[posterboy]

The vast, vast majority of life today has gone extinct. I don't know how to quantify that, and it's possibly a close call for Homo viewed in isolation.

Obviously, the growth of Homo required other taxa to be consumed, since man don't feed on inorganic material. The principle of entropy guaranties that this equation holds even if inorganic input and outout into an arbitrarily defined system of organisms is considered.

It simply doesn't make sense to view living beings as either open systems without a clear boundary (and I don't mean cell walls), or as closed systems to the extent of inclusing ev-ery-thing.At best you have defined living being as open system that is "growing", but then you have excluded cancer already, as though any system were only open if in principle fungible for man.

You have completely missed that growth ad infinitum is problem, not re-growth.

[janto]

That there is any life left at all is because it has kept on reproducing. The only other viable strategy to persist is to be a rock.

Re-growth (from what starting point?) is insufficient. You either expand in number or you run the risk of ceasing to exist when your numbers are threatened.

I'd choose going for growth ad infinitum and the associated risks. Trying anything else will get me killed.

[posterboy]

> That there is any life left at all is because it has kept on reproducing

utter nonsense, observer survivor bias

> The only other viable strategy to persist is to be a rock.

pseudo intellectual bulls

> Re-growth (from what starting point?) is insufficient

That there is any life left at all is because it has kept (from what starting point?) on reproducing. That one?

You are not making any sense

[janto]

Are you suggesting that not replicating has been a better survival strategy for organisms?