zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. bavell+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-01-28 14:57:45
> ...all other species would get lost, reducing biodiversity and effectively meaning an extinction-level event.

Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though. It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

replies(1): >>petemi+d3
2. petemi+d3[view] [source] 2024-01-28 15:18:39
>>bavell+(OP)
> Reducing biodiversity doesn't equate to an extension-level event though

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica [0]: __These conspicuous declines in diversity are referred to as mass extinctions__

> It also doesn't mean all species who didn't thrive would be lost - many would be affected but not existentially so.

But this is not a fact, it is a conjecture. On the other hand, we do have declining numbers of a big number of species. Unless the tendency reverts, constant long-term declining numbers will be an existential threat.

> I'm reminded of George Carlin's joke about the planet being fine long-term, we're the ones who will be screwed.

That's true, for sure. But asides from "the planet" and "we", there are also all the others.

[go to top]