The Anthropocene

[ding]

And what do you believe is the enabling factor behind invasive species? What allows them to invade areas to which they would normally never have had access?

From your linked article

How Invasive Species Spread​

Invasive species are primarily spread by human activities, often unintentionally. People, and the goods we use, travel around the world very quickly, and they often carry uninvited species with them. Ships can carry aquatic organisms in their ballast water, while smaller boats may carry them on their propellers. Insects can get into wood, shipping palettes, and crates that are shipped around the world. Some ornamental plants can escape into the wild and become invasive. And some invasive species are intentionally or accidentally released pets. For example, Burmese pythons are becoming a big problem in the Everglades.

In addition, higher average temperatures and changes in rain and snow patterns caused by climate change will enable some invasive plant species—such as garlic mustard, kudzu, and purple loosestrife—to move into new areas. Insect pest infestations will be more severe as pests such as mountain pine beetle are able to take advantage of drought-weakened plants.

What is your point exactly? That man isn't a part of nature or that he shouldn't impact nature? Because man is an invasive species and he does impact the ecosystem. But that's man, not CO2 that's doing it. Please don't tell me that you think if man magically eliminated all carbon emissions that extinctions would stop.

 

[Crick]

What is your point exactly?

On this point, that human activities are responsible for invasive species. You claimed this sort of thing took place throughout history but all your examples were from contemporary news stories. Are you claiming that life suffered from invasive species prior to humans?

That man isn't a part of nature or that he shouldn't impact nature?

I'm not a big user of the term "nature". Obviously, man is a lifeform that evolved on this planet. Our self-awareness has allowed us to speculate how we differ from all other life (as we seem wont to believe) and at least one of those differences is that we've shown ourselves able to drive thousands of other species extinct without even trying hard.

Because man is an invasive species and he does impact the ecosystem.

Yes, man is an invasive species and he has impacted every ecosystem on the planet.

But that's man, not CO2 that's doing it.

That's an odd distinction to attempt. Increasing CO2 levels is just one of many things that humans have done that have impacted the Earth's ecosystems.

Please don't tell me that you think if man magically eliminated all carbon emissions that extinctions would stop.

No. But it would help.

 

[ding]

On this point, that human activities are responsible for invasive species. You claimed this sort of thing took place throughout history but all your examples were from contemporary news stories. Are you claiming that life suffered from invasive species prior to humans?

I'm not a big user of the term "nature". Obviously, man is a lifeform that evolved on this planet. Our self-awareness has allowed us to speculate how we differ from all other life (as we seem wont to believe) and at least one of those differences is that we've shown ourselves able to drive thousands of other species extinct without even trying hard.

Yes, man is an invasive species and he has impacted every ecosystem on the planet.

That's an odd distinction to attempt. Increasing CO2 levels is just one of many things that humans have done that have impacted the Earth's ecosystems.

No. But it would help.

It has taken place throughout history. Maybe not on a global scale but only because no other species was capable of dominating on a global scale like man. But if they had they would. It seems you are trying to make a moral argument. There are no morals in evolution. Give your balls a tug.

It's not CO2 that is the problem, it's man. You want to ban cities? You want to ban civilization? You want ti ban man? Good luck with that. You can't even stop the increase in CO2 emissions.

 

[Crick]

It has taken place throughout history.

I think the instances would be exceptionally rare without humans providing transport and I see you seem unable to name a single pre-human example. And the impact would still be less than that of humans.

Maybe not on a global scale but only because no other species was capable of dominating on a global scale like man.

Maybe not at all.

But if they had they would.

Now that's hard science.

It seems you are trying to make a moral argument.

It seems you want me to try to make a moral argument.

There are no morals in evolution. Give your balls a tug.

Crick slaps you hard across the face.

It's not CO2 that is the problem, it's man.

You must live a simple life. CO2 from humans is a problem. The sixth extinction is a problem. They are related. They are not the same thing.

You want to ban cities? You want to ban civilization? Good luck with that.

We'd get further if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. Human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Humans, in a hundred different ways, are driving thousands of species extinct at a completely unprecedented rate. Separate the issues however your personal methods of cogitation require.

 

[ding]

I think the instances would be exceptionally rare without humans providing transport and I see you seem unable to name a single pre-human example. And the impact would still be less than that of humans.

Maybe not at all.

Now that's hard science.

It seems you want me to try to make a moral argument.

Crick slaps you hard across the face.

You must live a simple life. CO2 from humans is a problem. The sixth extinction is a problem. They are related. They are not the same thing.

We'd get further if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. Human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Humans, in a hundred different ways, are driving thousands of species extinct at a completely unprecedented rate. Separate the issues however your personal methods of cogitation require.

I say fuck them all. Evolve or die. Now make your moral argument that you are so desperately trying to make.

 

[Crick]

I say fuck them all. Evolve or die. Now make your moral argument that you are so desperately trying to make.

Is the problem that you know your science on this point isn't worth shit or that you're just dying to show the world how evil I am?

 

[Crick]

Is the problem that you know your science on this point isn't worth shit or that you're just dying to show the world how evil I am?

Wait, wait... I know. You're trying to impress someone in the "Nuke 'em all and let god sort 'em out" crowd.

 

[ding]

Is the problem that you know your science on this point isn't worth shit or that you're just dying to show the world how evil I am?

My science is on point. You are the one arguing that extinction isn't naturally occurring and that man isn't part of nature.

 

[ding]

Wait, wait... I know. You're trying to impress someone in the "Nuke 'em all and let god sort 'em out" crowd.

No, I'm trying to talk you down off of your emotional mountain top you have put yourself on.

 

[Crick]

I say fuck them all. Evolve or die. Now make your moral argument that you are so desperately trying to make.

Are you under the impression that they have enough time to evolve out of their anthropogenic predicaments?

 

[Crick]

My science is on point.

You have yet to make a single valid point.

You are the one arguing that extinction isn't naturally occurring and that man isn't part of nature.

I never said that man was not part of nature. And if you want to have a scientific discussion, you should give some careful thought before using terms like "nature". I am arguing that humans are driving thousands of species extinct at a rate enormously higher than the normal background extinction rate and that the process is not the least bit evolutionary. It is a sixth mass extinction and is taking place several orders of magnitude faster and more broadly than any extinction of the past. Tell us why that doesn't concern you.

 

[rampart]

The Anthropocene, another non-existent, imaginary term made up by globalists to further label natural events as somehow artificial just because man did them, ignoring the fact that man is PART of Nature and so part of nature's plan, doing what all life does, having an effect changing the environment no different than most other life has done from the fish to the tree to the honey bee, and over what? 0.000000022% of the history of the Earth.

Events and things have constantly changed the Earth since its formation, from the LHB, to carbon and iron in rocks, to prokaryotes, cyanobacteria, stromolites, methane, oxygen, eukaryotes, the appearance of animals, the effects of ice ages, insects, flowering plants, grasses, primates, and finally, intelligent, learning, creative humans.

Oh, the horror.

all right tube, any other of these "non existent imaginary terms" made up by globalists that i can use to decipher that 1st paragraph? are you talking about the triassic period, the neolithic age or the dark aqes ?

most of these terms are "made up" by scientists or historians (who may or may not be globalists) who are attempting to organize and classify observed phenomenon and the effect of humanity on our only planet.

 

[ding]

Are you under the impression that they have enough time to evolve out of their anthropogenic predicaments?

Are you under the impression that has ever mattered to nature? How many species have gone extinct before? It's like you think nature never changes or something.

 

[ding]

You have yet to make a single valid point.

I never said that man was not part of nature. And if you want to have a scientific discussion, you should give some careful thought before using terms like "nature". I am arguing that humans are driving thousands of species extinct at a rate enormously higher than the normal background extinction rate and that the process is not the least bit evolutionary. It is a sixth mass extinction and is taking place several orders of magnitude faster and more broadly than any extinction of the past. Tell us why that doesn't concern you.

Sure I did, you're just too emotional about these subjects for it to register.

If man is part of nature than his impact on nature is natural. I think you watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.

 

[Crick]

Sure I did, you're just too emotional about these subjects for it to register.

If man is part of nature than his impact on nature is natural. I think you watched too many Saturday morning cartoons as a kid.

Your nature, natural comments are completely irrelevant. Humans are causing thousands of species to go extinct. The Earth is going to suffer a mass extinction due to us and our activities. We are filling the role of meteor impacts, massive volcanism, overturning anoxic basins and other catastrophic events of the past that have caused mass extinctions. From the viewpoint of the quality of OUR lives on this planet, a mass extinction is not a good thing. For starters, it's not a great thing for the food supply.

 

[ding]

Your nature, natural comments are completely irrelevant. Humans are causing thousands of species to go extinct. The Earth is going to suffer a mass extinction due to us and our activities. We are filling the role of meteor impacts, massive volcanism, overturning anoxic basins and other catastrophic events of the past that have caused mass extinctions. From the viewpoint of the quality of OUR lives on this planet, a mass extinction is not a good thing. For starters, it's not a great thing for the food supply.

No, my nature comments are not irrelevant. Man is part of nature. Man impacts his environment. It is perfectly natural. It would be idiotic to assume that would not happen. You are making a moral argument.

 

[Crick]

No, my nature comments are not irrelevant. Man is part of nature. Man impacts his environment. It is perfectly natural. It would be idiotic to assume that would not happen. You are making a moral argument.

Define NATURE

 

[ding]

Define NATURE

The physical world.

 

[Crick]

The physical world.

Okay. At least we're on the same page AFATG. So please explain why you're not concerned about a mass extinction.

 

[ding]

Okay. At least we're on the same page AFATG. So please explain why you're not concerned about a mass extinction.

Because I don't share the same pessimistic view of the future as you do. Because I believe the current temperatures are below normal for an interglacial period. Because previous interglacial periods did not result in mass extinctions and they were 2C warmer than today. Because a 1 to 2C increase in temperature is effectively imperceptible on a day to day basis and immaterial to survival for life. Because the AMOC will continue switch off and on like it has been doing millions years.

Take your pick.