Thread: Humans, a long-term ''investment'' for the environment

It has been said that humans are bad for the environment, but actually humans can be helpful for earths ecosystem in the long run. For example, sooner or later a comet will strike the earth, humans will be the only beings that can avoid such a catastrophic event and therefore saving life on earth. So actually the human resource exploit (e.g. Wood, gas processing) is basically an ''investment'' for advanced civilizations that will have the capacity to avoid natural disasters.

Without any humans to define "good" and "bad" there is no such thing as a good or bad environment.

Probably a bad investment from that point of view. Humans might well precipitate a mass extinction of the type that based on averages impacts frequency would take another 50 million years to realize a net savings in biodiversity.

What's so good about biodiversity? Mass extinctions are wonderful, exciting times for the surviving species, opening up fantastic vistas of joyous opportunity.

Originally Posted by redhaven

It has been said that humans are bad for the environment, but actually humans can be helpful for earths ecosystem in the long run. For example, sooner or later a comet will strike the earth, humans will be the only beings that can avoid such a catastrophic event and therefore saving life on earth. So actually the human resource exploit (e.g. Wood, gas processing) is basically an ''investment'' for advanced civilizations that will have the capacity to avoid natural disasters.

Actually, it's highly unlikely humans could do anything about a comet impact. That's mostly a bend over and kiss your a** goodbye situation. It would be an unkown comet from the Kuiper Belt or inner Oort Cloud. Velocity too high, not enough time to react.

Asteroids are a different matter, in that case we could make a difference.

As of now there are no likely asteroid impacts for more that a century or 7.

For MeteorWayne. '''bend over... This is out of the question MW, I'm not built to do that.

Asteroids. Yes, this could provide some excitment for an elder like me, I'd be glued to CNN.

Impacts. Good Lord, I read this wrong for a second or two, I thought you posted 7 in a Century, then I realised you meant in the 7th Century. Thank God that has past. westwind.

Originally Posted by westwind

For MeteorWayne. '''bend over... This is out of the question MW, I'm not built to do that.

.

The Universe doen't really care. An incoming, impacting comet is big trouble. Believe me, there is nothing we could do.

For MeteorWayne. Is it possible that one of the purposes of investing the know how and Capital Cost of the Space Station was in preparation for such an event, an Asteroid Strike? Select personnel could be mustered, trained, if we detected the Asteroid early enough,and flown up to the Space Station? Live there until the Earth settled down again, return, and start populating all over again? Or, Alternativly, the deep Bunker with 5 years food supply etc? Wot say you MW, and have you put your name down for the Space Station Gig? westwind.

If it comes to a big cometary hit bunkers would be far superior to trying to survive in space; without ongoing re-supply from Earth the occupants of the ISS would be doomed. Not that the situation would necessarily be good for those in bunkers - self sufficiency, particularly a high tech version is not as easy as it sounds. Without all those services that an earthly environment in working order provides, just keeping up with basic needs is far from straightforward; stockpiled hoards would be more important to survival than hydroponics and internal manufacturing.

I think that without a significant population to restart a sizable economy the prospects of maintaining a high tech lifestyle afterwards would be very difficult.