Stefan_Key on 9/11/2016 at 09:00

---

No bees, no food.

(https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/bee-extinction-means-end-humanity.html)

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-and-extinction-of-the-bees/5375684)

Enough said.

faetal on 9/11/2016 at 09:15

---

I'm pretty close to giving up on this thread, since every time, since the very beginning, I have stated that I am describing a worst case scenario and people are reacting like I'm describing a foregone conclusion. Humans are apex predators WITHIN THE CURRENT ECOLOGICAL CONFIGURATION. Competition is about ecological niches. Yes we have adapted to fill many of those, but only because of vast abundance of resources which we have evolved to be able to metabolise very efficiently. I am describing a rare (by my own definition, less than 5% possibility and I have also stated this figure is just an abstraction of "very unlikely, but possible") situation whereby after a mass extinction of greater magnitude than the P-T mass extinctions, it is POSSIBLE (note that "probable" is a different word) that the remaining ecological landscape will not contain niches which we can exploit in the same way. Our technology and ingenuity relies on abundance to gain momentum. It was pretty much agriculture which allowed us to make the switch from hunter gatherer to sedentary lifestyle. We had enough stuff and enough fertile places to grow it in order to explode in numbers. Then we discovered an energy source which allowed us to automate a lot of the "work" and explode out again, by an order of magnitude.

Without niches which we can exploit and build momentum in, we don't have such a great advantage. Likewise, the other species which survive a mass extinction might be better adapted to exploit what is left, which means that over time, their numbers will grow faster than human numbers because of greater fitness relative to the ecological conditions. As I mentioned earlier, one human couple will realistically produce one child per year and that child requires huge resource investment before being independent. If that child doesn't survive, then that couple's fecundity has a huge percentage taken out. Other species approach fitness by numbers, they have larger litters which develop into independent individuals more quickly and they can have these litters more frequently.

Now, remembering that my argument is that I think it is unlikely, but still possible that humans can go extinct in response to an ecological catastrophe - is anyone still of the opinion that such a thing is inconceivable?

Also, bear in mind that I'm not especially interested in whether or not people find this "hard to imagine", I'd expect a person with no molecular biology training would also find it hard to imagine how VCJ recombination works in T cell genetic development as well - there is some point to education beyond tweed evening wear.

faetal on 9/11/2016 at 09:28

---

Pyrian, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's increasing de-synchronisation between insect pollinators and the plants they pollinate which is a worry. The effects of warming aren't just that all the animals die of thirst, heat stroke and too many banana diaquiris - when you lose synchronisation between insects and plants, food webs start to collapse and the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Won't they desynchronise at the same rate I hear you ask? Well no, the specific triggers for when certain plants flower, or certain insects lay eggs or where they lay them or when they hatch or how they develop is tied to things like temperature, humidity, light levels and duration of temperature etc etc etc, so you can get an insect being active and being all "the fuck the flowers at?" and then dying before the flowers appear, which then have to rely on overlap from other insects, or die off. Once these effects begin to happen, huge effects can occur in the space of just a few years.

Colony collapse disorder is a big worry, but the relationship between insects and plants in general is fragile and can't all adapt to temperature changes as rapid as the ones we are seeing and will certainly lose their synchronisation. My guess is that this is going to be the first major ecological disaster. It isn't yet clear if we'll see it in our lifetime, but it's a possibility. I don't want to imagine what societies will do after a few years of global food web disruption.

[EDIT] This thread has been pretty illuminating. I'm beginning to think that a big part of humanity's cognitive bias and why no one is really reacting to climate change is that there is a fundamental idea that there is no way we could ever ultimately fail as a species. It seems I'm arguing against the whole forum on the point that there is no way humans could become extinct. Is that really what's happening? Are we invincible or something?

faetal on 9/11/2016 at 10:35

---

Well my argument is that there is a small chance humans could go extinct after another ME event. Seems like the counter arguments are either mistaking me for saying it's likely or suggesting that it couldn't happen.
Since I've highlighted "small" and "could", how else should I take refutation?

It genuinely seems like the assumption is that no matter the changes in ecological conditions, there will always be humans. All I'm doing is questioning the "no matter what" implications.

faetal on 9/11/2016 at 10:40

---

Does my 95% abstraction not already cover that, as I've gone to some length to repeat ad nauseum?

[EDIT] I'd go so far as to say that if we came out of the other end still well adapted to the surviving ecosystem, we'd have an excellent chance of a return to former glory. However, as a young species, it's not easy to tell how well we'd adapt to something vastly different to what exists, and our reproductive process is very expensive versus pretty much everything.