# The end of the world? - will mother nature prevail?



## xarruc

The world seems a pretty balanced place. The are only relatively small variations in temperature, light, atmospheric content and so on, and so far life has evidently survived. Mother nature seems to have lots of systems in place to prevent imbalance: particularly population explosion.


Popuation explosion is reigned in by nature: first lack of food limits the population, if food is abundent and the population can increase, predator populations will rise too, in the absence of predators probability of disease increases with over-crowding, and so on. Some species have clever systems of population management - the lemmings are well known, mice or rats (one of them) become infertile in the presence too much rat/mouse urine. Bats gas themselves with ammonia evolved from their droppings when they live in caves. 

Based on mother nature's omnipotent equilibrium I don't believe that humans can destroy the Earth for good. (All though we can destroy in the short term to an extent that we become extinct). Rather I beliveve that mother nature will get rid of us some way.

The trouble is we are overcoming all her mechanisms. In the past we had plagues, famines, wars, natural disasters, failed harvests, all of which would severly limit population growth. Now, particularly in the West, we are overcoming these obstacles - medecines, stored food, transported food, peace, rapid-reaction disaster aid....

Do you think Mother Nature will set the clock back on us? Do you think that the end of the world (as we know it) is comming?, is imminent?

Personally I think a plague will get us. Probably not now, but sometime, maybe not for three or four generations. It wasn't AIDs, it wasn't SARS, it doesn't seem to be H1N5, but something will.



*Mother Nature is just the law of the universe, as you see fit (God, Gaia, Queen Sheba.. for me its statistics - but its a convienent and neutral term)


----------



## Etcetera

xarruc said:


> Do you think Mother Nature will set the clock back on us? Do you think that the end of the world (as we know it) is comming?, is imminent?


Црут I was a child (and that was in the beginning of the 1990s), there were a lot of "prophets" who were persuading the citizens that the end of the worls is near. I even remember a sticky on a supermarket's door which gave the exact date of the Judgement Day (some day in the autumn of 1991). 
As a result, I regard all the talks of the coming end of the world with a grain of salt.


----------



## xarruc

I remeber the "Repent - the end is nigh!" at the end of 1999. I think that was stonger in more religous countries than Britain, although of course we had the Y2K bug that was supposed to finish us off!

Avioiding the supernatural, do you see a earthly "disaster" radically changing us permanently - plague, nuclear war, asteroid. Are such hings purely sci-fiction?

As I said above I think somthing is a certainty, due to overpopulation, though I doubt I'll still be around to witness it. Some of the most pessimistic enviromental predictions see sea levels rising and engulfing large  areas of highly populated land. Others claim that we are overdue on the next ice age.


----------



## cuchuflete

It's hard to call anything imminent in geological time.  Asteroid collisions?  I have no idea.  Nuclear war, maybe.
The more countries have access to nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood that someone will act human and make a mistake.  Plague is certainly a possibility, or a number of concurrent contagious illnesses.  HIV is the best known, but not only, example of how rapidly disease can spread across continents.  

Let's suppose that both a limited nuclear exchange and one or more plagues occurred in the same time-frame...say a decade.  This would probably not eradicate humans entirely, but would certainly restrain population growth.  It might temporarily cause a real drop in absolute population.

Timing for biological 'events' is anyone's guess.  Which of the world's best scientists predicted something like the AIDS outbreak a decade or two before it happened?  Predicting the likelihood of the use, limited or widespread, of nuclear arms is not really an excercise for statistics. During most of the second half of the last century, at least four, and probably five, nations had these and nobody used them.  Now the number of countries with nuclear capabilities is headed towards twice that many, and we have no sound statistical basis to measure the increase in risk of use.  We probably lack even a logical basis on which to make a yes/no prediction, as the use of nuclear weapons would most likely be illogical.  

{This thread is not about the morality or horrors of any particular weapons system, so those who might take comments about possible use of them as an excuse to make proclamations on such matters should not be tempted to hijack this thread.  If tempted, serious self-restraint is advised.}

There seems to be growing evidence that we are having an effect on the environment.  Whether this is true, and how much of an effect it will have, is the topic of many other threads, and need not (and should not) be argued here.   The likelihood of a human induced environmental change wiping out the species is small.  If you accept that humans are causing global warming, and that this will cause a rise in sea level, and flood a few percent of the surface of the planet, (this may be true, but again, it is not the topic of this thread.) over some period of decades or centuries, it could lead to a relatively small loss of life.  Perhaps more importantly, if it were to happen, and if humans are at fault and recognize this, it would create great pressure to change behavior to ameliorate or reverse the process.  This would all take a very long time, and both causes and effects and time intervals are anything but certain.  There are enough variables to keep a large computer busy for a while calculating the range of possible outcomes, and the range of likelihood for each of them.  

Take asteroids, climate change, global epidemics, and nuclear war, and assume they all take place in the same time interval.  Would humans survive all of that?  Cockroaches probably would.


----------



## xarruc

Another major disaster could be in the form of an electronic virus. So many people, so many companies are reliant on the internet. The shutdown of the internet could have major repercussions on Western economies.


----------



## cuchuflete

xarruc said:


> Another major disaster could be in the form of an electronic virus. So many people, so many companies are reliant on the internet. The shutdown of the internet could have major repercussions on Western economies.



Please connect the dots for us.  What does an electronic virus have to do with Mother Nature reclaiming the physical planet?  The Great Depression of 1929-  didn't cause humankind to disappear.  Why would economic dislocations eradicate humanity?


----------



## xarruc

I'm just rambling a bit. I was thinking that major depression might lead us in to chaos and decline, and scenarios where we lose power for a signigficant period of time (like two years).


----------



## ernest_

xarruc said:


> Do you think Mother Nature will set the clock back on us? Do you think that the end of the world (as we know it) is comming?, is imminent?



Sooner or later, it's gonnae happen. The Sun won't last forever. As we gently talk now, it is burning hydrogen at an awful rate -- about one third of total Sun's hydrogen have already been burnt out. When it finally runs out of hydrogen, the Sun will grow into a gigantic, massive fireball, swallowing up our beloved Earth and killing everything on it.

But I don't think we humans will last enough to see it. Loads of other species have already been wiped out of existance, and many more will be in the future. I have no idea of why the human race would be any different.


----------



## deltor

xarruc said:


> - the lemmings are well known,


 
Actually, the notion that lemmings commit mass suicides is a myth, you may want to read this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming


----------



## geve

> Do you think Mother Nature will set the clock back on us?


Isn't she doing that already, day after day? And particularly...


xarruc said:


> The trouble is we are overcoming all her mechanisms. In the past we had plagues, famines, wars, natural disasters, failed harvests, all of which would severly limit population growth. Now, particularly in the West, we are overcoming these obstacles - medecines, stored food, transported food, peace, rapid-reaction disaster aid....
> 
> Do you think Mother Nature will set the clock back on us? Do you think that the end of the world (as we know it) is comming?, is imminent?
> 
> Personally I think a plague will get us. Probably not now, but sometime, maybe not for three or four generations. It wasn't AIDs, it wasn't SARS, it doesn't seem to be H1N5 I think you mean H5N1  , but something will.


While medicine progresses and we find new cures for old diseases, new diseases appear. Medical research still has bright days ahead.

I don't think we've gotten rid of war and other ways that humankind has of committing suicide, either. I'd rather say we're getting more and more inventive and insidious in that area.


----------



## TRG

Nature will certainly prevail in the end since certain natural processes are at work which would seem to indicate we can't expect to inhabit this earth forever. But, as Woody Allen once said (a line from a movie), "Eternity is a very long time, especially near the end".

What I find a little interesting is that in contemprary society, the people most concerned with the destruction of the planet and life as we know it are mostly of a secular world view. They believe that the profligate ways of mankind are leading us down the path of our own demise. The parallels in religion, at least the Christian religion, are interesting. Global warming is not quite as scary as Revelation, but it just makes me wonder what it is about the human phsyche which requires a way to address "The End" question. This question troubled me somewhat when I was young, but not so much anymore.


----------



## boardslide315

Most scientists agree that even if everything bad were to happen at once, some humans will prevail and, eventually, repopulate. The worry is whether or not civilization can survive if even one of them occurs. 

The parallels between global warming and Christian/Islam texts are certainly interesting though, and a unification of science and faith like that seems a very poetic end to the highly divided society we are evolving into IMHO.


----------



## badgrammar

My own father, in his infinite wisdom (or the opposite) always reassured us by saying "People have been predicting the end of the world since the beginning of time.  It hasn't happened yet".

But another cliché that seems like it will hold true is that "Mother nNature always has the last laugh".  Bwahahahahaha!!!


----------



## boardslide315

This might warrant a separate thread, but has anyone given thought to the ancient Mayans' prediction of December 23rd, 2012? They were centuries ahead of their time in astronomy and a lot of other sciences, after all...


----------



## .   1

boardslide315 said:


> This might warrant a separate thread, but has anyone given thought to the ancient Mayans' prediction of December 23rd, 2012? They were centuries ahead of their time in astronomy and a lot of other sciences, after all...


I would be willing to bet that there is a prediction of doom for just about every day of every century by some weirdos who have been told so by their best imaginery friend.  There is never any logic quoted just some pissed off supernatural power who arbitrarily decides that we have been given enough play time and now is the day of DOOM.  Big deal.

The world will not end for millions of years.  We may run our race but the world will continue with maybe microbes ruling the Earth (maybe they already do).  We have been fighting a losing battle against bugs ever since bugs were invented by some capricious god.

.,,


----------



## boardslide315

. said:


> There is never any logic quoted just some pissed off supernatural power who arbitrarily decides that we have been given enough play time and now is the day of DOOM.  Big deal.



You don't think the idea of this, our 7th world, being ended by the gods when they cause our technology to revolt against us while our domesticated animals suddenly begin talking and telling us all what we have done wrong is logical?? 

Obviously it wouldn't be carried out like they describe, but instances of natural and supernatural occurring together are frequent in our history. And, who is to say a radical is not going to use that day as an excuse to release a new virus or nuclear bomb?

And 99.9999% of bacteria are harmless/beneficial. Bugs are a blessing.


----------



## geve

Here is when the world will end (or should have). The list is probably non-comprehensive.



. said:


> The world will not end for millions of years. We may run our race but the world will continue with maybe microbes ruling the Earth (maybe they already do).


This is interesting. Isn't the title of this thread anthropocentric? (no offense meant, just wondering) Shouldn't it have been "the end of mankind"? If Mother Nature prevails, surely it can't mean the end of the World?


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> Here is when the world will end (or should have) The list is probably non-comprehensive.
> 
> 
> This is interesting. Isn't the title of this thread anthropocentric? (no offense meant, just wondering) Shouldn't it have been "the end of mankind"? If Mother Nature prevails, surely it can't mean the end of the World?


I can only answer the question posed.

.,,


----------



## .   1

boardslide315 said:


> You don't think the idea of this, our 7th world, being ended by the gods when they cause our technology to revolt against us while our domesticated animals suddenly begin talking and telling us all what we have done wrong is logical??


This must be a joke but I missed it.



boardslide315 said:


> Obviously it wouldn't be carried out like they describe, but instances of natural and supernatural occurring together are frequent in our history.


Would you be able to supply even one credible example?



boardslide315 said:


> And, who is to say a radical is not going to use that day as an excuse to release a new virus or nuclear bomb?


Morons don't need no excuse beyond there idiocy.



boardslide315 said:


> And 99.9999% of bacteria are harmless/beneficial. Bugs are a blessing.


But the remaining 0.00001% breed like rabbits and we are on their menu.

.,,


----------



## moura

I do believe the world will finish sometime, the same way it began sometime. For me is a question of logic. Happily I guess that will not happen while I am still alive and neither during "our sons" or "our grandsons" time. I think the movie Blade Runner gave a profound, though rather poetic insight of the unknown, uncertain and sometimes fearfull way of looking towards the process of evolution of the earth. Billion years ago, there were oceans where now are deserts, ice where now is heath, and I heard recently that there was sometimes a polar shift and the Equador was where are now the North and South Poles (the later not from a scientific source, so I say as I heard/read). 
Anyway, I also do think that this will be a gradual process and the humans in global will have time to prepare the departure for other places, all them also with beginnings and ends scheduled by time. Or perhaps not, I don't know.
About the question - will mother nature prevail? Mother nature is really that way, that is with a time to born, to live and to die. Look at the trees, por instance. Do they last for ever?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

And what about Lavoisier's famous quote : "rien ne se perd, rien ne se crée, tout se transforme"? Why do you want an END? A transformation is more likely to occur...


----------



## moura

Karine, hi. You were referring perhaps to m post. Let me say I don't want anything to end, specially the earth. And I agree with you and Lavoisier. The trees have seeds that gives origin to other trees, and so on.
But there can be also transformation of a whole in nothing, if I express correctly. My logic sticks to "an absolute beginning" which evolves "an absolute ending".


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Hi moura.  I was answering to the poster question, hopefully.
Is "nothing" a sort of "something"? If yes, it is not the end of the thing, but something else... That was my point. Don't know if I'm clear enough in English. I'd better run now! 

 Edit: I decided to run! I will continue with PM if necessary.


----------



## moura

Hi again Karine  
How may I express what I mean about "nothing"? Total absence or total emptiness, vacuum...non-existence? What should "exist" before the earth began, I guess.


----------



## .   1

Forty two.

.,,


----------



## geve

What about... some definitions?  I picked my selection from the WRD:

WORLD
_all of the inhabitants of the earth - _I can imagine that happening. A new species might appear that resembles us, but possibly better. - Would a Homo neanderthalensis think that its world has ended? - And mother nature will keep prevailing.
_the 3rd planet from the sun; the planet on which we live - _Could the Earth simply _disappear_? Would it vanish without leaving a trace? Mother nature could then settle on a new planet, and start the experience all over again.
_everything that exists anywhere - _Can there be just "nothing"? Mother nature can't prevail if everything ceases to exist...


----------



## geve

. said:


> Forty two.
> 
> .,,


Good question.


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> What about... some definitions?  I picked my selection from the WRD:
> 
> WORLD
> _all of the inhabitants of the earth - _I can imagine that happening. A new species might appear that resembles us, but possibly better. - Would a Homo neanderthalensis think that its world has ended? - And mother nature will keep prevailing.
> _the 3rd planet from the sun; the planet on which we live - _Could the Earth simply _disappear_? Would it vanish without leaving a trace? Mother nature could then settle on a new planet, and start the experience all over again.
> _everything that exists anywhere - _Can there be just "nothing"? Mother nature can't prevail if everything ceases to exist...


There have been a few heated posts about this in other threads touching the lack of existentialism.

.,,


----------



## geve

. said:


> There have been a few heated posts about this in other threads touching the lack of existentialism.
> 
> .,,


Yes, I realize I'm on the verge of metaphysics here - a dangerous chasm. We don't want to get there. Please ignore my previous posts.


----------



## Bonjules

. said:


> Now there is a good thought! (trying to rescue this thread from the metaphysical and return to the physical..)
> The bugs. They are the key. We'd, as a species, be able to co-exist with them quite well, wasn't it for our misguided 'war on bugs' (kill everything in sight!) which has led to a situation where we are less and less able to fight them.
> It really only illustrates that the laws of nature/biology are forever (at least for life on this planet as we know it)
> and we are subject to them, as much as we like to deny it.
> But it will not even take 'superbugs' or other, new diseases, natural catastrophes, nuclear war, asteroids, global warming -although neither of those would be helpful- or anything else to do us in.
> Any 1st semester biology student who knows a little about population biology can tell you that much - the bugs show us: Given the conditions to multiply they will
> until they all die, poisoned by their own waste.
> Are we smarter than them? It does not appear so.
> In numerous related threads (GW, transport, tourism, you name it) forer@s assure me that really nobody would be interested to make significant changes in our lifestyle, our'profligate consumption'. I think they are right.
> It is an open question whether the planet could sustain the present numbers of humans living simply and modestly. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. We are not willing to live modestly and simply.
> So the answer is: No, the world will still be there for a long time, given the projections on the sun's life and no other unforeseen cosmic event.
> It is just us, the humans, who will not be part of it for very long (along with many other species).
> Biology is. You can't fool it.


----------



## TRG

Having re-read the initial post, I would like to ask just what is "mother nature's omnipotent equilibrium" and what is there in the geological record of the earth that makes you think there is any such thing? As for myself, I find there is no such thing as the "balance of nature" or "mother nature" or however you would like to define it.


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> Having re-read the initial post, I would like to ask just what is "mother nature's omnipotent equilibrium" and what is there in the geological record of the earth that makes you think there is any such thing? As for myself, I find there is no such thing as the "balance of nature" or "mother nature" or however you would like to define it.


I agree, TRG. Under certain conditions, certain life forms
develop and then perish. There is no ordering, equilibrating authority ( there was/is this idea of 'gaia', being some kind of 'living organism' -don't know a whole lot about it). I think this idea is inspired by
religious thought.

PS. I do like the idea of calling the earth our 'mother', though. After all, it has
made life and seeing some of it's beauty possible for us. It should inspire a 
certain gratefulness, I'd hope.


----------



## xarruc

> Having re-read the initial post, I would like to ask just what is "mother nature's omnipotent equilibrium" and what is there in the geological record of the earth that makes you think there is any such thing? As for myself, I find there is no such thing as the "balance of nature" or "mother nature" or however you would like to define it.



I don't believe in UFOs, God, Karma, Ghosts, Spirits, Miracles or any other supernatural force suposedly affecting us. When I talk of mother nature I simply mean the laws of physics, maths, statistics, chemistry etc - the Laws of Nature. Other people have a more spiritial view of the world. To be inclusive I find the term Mother Earth both neutral and poetic.

Everying in life tends towards a state of equilibrium. It may oscillate around that equilibrium, but the further from that equilibrium something is, the greater the "desire" to return to that equilibrium. If you heat something it becomes hotter, but the hotter something becomes, the faster it loses energy until it a new equilibrium is reached between the heat in and the heat out. 

If we have a dry year then the next will probably be wet. One day may be very wet and the next very dry - on a day-per-day basis there is high deviation from the mean in rainfall. That deviation from the mean becomes less and less as you average over a longer period.


----------



## Bonjules

xarruc said:


> I don't believein...........
> 
> Everying in life tends towards a state of equilibrium. It may oscillate around that equilibrium, but the further from that equilibrium something is, the greater the "desire" to return to that equilibrium. If you heat....
> 
> If we have a dry year then the next will probably be wet.


Xarruc, there is absolutely no proof or likelihood for this.
The 'equilibrium' idea comes from chemical reactions; I see no good reason to generalize it in this way.
  In Roulette, the chance for red vs black is 50% with erery play. In nature, things happen for reasons, not so much by chance. The dinosaures died for a reson, most likely a change of environment.
What do propose the 'equilibrium' will be in our case?


----------



## xarruc

It is not just chemical reactions - populations of all animals oscilate around the "optimum" number - a balance between death and birth.

If the roulette wheel goes red, the chances are the second will be black. If it is red twice, the chance of the next being black is increased. Although each individual go is 50-50 between black and red, the average over a large enough sample is always constant.

Average rainfall is fairly constant in most regions. If you have a freakily wet april the rest of the year is likely to be drier than average - its not a supernatural knowledge that april was wet that makes may dry - its just that the oscillation around the mean rainful in a smaller sample is higher than in a large sample.

The equilibrium in humans is the same as in animals - a balance between life and death. Anything that increases the birth or death rate will change the equilibrium. Curently the human population is not balanced - we have been growing and growing for centuries as we push down the death rate - whereas levels of other species in other systems is quite constant.


----------



## Bonjules

xarruc said:


> It is not just chemical reactions - populations of all animals oscilate around the "optimum" number - a balance between death and birth.
> 
> If the roulette wheel goes red, the chances are the second will be black. If it is red twice, the chance of the next being black is increased. Although each individual go is 50-50 between black and red, the average over a large enough sample is always constant.


 
Sorry; while the last statement is true, it does not make the preceeding ones true, as any mathematician (and roulette player!) will tell you. 
Having red 10 times does not increase the chance for black on the 11th. If it was so, I'd be at the wheel tomorrow and get rich very quickly!
As for the 1st statement; this would be true for many species 'in the natural state' without outside interference. We have neither.
I repeat my question: What do you propose the 'equilibrium' will consist of for us?


----------



## .   1

xarruc said:


> If the roulette wheel goes red, the chances are the second will be black.


This is absolutely false and is the reason why gamblers use public transport and casino owners are chauffered in private jets.
If the roulette wheel is perfectly balanced and if the ball is perfectly spherical and if the ball is released in a perfectly pure motion the odds of black is exactly 50%.

If the ball falls black on the first spin the odds of black on the next spin is exactly 50% as it is on each subsequent spin.  The odds remain at 50% black and 50% white.

That is the end of the realm of pure mathethematics, now to the real world.

The interesting thing about gambling is that if the ball comes up black on the first spin there is actually a slight chance of a very marginal increase in the odds of black coming up again if there is any imperfection in the machine.

This is easier to explain if you think of tossing a coin playing heads or tails.  There is a common Aussie gambling game called 'Two Up' that uses two pennies.  Two coins are flipped and bets are placed on double heads, heads and tails, and double tails.  

If a coin if flipped it is expected that the odds will be 50% either way and most people think that a succession of five heads in a row means that tails is almost certain but this is not the case as the wily casino owners know and exploit to their benefit.

If the coin is purely balanced the odds of heads is exactly 50% every time but in reality the coins are seldom pure and the odds are never exactly 50% and the casino owners benefit yet again.

If a coin is flipped seven times and comes up heads seven times, what are the odds of an eighth heads up flip.
In pure mathematics the odds are exactly 50% but in reality I would bet on the coin not being pure and place my money on another heads up landing.

.,,


----------



## Dawei

The world is not a roulette wheel; it works by natural selection, not random chance. While supposedly it is chance that controls the mutations, it is not chance that determines which mutation stays. The wheel stops when it hits a winning number, and while there is no way to predict when that will happen for any given situation, it will generally happen eventually. That is why there are specialized organisms and the reason why polar bears are white. 

Gaia is a broad application of this theory. It is in no way spiritual. It says that rather than only individual species changing to their greatest benefit, everything also strives to change in ways that benefit the functionality of nature. A common example is that organisms urinate, which give nitrates to the soil, which feeds the plants which in turn go back to feed the animals. It is this equilibrium, this symbiosis, that has kept the world alive and populated for some three billion years. It is a scientific idea, and although it is not universally accepted, it is rather interesting, and support for it is numerous. Read any book by James Lovelock to learn more.

Also read the wikipedia article for Daisyworld


----------



## danielfranco

The only thing I can think to say in contribution to this thread is:
Not so.
If there's something that chaos theory (latterly called the complexity theory) has been good for, is to help us understand that life happens at the edge of chaos. There's no safe equilibrium in a dynamic system. Life is a dynamic system. Life happens dangerously, often to its own detriment. So, no, no balanced and good-natured... er... Nature.
I think it's easy to get it backwards and think that populations of living beings came up with "clever" solutions to their problems, when in reality their solution seems clever because it works. And because it works, it's perpetuated. Suicidal lemmings? It's just a psychotic break induced by overpopulation stress. None of the lemmings do it selflessly, out of a patriotic desire to make room for future generations. I think that the day that the phsychotic break would run for a few minutes longer than it should, ALL the lemmings would jump in, and the area would have to be repopulated by other lemmings flown in as back-up... Or something.

Anyway, the end of the world will be survived by no one, not even Mother Earth. 
Otherwise it wouldn't be the end. 
But I'm sure that the planet will go on without much ado the day humanity finally gives its final gasp.


----------



## maxiogee

Mother Nature will prevail. She has prevailed despite several recorded bouts of mass extinctions, the loss of the material which made up our Moon, whopping meteorite impacts, and the many and terrible natural forces which unleash themselves here on earth.


I believe that she will indeed prevail - but I acknowledge that we are not necessarily her finest manifestation - and as such might not prevail alongside her.

If all human life were somehow to be wiped out - would that be the end of the world as we see it?


----------



## Dawei

maxiogee said:


> If all human life were somehow to be wiped out - would that be the end of the world as *we *see it?



Cogito, ergo sum


----------



## Athaulf

Dawei said:


> Originally Posted by *maxiogee* http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=2354126#post2354126:
> If all human life were somehow to be wiped out - would that be the end of the world as *we *see it?
> 
> 
> 
> Cogito, ergo sum
Click to expand...


I'd say that _"esse est percipi"_ would be a more apt quotation here.


----------



## Athaulf

Dawei said:


> Gaia is a broad application of this theory. It is in no way spiritual. It says that rather than only individual species changing to their greatest benefit, everything also strives to change in ways that benefit the functionality of nature. A common example is that organisms urinate, which give nitrates to the soil, which feeds the plants which in turn go back to feed the animals. It is this equilibrium, this symbiosis, that has kept the world alive and populated for some three billion years.



But then the evolution of _Homo sapiens_ and the subsequent changes to the biosphere brought upon by this particular species, including the currently ongoing ones, should also be viewed as "benefiting the functionality of nature." I however suspect that the proponents of this theory would be reluctant to adopt such a view.


----------



## danielfranco

Right, perception... "If the last human falls in the forest and there's no one left to hear him cuss, does he make a noise?"


----------



## maxiogee

I was thinking more along the lines of our bodies being wiped out but our works remaining. Libraries of knowledge and thought, breath-taking construction projects, the whole effect we have had on the earth and would leave behind us.

Were we to disappear, would these things enable a future dominant species to understand us - and in doing so award us a degree of immortality?



Athaulf said:


> I'd say that _"esse est percipi"_ would be a more apt quotation here.


Does the being doing the _percipi_-ing have to be a human?


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of our bodies being wiped out but our works remaining. Libraries of knowledge and thought, breath-taking construction projects, the whole effect we have had on the earth and would leave behind us.
> 
> Were we to disappear, would these things enable a future dominant species to understand us - and in doing so award us a degree of immortality?



I don't think so. The evolution of a new intelligent species would take at least something on the order of tens of millions of years. In such a long run, I doubt that any artifacts of human civilizations would be left in a recognizable shape. (In fact, I find it as a highly interesting, but alas off-topic question: if all humans suddenly disappeared, after what minimum time would it be no longer possible for hypothetical alien archaeologists to discern any traces of a past intelligent civilization on Earth? And what exactly would be the last such trace remaining?)



> Does the being doing the _percipi_-ing _[as per bishop Berkeley's "esse est percipi" -- A.]_ have to be a human?


Well, the obvious candidate is God, if you happen to believe in him. And I don't see why any other intelligent species wouldn't do, though of course this presents the unsolvable problem of how exactly advanced a mind must be to be considered as "intelligent."  But I don't really share Berkeley's philosophical views, so I don't think the question makes much sense to begin with.


----------



## Bonjules

danielfranco said:


> Right, perception... "If the last human falls in the forest and there's no one left to hear him cuss, does he make a noise?"


Can cockroaches hear?


----------



## geve

danielfranco said:


> Right, perception... "If the last human falls in the forest and there's no one left to hear him cuss, does he make a noise?"


He doesn't - just like a child who stubs his knee when there's nobody around to see, doesn't cry. 
Be careful people, you're falling in the trap of metaphysics again! 



Athaulf said:


> (In fact, I find it as a highly interesting, but alas off-topic question: if all humans suddenly disappeared, after what minimum time would it be no longer possible for hypothetical alien archaeologists to discern any traces of a past intelligent civilization on Earth? And what exactly would be the last such trace remaining?)


I don't find it that off-topic (but some mods might disagree with me!), because there's this underlying question: will humanity still have an influence on Earth after its extinction? Which would mean that mother nature hasn't totally prevailed, then.

If hypothetical alien archaeologists were to land on Earth in one million year, they would still find glass bottles, according to Wikipedia. (at least the French one, because the English version is hiding this fact from readers!)
And even if they came later, wouldn't they find proofs of 'intelligent' existence with nuclear wastes? 
(When I say "intelligent", I mean a being capable of performing nuclear fission. I'm not saying that leaving nuclear waste behind is a proof of intelligence.)


----------



## TRG

geve said:


> He doesn't - just like a child who stubs his knee when there's nobody around to see, doesn't cry.
> Be careful people, you're falling in the trap of metaphysics again!
> 
> 
> I don't find it that off-topic (but some mods might disagree with me!), because there's this underlying question: will humanity still have an influence on Earth after its extinction? Which would mean that mother nature hasn't totally prevailed, then.
> 
> If hypothetical alien archaeologists were to land on Earth in one million year, they would still find glass bottles, according to Wikipedia. (at least the French one, because the English version is hiding this fact from readers!)
> And even if they came later, wouldn't they find proofs of 'intelligent' existence with nuclear wastes?
> (When I say "intelligent", I mean a being capable of performing nuclear fission. I'm not saying that leaving nuclear waste behind is a proof of intelligence.)


 
non sequitur, unless you meant


----------



## Bonjules

geve said:


> If hypothetical alien archaeologists were to land on Earth in one million year, they would still find glass bottles, according to Wikipedia.


 
Which is funny, since strictly speaking glass is not even a solid, but a liquid, albeit a VERY SLOW flowing one. So the bottles probably would have changed shape somewhat...
Would those archeologists be terribly interested in us?
I doubt it. Except for those interested in 'primitive species' who manage to do away with themselves in short oder.


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> Which is funny, since strictly speaking glass is not even a solid, but a liquid, albeit a VERY SLOW flowing one. So the bottles probably would have changed shape somewhat...


This is a myth. Glass does not flow.
This myth originated because it was found that many old glass panes were thicker at the base than at the top so the logic was that the glass must have flowed down under the constant pull of gravity. This has been found to be incorrect.

The glass panels were made by hand and the discrpency in thickness was due to human error so the panes ware produced with one end thicker than the other so the glaziers of the day simply fitted the panes with the thick side at the base.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

. said:


> This is a myth. Glass does not flow.
> This myth originated because it was found that many old glass panes were thicker....
> 
> The glass panels were made by hand and the discrpency in thickness was due to human error so the panes ware produced....
> 
> .,,


This is terribly off - topic, but nonetheless...
The idea has to do with the fact that glass lacks a stable molecular structure typical of solids. So over a VERY long time it will change shape, given gravitational pull and the space to do it.


----------



## .   1

Bonjules said:


> This is terribly off - topic, but nonetheless...
> The idea has to do with the fact that glass lacks a stable molecular structure typical of solids. So over a VERY long time it will change shape, given gravitational pull and the space to do it.


It will either be deleted or split but I can't allow an unverified opinion to stand as fact.
There are many deep discussions on the utter implausability but as you quote wikipedia I will return serve in kind.

Source Wikipedia,
When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down for the sake of stability and visual sparkle. Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

. said:


> ....
> When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down for the sake of stability and visual sparkle. Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation.
> 
> .,,


My friend, I quoted nobody and know next to nothing about installing window panes. I am talking physio-chemistry and a million years....


----------



## Athaulf

geve said:


> If hypothetical alien archaeologists were to land on Earth in one million year, they would still find glass bottles, according to Wikipedia. (at least the French one, because the English version is hiding this fact from readers!)



I'm just not sure what exactly would be left from a bottle in a million years. Would it still be recognizable as glass dust?

On the other hand, there are many clearly recognizable petrified fossils whose age is estimated at several hundred million years, and there is a near-consensus among the experts even about the authenticity of some several billion years old ones. Some indisputable evidence of intelligent life would probably survive this way in a very long run.
 



> And even if they came later, wouldn't they find proofs of 'intelligent' existence with nuclear wastes?
> (When I say "intelligent", I mean a being capable of performing nuclear fission. I'm not saying that leaving nuclear waste behind is a proof of intelligence.)


I thought of that too. Interestingly, in the far past, when there was much more fissile uranium on Earth, there have been occurrences of natural nuclear reactors. However, the timing of the nuclear reactions can be fairly precisely determined from the composition of the radioactive material at any given later date, so I guess a hypothetical future archaeologist could figure out that the reactions happened at a time when they were no longer possible naturally. This would perhaps indeed be the longest-lasting indisputable proof of intelligent life that would be left if humans disappeared.


----------



## geve

TRG said:


> non sequitur, unless you meant


I'm not sure I understand your comment  Of course my last parenthesis was tongue in cheek.


Athaulf said:


> This would perhaps indeed be the longest-lasting indisputable proof of intelligent life that would be left if humans disappeared.


So, it seems that we indeed found a way to make sure that mother nature never totally prevails... Hurrah.


----------



## winklepicker

xarruc said:


> The world seems a pretty balanced place. The are only relatively small variations in temperature, light, atmospheric content and so on, and so far life has evidently survived. Mother nature seems to have lots of systems in place to prevent imbalance: particularly population explosion.


 
Have you read Robert Ardrey on this? Very compelling.



> the lemmings are well known


If you mean, well-known for committing suicide by running off a cliff, *they don't*. It's a fallacy, a myth created by, would you believe, Disney. See this link for full explanation.

Please spread the word. This must be THE most widespread urban myth.


----------



## TRG

winklepicker said:


> Have you read Robert Ardrey on this? Very compelling.
> 
> If you mean, well-known for committing suicide by running off a cliff, *they don't*. It's a fallacy, a myth created by, would you believe, Disney. See this link for full explanation.
> 
> Please spread the word. This must be THE most widespread urban myth.


 
While the behavior of actual lemmings is more myth than fact, it has become a very useful metaphor in characterizing human behavior. Don't you think?


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> While the behavior of actual lemmings is more myth than fact, it has become a very useful metaphor in characterizing human behavior. Don't you think?


Yup.  Reality is not the province of Hollywood and we are generally as gullible as we want to be.

.,,


----------



## winklepicker

TRG said:


> While the behavior of actual lemmings is more myth than fact, it has become a very useful metaphor in characterizing human behavior. Don't you think?


If someone NOT doing something is a metaphor for someone doing it, then yes, I suppose it is...


----------



## TRG

geve said:


> I'm not sure I understand your comment  Of course my last parenthesis was tongue in cheek.


 
I was pretty sure it was, but I was just checking to be sure .


----------

