Does environmental damage end life all together?

[gib65]

Thinking about how we humans have been damaging the global ecosystem with our industrial prowess for the last few hundred years, we've definitely seen the devastating effects it can have on life forms which depend on the environment staying in its pre-industrial-revolution state. What I'm wondering, however, is how many people are of the opinion that this damage spells the doom for life altogether in the ecosystem in question such that once the damage is done, no life will be found there for an indefinite time? Because the theory of evolution would suggest an alternative scenario where life will simply adapt to suite its new environment. So, it is certainly the case that the current configuration of life in a particular environment will not survive an excess amount of damage, other configurations which thrive on the environment in such a "damaged" state will eventually sprout out. For example, if CO2 emissions continue to saturate the air at the rate it is currently at, oxygen breathing animals like ourselves will eventually die from suffocation, but with 6 billion people on Earth, there might be a small handfull who are genetically endowed with mechanisms in their respiratory system that can either tolerate CO2 or even make use of it somehow. Again, the general issue is: does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?

[Bettina]

If the environmental damage continues at its present rate, and I believe it will, it will eventually destroy lower forms of life first, which in turn kills animals, which in turn will end up affecting and killing humans. Life will not have had enough time to adapt or mutate into forms that will be able to tolerate the new conditions.

 

Its sad that my country considers it just a nuisance rather than look at it for what it really is.

 

Bettina

[gib65]

IS this true? I'm no microbiologist, but is it really true that the "damage" being done onto the environment at the current rate will eventually wipe out ALL bacteria life? Surely there will be some sectors in the world and pockets of mini-ecosystems that will remain to harbour some forms of bacterial life. I guess maybe you're right. In the past, whenever a species couldn't adapt it was usually due to some change in the environment or a natural disaster that had the effect of nature recycling herself rather than putting a stop to life in general. But the effects on the environment we're seeing today are all together on a different level. We're not just changing the environment such that a certain species can't survive in it, we're changing it such that the essential criteria for life proper are being eradicated. Still, I can't help but to have faith in life's astonishing ingenuity when it comes to adaptation. In the words of Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park "Life finds a way."

[Sayonara]

IS this true? I'm no microbiologist, but is it really true that the "damage" being done onto the environment at the current rate will eventually wipe out ALL bacteria life

No.

[gib65]

Ah! Then that settles it!

[Bettina]

That does not settle it. The original question was...."does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?"

 

Environmental damage IS destroying life, and if unchecked, humans will die. That is destroying life. There will not be enough time for mutations to occur for humans. Yes, bacteria can live in swamps, but your a human.

 

Bettina

[gib65]

That does not settle it. The original question was...."does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?"

 

Environmental damage IS destroying life' date=' and if unchecked, humans will die. That is destroying life. There will not be enough time for mutations to occur for humans. Yes, bacteria can live in swamps, but your a human.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

I know. I was being sarcastic. You bring up a good point. Even if life does carry on, human beings will die, in their present form at least. I don't know if more evolved human beings need time, though. The idea, as far as I understand it, is that when an environment changes or a natural catastrophy happens, those who are fit to survive it are already among the population. That's the beauty of bio-diversity.

[Sayonara]

That does not settle it. The original question was...."does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?"

You're right, it doesn't settle the question in the O/P. But don't ignore the fact that the question I was answering was "is it really true that the "damage" being done onto the environment at the current rate will eventually wipe out ALL bacteria life".

 

I don't think "not enough time for humans to mutate" is really a significant problem. Mutations don't occur as a response to harsh conditions - they allow survival in those conditions for genotypes in which they already exist.

 

I don't really see any good reason why the lower-order organisms should die off before the higher-order organisms, especially since they have shorter generational times and can adapt more readily to changing environmental conditions. Granted food webs would collapse, but you're implying generalised trophic prerequisites and dependencies that don't necessarily exist.

[hyebeh]

If the environmental damage continues at its present rate' date=' and I believe it will, it will eventually destroy lower forms of life first, which in turn kills animals, which in turn will end up affecting and killing humans. Life will not have had enough time to adapt or mutate into forms that will be able to tolerate the new conditions.

 

Its sad that my country considers it just a nuisance rather than look at it for what it really is.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

on the contrary, environment damage will kill the higher life forms first because lower life forms such as bacteria mutate at a such a rapid rate, that they will be able to adapt to their environment before they are killed off. They are present in large numbers with large amounts of genetic variation, and thus, will adapt to their changing environment quickly due to natural selection.

[hyebeh]

in response to the original question, no, environmental damage will not destroy life entirely. At the rate which environmental damage is occuring, there is time for organisms to evolve and to adapt to changing conditions. Throughout history, mass extinctions have occurred but life has endured.

 

Furthermore, humans will not die because of environmental damage. We are altering our environment to benefit us, making us more fit and likely to survive. humans are largely indepedent of other species on this planet (except for species that provide antibiotics, but even that will eventually be replaced by synthetic protein creation). For example, we have the ability to grow all of our food and the ability to change the environment so that it is suitable for human life.

[hyebeh]

That does not settle it. The original question was...."does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?"

 

Environmental damage IS destroying life' date=' and if unchecked, humans will die. That is destroying life. There will not be enough time for mutations to occur for humans. Yes, bacteria can live in swamps, but your a human.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

your definition of "life" is incorrect. in your definition, a single death constitutes the destruction of "life." In the definition of this thread life is all species and organisms as a whole. Using your definition, my fingers typing on this keyboard are technically destroying life in the form of bacteria. In essence, you are arguing with the wrong foundation.

[gib65]

Furthermore, humans will not die because of environmental damage. We are altering our environment to benefit[/u'] us, making us more fit and likely to survive.

 

You make good points, Hyebeh, except for this one. I think you're confusing the intent with the results. It was our intent to better our lving conditions at the start of the industrial revolution, but the idea that we are damaging our environment in the process is a more recent finding, one that seems to fly in the face of the original intent. We may be hurting ourselves more than benefiting ourselves. We know today how much more we depend on our environment and how delicate it is to the slightest changes than we ever knew before. Nevertheless, you may be right in that our intention to change our environment in order to improve our lives may still be a viable option. This has yet to be seen though. Can we undo the damage, or at least stall its growth long enough, so that our original intention can be met?

[Bettina]

It matters not now.....the title of the thread has changed which messes things up. So my answer to the NEW question is NO.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

your definition of "life" is incorrect. in your definition, a single death constitutes the destruction of "life." In the definition of this thread life is all species and organisms as a whole. Using your definition, my fingers typing on this keyboard are technically destroying life in the form of bacteria. In essence, you are arguing with the wrong foundation.

 

I don't believe I was incorrect, but the point is moot now that the title has changed.

 

Bettina

[hyebeh]

You make good points, Hyebeh, except for this one. I think you're confusing the intent with the results. It was our intent to better our lving conditions at the start of the industrial revolution, but the idea that we are damaging our environment in the process is a more recent finding, one that seems to fly in the face of the original intent. We may be hurting ourselves more than benefiting ourselves. We know today how much more we depend on our environment and how delicate it is to the slightest changes than we ever knew before. Nevertheless, you may be right in that our intention to change our environment in order to improve our lives may still be a viable option. This has yet to be seen though. Can we undo the damage, or at least stall its growth long enough, so that our original intention can be met?

 

what i'm saying is that we can continue to alter the environment to serve our needs and with that ability we should (in theory) never drive ourselves to extinction.

 

by realizing what we are doing, we have the power to stop and to fix what we did incorrectly because we have the ability to realize and correct our errors.

[Ophiolite]

The case for the prosecution:

we have the ability to realize and correct our errors.

 

The defence response

Kyoto.

[hyebeh]

i don't understand.

[j_p]

The US refuses to honor the Kyoto Protocol for minimizing and reversing environmental damage commonly suspected to lead to global warming, and other nasty things.

[j_p]

Because the theory of evolution would suggest an alternative scenario where life will simply adapt to suite its new environment.

 

Environmental damage does not cause the decrease of all species at the same rate.

 

First minor damage destroys microenvironments in which niche species thrive; species which feed off or otherwise benefit from the niche species decrease in number; competitors or prey of the niche species boom; the whole little web-let gets thrown off kilter.

 

The concern about the environmental changes humans are effecting is that they are occuring too rapidly for complex organisms, such as humans, to adapt.

 

And you will never convince me there are humans out there who can photosynthesize.

[Guest Grail]

Well the question as it stands now is answered that some form of life will survive the current rate of enviromental destruction, but the issue of our survival can be questioned due to the damage affected not bacteria but the lower life planktons which due to either pollution or global warming, either die off or grow out control, depending on the area , which in turn kills the orgasnisms that eat it or need its photosynthsis to survive, and upwards up the food chain till it affects us. it may sound far fetched but it is already affecting us. Human enviromental changes are outpacing the speed at which the earth can adapt to support us. Alot of it comes from the fact that we have been too sucessful as a species. 6 billion is a huge number for any large mammal and far more than required to be considered succesful. Its like any population explosion on a smaller scale site that can overwhelm its eviroment leading to its own death. Easter island is a good example of a population makeing changes faster than the enviroment could cope. The human population there grew large enough to be able to use all the trees fast enough that none were left to reforest. So following trees the entire ecosytem collapsed and even today the island is barren by biolgist standards, barely any microorganisms in the grasses. Bad omen for us all.

[Sayonara]

I don't believe I was incorrect' date=' but the point is moot now that the title has changed.

 

Bettina[/quote']

No it hasn't.

 

Users cannot change thread titles, and the moderator actions log for this thread is blank.

[Ophiolite]

And you will never convince me there are humans out there who can photosynthesize.

On the other hand a lot of people I meet professionally are pretty green.....

[coquina]

Thinking about how we humans have been damaging the global ecosystem with our industrial prowess for the last few hundred years, we've definitely seen the devastating effects it can have on life forms which depend on the environment staying in its pre-industrial-revolution state. What I'm wondering, however, is how many people are of the opinion that this damage spells the doom for life altogether in the ecosystem in question such that once the damage is done, no life will be found there for an indefinite time? Because the theory of evolution would suggest an alternative scenario where life will simply adapt to suite its new environment. So, it is certainly the case that the current configuration of life in a particular environment will not survive an excess amount of damage, other configurations which thrive on the environment in such a "damaged" state will eventually sprout out. For example, if CO2 emissions continue to saturate the air at the rate it is currently at, oxygen breathing animals like ourselves will eventually die from suffocation, but with 6 billion people on Earth, there might be a small handfull who are genetically endowed with mechanisms in their respiratory system that can either tolerate CO2 or even make use of it somehow. Again, the general issue is: does environmental damage destroy life or change it? What do you think?

 

Life on earth has been around on earth for at least 3.5 billion years. http://www.soutpansberg.com/geology/makgabeng.htm

 

It has managed to survive depite several major extinctions, (now thought that most we due to large impacts) that wiped out nearly all species. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/meteorites.html

 

I think we can make, and are making the planet much less habitable for future generations, but I think that humans will survive our own destructiveness. We may not be able to survive the next earth shattering impact, which will happen at some time in the future.

 

I do expect that some species will survive, and will flourish in a world with many open biological niches.

 

In general, I think humanity is far too self-centered about our position in the ecological biosphere. We are just another species that is enjoying its heyday at the moment. Pride goeth before a fall.

[j_p]

I do not share your confidence in the survival of humans; change could come very rapidly, before the species has time to adjust; even a relatively small drop in population [10 % is in my head, but I have no cite for that] could cause a severe breakdown in social/economic structures; and we are too dependent on complex technological and social and economic structures to flourish in a "natural" environment.

 

I do share your confidence in the survival and flourishing of life after catastrophic change.

 

[i really hate people who do this.]

Actually, pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

King James, Proverbs 16, verse 18 [did I cite that correctly?]

 

and "forte" when used in music is pronounced "for-tay", but when used as a noun meaning speciality is pronounced "fort"; both come from the latin, but the noun came into English through the French use, and the adverb through the Italian.

 

and "unique" can not be qualified

 

I annoy myself.