this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
1726 points (97.8% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26788 readers
2536 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's cute and all, but it ain't gonna be birds and deer who gets life off this rock once the Sun starts threatening to swallow it in a few billion years. We're screwing up badly in the short term, but we're the only hope Earth life has in the long term.
The heat death of the universe is inevitable anyway π€·ββοΈ
So? Death from old age is inevitable too, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop breathing or eating. All of life is just postponing the inevitable, but just because the inevitable is inevitable doesn't mean we should stop postponing.
If human beings were the only intelligent life in the universe, then the difference between being wiped out by the sun versus the heat death of the universe is so mind boggling big, that it beggars belief.
So many - near infinite - civilisations could come and go.
Perhaps one of them would find a way to endure.
You're assuming an eternal universe (as opposed to, e.g., a big crunch), which seems likely given the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.
Earth will become a molten blob in a few billion years... then over a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion times later...
Whatever lives on Earth in a billion years from now, if it spreads out, will have a few billion times more billions of years to live.
I don't understand if this is sarcasm or if some people are actually that dense.
When the tectonic plates collide again to form another supercontinent, it will create enough heat to kill off most, if not all, mammals. And it will happen before the sun destroys everything, probably in around 250 million years or so.
250 million years?
Damn, guess I don't need to bother cleaning
How?
The collision itself will generate heat. And a super continent with less water will also absorb more heat energy without having water near its center.
Mammalsβ Time on Earth Is Half Over, Scientists Predict https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/25/science/future-earth-warming-mammal-extinction.html?unlocked_article_code=i-Vz9jIKNFOAz9W461kSfuXdwSaNLqY1OA6-RZUjsXXCFqdC3ZYi5fzATecJES9S5U55iemPY0VVELjOxBte3G2-M5XW3LZ5x0wuvCGDe85590sumzR9EYMPibkT_EUEnWQ65UT0fgYejXoFiqiwwLPaO5VtNWlz187tW6MRjycS3Q4iSAbvCHj4Ga9QI6WR-xod26K-0yKDaHB_iqod3s9o3MBh722dNZmHIUBcVwG_iJ-ocfLFLQFJrSs2kS0JihLKWpETwiCd9EcgcbwCh58HVCY1sN0wg-wX1ThT0TbY5CZCdDXsKwQYsG-F6efLTTF0aSaRxIudb1g9WoWdhmRF4NBChEigjxDOJO2NM2Y2&smid=nytcore-android-share
Interesting read thanks for the link. Had heard none of that before.
eh, birds are already very intelligent. one of the species wil probably end up creating technology at some point (assuming all humans die without ending all life on earth)
There is enough time for another intelligent species to evolve after us, the problem is that we've already used up all the easily accessible fossil fuels. That means they won't have the energy sources necessary to have an industrial revolution and will be stuck at a pre-industrial tech level forever (or rather until the oceans boil off).
Is that true? My understanding was that there's still plenty of coal, oil, etc, we just can't keep burning it cause of the greenhouse effect
There are still plenty of fossil fuels, but we've used up the deposits that are easily accessible with 1700s technology.
Ah, thanks. I guess our technology probably wouldn't be around by the time another species replaces us, but it'd be cool if they could just pick up where we left off technologically (of course, they'd have to make good choices to not end up like we did except way faster, and I don't have that much optimism lmao).
Then again, I wonder if there'd be new fossil fuel deposits by then. I mean, if the conditions were right and given enough time. I don't know a whole lot about how this all works, it's fun to think about though.
Then again again, maybe if they had no fossil fuels, they could sidestep the whole anthropogenic (pls don't bully my spelling, I have no idea) climate change problem. I'm sure it would take longer, but maybe they'd eventually figure out how to produce lots of energy without ruining the planet for themselves (or at least ruin it differently than we did). Β―β \β (β Β°β _β oβ )β /β Β―
Probably not. Coal is basically trees that didn't rot, and the reason they didn't rot is that there were no microorganisms that could digest wood at the time. Between the evolution of wood and the evolution of organisms that could digest it, dead trees would just pile up on top of each other and sink into the ground under the weight of new layers of dead trees above them. Now that there are microorganisms that digest wood and dead trees rot away, new coal is not forming.
Oil does continue to form in some ocean areas where there is a layer of water without any oxygen on the ocean floor. Since these areas support no life, any organic remains that descend to the bottom (mostly plankton) remain unconsumed and eventually get buried and turn into oil. But it is a slow process. Estimating oil reserves is notoriously difficult, but it seems there's about as much left in the ground as we've burned in the last fifty years. So in other words, four billion years of oil formation gets you about a century or two of industry. Since the Sun is about halfway through its lifespan, that means the Earth can potentially create enough juice for one more industrial civilization like ours. That's assuming that those oil reserves are allowed to build up and don't just get used up piecemeal by smaller civilizations arising in the interim. And also assuming that that final civilization is even able to make use of that oil, which is much harder to handle than coal (extraction, refining, transportation, etc.), without using coal as a stepping stone. And also assuming that no anaerobic microorganisms evolve that can survive on the ocean floor without oxygen and consume those organic remains, which could put a stop to oil formation just like wood-eating microorganisms put a stop to coal formation. Yeah, that seems like a lot of ifs to me...
damn that's interesting. Thanks for the science! :)
It's only recently been proven untrue... IIRC... because it apparently turns out crude oil is actually the poop of a particular ancient microbe that is still around and that's partially (along with Oil Fracking) why we still have fossil fuels and why a far future non-human civilization will have plenty of fossil fuels to work with.
You're right, though, we have 5x more fossil fuels than have been burnt since the beginning of the industrial revolution. If we DO use the rest, the climate would be so unrecoverable that 99% of multicellular life will die, but even the most corrupt oil executive would be dead years before the last animal because most - especially the wealthiest - humans need agriculture to eat, and if shit hits the fan the poor outnumber the rich and the crop-killing pests outnumber the poor.
OK but then they'll fuck it up worse.
A thousand times this.
I've used this argument before arguing with hippies about "integrating with nature".
Any society that isn't on track to developing the science and engineering necessary for interstellar tavel is a dead end.
It's a tragic waste of human intelligence to keep making the same bamboo huts indefinetly.
So some noble savage can live their lives on repeat for hundreds or millenia, and that's somehow better than inventing an arc that can save every form of life on this unique Planet?
Bloody stupid hippy nonsense.
What makes life on another planet more worthwhile than life here? Also humans didn't take that long to evolve so there's plenty of opportunity for a successor to us to reach the stars in a way that causes less suffering. For that matter, we could have simply taken a couple hundred extra years to get there and reduced human suffering by like a thousandfold with a more equitable society. Bloody stupid capitalist nonsense.
No, there isn't. We've already used up all the easily accessible sources of fossil fuels, so whoever comes after us won't have the energy sources necessary to have an industrial revolution and will be stuck at a pre-industrial tech level forever.
Great! So they'll skip the fossil energy era and jump directly to renewables? We paved the path for them to avoiding another climate change.
Thatβs right, if we kick the bucket, a new intelligent civilization would not have the resources to advance at our pace. They may figure out the atom, but they wonβt have the resources to utilize their knowledge. Then there is the ever looming threat of a disaster, and these preindustrial civilizations will be wiped out with zero warning or preparation.
Also: what are the chances a species similar to us in intelligence will emerge again on this rock? Iβm going to bet itβs pretty darn tiny.
You guys make some giant assumptions....
Feel free to name one or two examples and show how and why they're incorrect.
Write for me 4000 words on how technological advancement is a linear progression that always follows the same path and needs the same exact external stimuli to occur.
4000 words? Oh please, that can be done in a hundredth of that: The laws of physics are constant, and more advanced technologies have energy requirements that must be met by preceding technologies. At the same time, each technology also has to offer enough tangible benefits to be worth pursuing on its own.
Sorry, that is not what I asked for. The fact you won't do it means you're wrong.
Feel free to make up the difference by rereading those two sentences a hundred times. Maybe that'll be enough for the point to get through.
They are the extent of your creativity and imagination, aren't they.
I take it you have nothing else relevant to add to the topic. Cool. See you around.
What makes them 'savage'?
We're not going to make it until the sun swallows the earth. If there's anything related to us left at that point then it wouldn't be recognisable to us.
But if they're coming directly from us, what's the difference
Amen, all those movies where "All tech stops working, people learn to do things for themselves! Utopia acheived!" are garbage
As individuals, a lot of people are content to live a simple life of prosperity. They have a basic job, and a small family, and some basic luxuries - and they call it enough. Some people have a one-eyed focus on increasing their wealth throughout their lives; but not everyone is like that. People generally recognise that their lives are finite. Some try to aim for some kind of imaginary high-score in their life, and others just live a 'normal' life.
I'm now making an analogy. As a species, we can recognise that are time is finite; and we can choose to live that out in a stable simple prosperity, where we just look after our world (house) and get what we need for some basic luxuries, and be content. We could have a billion years of that. It's a very long time. Or... we could aim for endless growth. We could consume as much as possible, and always aim for more. As we run out of resources and livable habitat on Earth, we must look to interstellar travel and spread to other planets. I don't necessarily think that is a better choice.
When I was young, I use to think that humans needed to settle on other planets. But I don't think that any more. Partially because I learnt about special relativity, and decided that unless we're very very wrong about science so far, having connected colonies on other planets is not possible. But also because I realised that there is no intrinsic goal to spread human life as much as possible. There are other things of value. We don't need that particular goal. I also use to think that personal immortality would be a good thing. I don't really think that any more.