about your non-expertise.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So you're saying we should form our society along the lines of the lobster?
-
So what you’re saying is that we can derive anything from .. anything? Postmodern ”infinite interpretations”.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
SJWs dominate the biological sciences. An otherwise robust field loses credibility when the subject becomes modern humanity. We are bad, we’re unnatural, we’re ruining everything. Granted, extinction rates are elevated but BIOMASS IS NEUTRAL.http://schooloftheurbanorganism.com/biomass-is-neutral/ …
-
Biomass is neutral because there's so bloody, much livestock. The problem is not loss of biomass but loss of biodiversity. And it's not just a practical problem either.
-
Correct. However, the problem of mass extinctions is usually the loss of biomass. So you've proved my point which is that this mass extinction is importantly different. It is never treated as such. Also, the notion that biodiversity is optimal at all times is false.
-
The current mass extinction derives from Nature. Suggestions humanity has departed from or is in conflict with Nature are tantamount to Creationism. Adherence to evolution requires that every THING counts in the assessment of natural history.
-
I'm not saying it's pretty, but science is so busy condemning human nature instead of asking the more important questions about why life would evolve into what we have now, a glowing urban organism emitting matter into space. Some suggestions are here:http://www.theurbanorganism.com
-
In terms of livestock, you hit nail on head. Organisms going extinct are being replaced by mass populations of a select few. It's not sustainable but I wouldn't agree it's "bad." I'd agree it's higher risk. Risks are only bad when realised. Higher risks can equal higher reward.
-
You're right. 'Bad' is a bad term to use here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Amazing
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I distinctly remember reading an article reporting that up to 80% of Earth’s animal biomass is made up of nematodes. But as deadly potential predators to plants, fungi, animals & even bacteria it’s rather good humans are outnumbered. Prey populations dictate predator populations.
-
Except that humans farm and create sustainable systems.
-
Farming is unique to humans but I’ve heard some less than promising things about farming practices over the years. Particularly, with the salmon farming industry.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem with human overpopulation is not a biomass problem. It is a biodiversity problem. And guess what? It is not how biodiversity is measured... Even if you are a bad psychologist, I’ll stick there if I were you.
-
Please explain, I’m really curious .. or point me in a direction, that works too.
New conversation -
-
-
Does this include the oceans?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.