Life After People

[Ian H]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption that, while other organisms are merely part of nature, human kind is some kind of imposition on nature, for either good or evil, depending on the point of view.

[harrumph]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

[Dave]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

I'd like to see us have as big an impact as those bloody blue-green algae 

[Ian H]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

[harrumph]

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not.

I find that bland assertion so preposterous that I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

[Ian H]

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not.

I find that bland assertion so preposterous that I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

So you'd be surprised to learn that I support environmental measures to 'save the planet'?

[mattc]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

Surely what makes us different is having enough intelligence to KNOW we are over-grazing, running out of food, and killing off loads of OTHER species with our detritus.

[LEE]

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure

- Agent Smith

Edit :Humans are quite simply not destroying the planet.  They are just making it more difficult for the Earth to sustain us (and a few other species).  We are changing the planet (probably temporarily) until it finds a new or the same equilibrium.  Humans will be a tiny blip, an unnoticeably thin layer of archeological evidence in geological time.


Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs, Humans, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else, Something else,

[Ian H]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

Surely what makes us different is having enough intelligence to KNOW we are over-grazing, running out of food, and killing off loads of OTHER species with our detritus.

We are self-aware, which might be unique. But that doesn't put us outside nature, it just makes our behaviour patterns a little more complicated.

[Ian H]

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure

- Agent Smith

Which is amusing, but bollocks. What exactly is a diseased planet? Are the other planets in the solar system 'diseased' because they don't support life?

[LEE]

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure

- Agent Smith

Which is amusing, but bollocks. What exactly is a diseased planet? Are the other planets in the solar system 'diseased' because they don't support life?

It was only a light-hearted movie quote

[Ian H]

It was only a light-hearted movie quote

Sorry, My post reads rather aggressively. But your quote does seem to sum up what a lot of people believe about human kind.

[Really Ancien]

If I was watching from outer space, I'd be looking at the planet over the last 100,000 years and I'd probably be interested in the ocean currents initially, especially El Nino, over time I'd probably conclude that the solid surface of the Earth was changing fundamentally, I'd surmise that grass species had formed a symbiotic relationship with another species and were displacing forest cover, I'd speculate if this was sustainable due to signs of dessication at the junction with arid zones. I'd probably conclude that the symbiosis would break down due to stress factors and I'd make a note to look back later to see which way it turned out, desertification or reforestation. I probably wouldn't have enough resolution to make out the other species involved in the symbiosis, it could be  bacteria, maybe an insect, maybe something more complex.

Damon.

[Si]

Speed of revegetation? Well, after the last lot of ice receded it took around 500 years for climax forest to become dominent.  We are starting from much better growing conditions and already have partial covering...so it would be a lot lot less.

As for the human vs animal/plant debate, it's very much a post industrial western thing.  Look at the ethnographic record and you'll find that many peoples don't differentiate between people, (non-human) animals and plants in the way that we do.  Many hunter-gatherer societies have/had social limitations upon how they can use the "resources" around them that stop them over exploiting.  This works to the extent that they can let members of their own groups die rather than change the way that they interact with the world. 

These people aren't any less intelligent than us.  What is different is their cultural interpretation of the world.  Humanity has moved from the "Giving Environment" to domestication of nature and a massive rise in competative consumption that is fuelling the current environmental changes.

[rogerzilla]

I probably wouldn't have enough resolution to make out the other species involved in the symbiosis, it could be  bacteria, maybe an insect, maybe something more complex.

Ah, but you're not Agent Smith.

[D0m1n1c Burford]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet?  These are two very different suppositions.  No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to  pollute the planet on such a global scale.

[Ian H]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet?  These are two very different suppositions.  No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to  pollute the planet on such a global scale.

Of course not. But we have a tendency to think that what we do to the planet is somehow different from what any organism does. It isn't, except in scale, as you would expect from a species as numerous as we are. We are a part of nature and so is everything we do. It's peculiar arrogance to suggest we are somehow outside the natural world looking in. We are as natural as elephant dung and earthquakes.

[D0m1n1c Burford]

There is this unspoken, unjustifiable assumption...

I don't see any other species wrecking the planet.

We're not. We are doing what any living organism does, increasing to the limit of sustainability. In terms of numbers we are a successful organism, largely dominant on this planet. If we over-graze and run out of food, or choke on our own detritus, then we'll die out, just the same as any other organism.

Are you saying that because we are capable of becoming extinct, we are not capable of large scale pollution of the planet?  These are two very different suppositions.  No species is beyond extinction, but that does not negate our ability to  pollute the planet on such a global scale.

Of course not. But we have a tendency to think that what we do to the planet is somehow different from what any organism does. It isn't, except in scale, as you would expect from a species as numerous as we are. We are a part of nature and so is everything we do. It's peculiar arrogance to suggest we are somehow outside the natural world looking in. We are as natural as elephant dung and earthquakes.

- We drive more species to extinction than all others put together
- We fill our skies, rivers and oceans with thousands of tonnes of pollutants, causing global, environmental problems
- Our cities, towns, roads etc often require the destruction of natural habitats such as forest and woodland on massive scales
- We have decimated more rain forest than we can possibly replace, affecting the natural carbon cycle

I could go on.

The human species is natural in the sense that we are biological creatures who are anatomically similar to other species, and partake in natural processes / actions such as sex, excretion, digestion etc.  It is our behaviour that is unnatural.  No other species is capable of destroying the planet.  No other species harms the planet to the same global scale as we do.  There is nothing natural about causing global destruction to our planet.

It is perfectly possible to be natural in form and state, but to behave in ways that are not natural.

[Attitudeless Badger]

cows producing methane and other gasses to damage ozone layer? Slightly frivolous example.  Bacteria and viruses killing off large swathes of trees and plant life?

[rogerzilla]

You could say something similar about the crown-of-thorns sea star, although it doesn't burn fuels and pollute the atmosphere.

The influenza virus, bubonic plague, malaria and AIDS have also had a pretty good go at wiping us out, although they've generally been thwarted due to differences in climate, a too-rapid kill rate or (shock) changes in our behaviour to cure or avoid them.

[Ian H]

It is our behaviour that is unnatural.

What do you mean by 'unnatural'? We're not gods, we don't exist outside nature. Any other creature that achieved the same numbers and dominance would have a substantial effect on its environment. The only difference is scale.

Our main adaptation is a large brain, which enables us to have a unique  degree of foresight. Thus we are able to plan large and complex works. The same foresight enables us to see that we are 'overgrazing' our environment to our disadvantage.  The difficulty is that effecting plans to mitigate future environmental problems requires us to incur disadvantages now. We appear not to be very good at doing that.

[Really Ancien]

This is turning into politics and big issues.
yes we have large brains enabling us to envisage and undertake big and damaging projects, but those brains are working at the margin. Our culture is the most important factor, stupid people can still carry on damaging the planet with what we already have. We can all have ideas but we need a medium through which to express those ideas and make them concrete. One of the strengths of cultural diversity is the capacity of at least one strand to adapt itself to changed conditions. Ray Mears may be a God in 25 years time, and I see they're bringing 'Survivors' back, it'll be Doomwatch next, you mark my words.

Damon.

[andygates]

There is nothing natural about causing global destruction to our planet.

I'm looking at the birds nesting outside, and true to form they're treating their little world like a disposable favela: the nests are filling up with detritus and bird poop, and by the time they leave, they'll be uninhabitable.

Yeast in brewing  will multiply and multiply until it starves and dies or poisons itself on its own (alcoholic) effluent.

It's perfectly natural to strive to increase beyond your available resources.  This is Darwin's very first observation.  Every single thing that is alive does it.  The ones that didn't were selected out right back at the single-cell stage.

We're just better at it than most.

Culture gets tricky because we've got this huge imperative to breed and spread and as long as there's a scrap of green space, some bugger will want to move there and raise a family.

[toekneep]

To get back to the program briefly. I enjoyed it but some of the conclusions were a bit suspect. I think in general there was a lot of exageration for the sake of sensationalism. I can think of bends in roads that have been abandoned after the road was straightened and they don't dissappear as quickly as suggested.

I'm not sure why but I like the idea that nature will grow over our remains and remove all trace of us eventually. Maybe it is something to do with mankind's awful arrogance. What the program reminded us of is the amount of effort we constantly have to put in to hold nature back.

[D0m1n1c Burford]

It is our behaviour that is unnatural.

What do you mean by 'unnatural'? We're not gods, we don't exist outside nature. Any other creature that achieved the same numbers and dominance would have a substantial effect on its environment. The only difference is scale.

Our main adaptation is a large brain, which enables us to have a unique  degree of foresight. Thus we are able to plan large and complex works. The same foresight enables us to see that we are 'overgrazing' our environment to our disadvantage.  The difficulty is that effecting plans to mitigate future environmental problems requires us to incur disadvantages now. We appear not to be very good at doing that.

I think our definition of what constitutes 'natural' is the issue here. 

If you believe that we are not capable of unnatural behaviour at all, then we will have to agree to disagree.  Having sex with a farm animal is unnatural IMO. 

If you believe that we are capable of unnatural behaviour, but do not believe that the behaviours I have described earlier constitute unnatural behaviour, then that is perhaps more difficult to resolve.  Personally, I do not think pumping our oceans full of waste is natural.  If you disagree, then we will have to agree to disagree.