• @CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1610 months ago

      Oh, our world will be fine, it’s not the Earth’s first mass extinction event. We - and a lot of flora and fauna we depend on - are really fucked though.

      • @ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        610 months ago

        I hate seeing this take repeated. Just because there have been other mass extinction events doesn’t mean the earth will be fine this time. If we fuck things up bad enough it will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. At which point the earth will not be fine, because it will be Venus 2.0. Additionally if we kill ourselves off but somehow fall short of that point, who cares if the earth will be fine in our absence? As far as we’re aware we are the only sapient life in the universe. This dismissive, humanity hating attitude that its fine if we die off because the planet won’t literally cease to exist, is so dumb. How about if we just be better instead of going extinct?

      • @scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        It’s an interesting mass extinction event, too. Have we ever seen one species balloon to such predominance? Humans are like 80% of mammalian biomass on the planet. Definite loss of biodiversity. I wonder if it’s a loss of biomass too.

      • arefx
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

        Man we still fucked it all up though

      • Baut [she/her] auf.
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        “Overpopulation”? It’s infinite growth and inefficient distribution.
        Where do you think does the “overpopulation” come from?

        • @optissima@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          510 months ago

          I think they meant we’re from Central Africa and technically an invasive species anywhere else in the world.

          • @SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            710 months ago

            I thought invasive implied a species was moved by another. I don’t think a species can be invasive just for moving north or something. Humans moved themselves gradually over time.

            • @optissima@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              410 months ago

              A quick search defines invasive species as a type of introduced species, which is outlined as

              An introduced species, alien species, exotic species, adventive species, immigrant species, foreign species, non-indigenous species, or non-native species is a species living outside its native distributional range, but which has arrived there by human activity, directly or indirectly, and either deliberately or accidentally.

              So I’d say that technically they are, but even more to the point it seems like the invasive species definition is very human centric (an alien cannot create an invasive species?)

              • @SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                410 months ago

                Obviously this is a super semantically oriented discussion but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say human in this context really refers more to the role. Humans can control other species in that way, like an extra terrestrial also likely could have.

                I’m not saying I agree with the idea, I’m just looking for a way humans could be “invasive”

            • @DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              310 months ago

              They adapted the definition to include causing economic or environmental harm because NERDS kept pointing out that all species are either constantly invading new territory or in the process of going extinct.