NationStates

A lot of people into climate change will tell you about the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum as an argument for why climate change is bad. However, this seems to be a pretty anthropocentric argument - Although a lot of damage was done, especially to the oceans, in the long run it's clear that very quickly heating up the Earth without completely cooking it actually forces life to innovate instead of kills it. The Eocene was basically world forest time anyway, there were redwoods and alligators in the arctic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life

The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.

It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.

We’re certainly big contributors to it.

Well as the planet warms up and changes climates and biomes around, lots of flora and fauna are going to die out as their habitats are changed or outright destroyed.

The planet itself will be fine. Some life on Earth will suffer.

Bear Stearns wrote:The planet itself will be fine. Some life on Earth will suffer.

This. ^

Highever wrote:Well as the planet warms up and changes climates and biomes around, lots of flora and fauna are going to die out as their habitats are changed or outright destroyed.

They would have gone extinct anyway. Who are we to guarantee their existence against climatic hiccups? The champions will show their faces, we're just butthurt we might not be among them in great numbers.

As a human, I'd argue that human existence is a pretty key metric in deciding what kind of policies and things to be concerned about. No point arguing that an antarctic with trees would be nice (which wouldn't happen for a very, very long time, as the soil in the Antarctic is basically none existent at the moment) if there is nobody around to comment on how lovely the south pole grove is.

Chan Island wrote:As a human, I'd argue that human existence is a pretty key metric in deciding what kind of policies and things to be concerned about.

Why?

Chan Island wrote:As a human, I'd argue that human existence is a pretty key metric in deciding what kind of policies and things to be concerned about. No point arguing that an antarctic with trees would be nice (which wouldn't happen for a very, very long time, as the soil in the Antarctic is basically none existent at the moment) if there is nobody around to comment on how lovely the south pole grove is.

Absolutely, seeing as we’ve created some of the problems that are causing or exacerbating the warming.

For us. The planet is a big lump of rock and will continue to exist for some four billion years, that is some 3600 million years after it becomes a big lifeless lump of rock. After that, all that will be left of Earth will be a slight increase in the metallicity of the dying Sun and some dust in the planetary nebula around it.

And the planet still won't care, because rocks lack a mind.

Grapasia wrote:

Highever wrote:Well as the planet warms up and changes climates and biomes around, lots of flora and fauna are going to die out as their habitats are changed or outright destroyed.

They would have gone extinct anyway. Who are we to guarantee their existence against climatic hiccups? The champions will show their faces, we're just butthurt we might not be among them in great numbers.

The problem is their extinction and habitat destructuon is being hastened by human activity and not normal or natural climatic shifts.

That's a tricky question. Life itself finds a way, and will find a way again with global warming. Many species will perish and our society may collapse but in the end, earth will continue to harbor lifeforms of some sort for sure, and likely multicellular life still

Highever wrote:

Grapasia wrote:They would have gone extinct anyway. Who are we to guarantee their existence against climatic hiccups? The champions will show their faces, we're just butthurt we might not be among them in great numbers.

The problem is their extinction and habitat destructuon is being hastened by human activity and not normal or natural climatic shifts.

if I invent a time machine I'll send you back to destroy cyanobacteria, how's that sound?

Grapasia wrote:

Highever wrote:Well as the planet warms up and changes climates and biomes around, lots of flora and fauna are going to die out as their habitats are changed or outright destroyed.

They would have gone extinct anyway.

This is like if I shot someone and when someone says "oh my god you killed that man," I reply " he was gonna die anyways. Who are we to say he would be alive tomorrow? "

Rojava Free State wrote:

Grapasia wrote:They would have gone extinct anyway.

This is like if I shot someone and when someone says "oh my god you killed that man," I reply " he was gonna die anyways. Who are we to say he would be alive tomorrow? "

It’s not a very good argument, but it’ll get the uninitiated.

The generation that's young now will be the last to have the opportunity to see a coral reef. Even if we completely get our shit together right now the carbon we've already added to the atmosphere means that these whole ecosystems are over. They took millennia to evolve and individual corals have taken centuries to grow. Within one of those lifetimes our species has destroyed that as surely as we destroyed the dodo. If that doesn't bother you I don't really know what to say.

I've said in the past that taken on a geological scale Life is just a means for the Planet to cycle nutrients through its system, so nah for the planet itself global warming is just a badly cooked meal.
For all the ingredients though - human, plant and animal - it means a whole lot of suffering as ecosystems go through taumatic shifts as they get outpaced by the rapidity of climate zones changing.

Me personally, I live in an cool alpine region in the middle of the country, I'm looking forward to the day that Climate change means I'm living on a tropical island.

Define bad. It’s only bad for us because of our inability to deal with rapid change. We have a dependency, for example, on coastal dwellings, while Climate change and Global warming threaten that niche.

It’s not “bad” for the planet. We just attach arbitrary value to diversity in ecosystems, therefore when that diversity is threatened, it is, to us, bad.

The planet itself doesn’t demand, nor need, diversity, neither is their any more need for a vast array of different species, to a handful of species. As long as environments have the ability to continue to evolve and adapt, the planet will ‘continue’.

So yes, bad for us, bad for diversity on our planet, bad for the planet? Yes, for our criteria of what makes a “healthy” planet. Actually bad for the planet? Nah, Life... uhhh, finds a way.

Risottia wrote:For us. The planet is a big lump of rock and will continue to exist for some four billion years, that is some 3600 million years after it becomes a big lifeless lump of rock. After that, all that will be left of Earth will be a slight increase in the metallicity of the dying Sun and some dust in the planetary nebula around it.

And the planet still won't care, because rocks lack a mind.

What, the planet said something mean to you today?

Lower Nubia wrote:It’s not “bad” for the planet. We just attach arbitrary value to diversity in ecosystems, therefore when that diversity is threatened, it is, to us, bad.

Much like the arbitrary preferences that lead some people to think nuclear war might be a bad thing, or to prefer their house not burning down.

Humans are the primary contributors, directly and indirectly, to climate change trends. Climate change is of apocalyptic significance to humans and many organisms, but it will not actually "kill the Earth" or all life on it. Can we just end the thread?

Uan aa Boa wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:It’s not “bad” for the planet. We just attach arbitrary value to diversity in ecosystems, therefore when that diversity is threatened, it is, to us, bad.

Much like the arbitrary preferences that lead some people to think nuclear war might be a bad thing, or to prefer their house not burning down.

To the Nuclear war head “salesman” and the firefighter. It maintains business.

Lower Nubia wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:Much like the arbitrary preferences that lead some people to think nuclear war might be a bad thing, or to prefer their house not burning down.

To the Nuclear war head “salesman” and the firefighter. It maintains business.

I believe most firefighters would prefer it if there weren’t fires, but hey.

It is bad for the planet because it messes with stability.

Things will eventually stabilise back where they were. Most of us won't be there to see it though.

It is bad for us as to us it is what is contemporary. It will affect *our* lives.

In the Grand Scheme of things, the planet will do just fine returning to its normal fluctuation between glacial periods, and interglacial periods in a relatively minuscule cosmic timescale.

Its bad for the earth as stability is key, yes. But it is mostly bad for us.

My opinion, at least.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:It is bad for the planet because it messes with stability.

Things will eventually stabilise back where they were. Most of us won't be there to see it though.

It is bad for us as to us it is what is contemporary. It will affect *our* lives.

In the Grand Scheme of things, the planet will do just fine returning to its normal fluctuation between glacial periods, and interglacial periods in a relatively minuscule cosmic timescale.

Its bad for the earth as stability is key, yes. But it is mostly bad for us.

My opinion, at least.

There is no good or bad to the earth. It's a big rock and nothing is inherently good or bad for it.