Follow

Why do we call it "environment protection", when really it's more like "human protection". I feel like the environment will survive a lot more and longer than those pesky humans will.

@fribbledom
right? we're not really killing the earth, we're just killing everything the earth has that we need to survive.

@fribbledom management doesn't want to consider their own probability as an attack vector

@fribbledom because it'd be too vague. There are multiple ways humans can kill themselves, and making their environment unhabitable is only one way of doing it.

@fribbledom “protecting the environment against its will from changing to one we can’t live in”

@fribbledom we’ll be taking a lot of species of frog with us.

@fribbledom well, we.. uh prefer not to acknowledge the fact that the mortal peril will actually make ourselves perish

@fribbledom to be fully cynical humans are the only ones that care about the environment in the first place, just by the means of, idk, trees not really being able to comprehend the concept of existence in the first place.... It is 100% just our decision that it's a problem, cause WE value this

@fribbledom
"An" environment will exist, but as you point out, probably not one that can sustain human life, or many other forms of multi-cellular life. I think what many people mean when they say "the environment" is "the human habitat," and that may well cease to exist.

@fribbledom We’re trying to protect the human-sustaining environment, specifically.

@fribbledom That's the thing: the planet doesn't care about humans. Essentially we are just trying to stop ourselves from dying out.

@RaeYcrep @fribbledom Which is why “Save the Earth” as a slogan is not very effective. Classic tragedy of the commons. “Save Yourself” might be much more to the point.

@fribbledom I think there's like 200 species that disappear every day, mostly because of humans. So it's not just for us.

@fribbledom i think this is overconfident about the Earth. I mean, sure i think the most that can happen is "hot house Earth with H2S coming out the oceans killing everything", and "plain hot house" being more likely than that.

But what you're really saying is we can't end up evaporation water to an extent that become a further driving global warming evaporating until the pressure at the bottom is too high.

@fribbledom hmm maybe even life at hydrothermal vents can exist even then, since the water vapor still largely on top of oceans keeping pressure up. It falls insofar water vapor is also over land. Of course, most of the life in vents stay away from the actual vents, so even a small fraction there. (Also more slowly oxygen would oxidize land material, and hydrogen might be lost, both lowering pressure and reducing the amount of water available)

About H2S en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_e

@fribbledom not really heard about water vapor runaways being taken seriously, did hear fear of H2S. That said, not sure if that is warranted. The possibility for a hothouse Earth seems a certainty.

Well, optimism of the will, but you know, lots of disasters can happen, and people might still keep mining coal responsible for it. It's possible. Personally i think these things can be averted.

@fribbledom above.. imagining, i don't think water vapor driving it that far is likely.

Probably should have done this beforehand duckduckgo.com/?q=climate+if+b

But top link there is ~centuries timescale. Not quite satisfied with that. Citation here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_ "is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C" but then IPCC is often so conservative. Blep.

@fribbledom anyway, just assuming "the environment will stay around" is a bit like "it's a great wilderness we can't harm because it is so big" which is kindah what got us into this trouble.

@fribbledom Because the subgroup of humans who is responsible for the environmental problems are not personally affected, thus do not need protection, do not see the need to protect other humans, but they do care about a good backyard and a national park? Also, if the Earth is to be nuked in 2070, they would have moved to Mars, and the rest of us would be dead. /s

@niconiconi @fribbledom why not let every single country build up walls surrounding their territory reaching the stratosphere? That way they'll definitely learn how to deal with their own environmental problems! /s

@fribbledom We tend to focus on animals (especially chordates), where humans have had a disproportionate impact. eg: xkcd.com/1338/

I'd love to know if someone has done a similar diagram with plants, as land plants apparently represent the majority of life on earth by mass pnas.org/content/115/25/6506/t

@fribbledom Considering how much stuff will run for a long time after people are gone, it may not.

@fribbledom "What Is it Like to Experience Climate Anxiety as a Bat?" and other philosophical works brought up to date for our dismal situation.

#GrimMeathookFuture

@fribbledom Yeah. Before the environment will be completely uninhabitable we'll be long gone.
Become "the planet" is fully effed the environment will have been uninhabitable for a long time.

Also a lot of people associate "environment" with "hippie nonsense" even when it's used with the meaning of "your surroundings". Like when e.g. talking about recycling lithium batteries and not leaving garbage around.

@fribbledom I always make this point and then there is silence. Which nobody enjoys, but...

@fribbledom "not provoking the environment's immune system"

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!