[vlovich123]

By what metric?

Humans have been around for what, 600k years? That’s genetically. Behaviorally (abstract reasoning, complex language) is only believed to be about 100k years old. Primates as a branch are only about 65m yold.

Crocodiles are 200m yold (mostly unchanging) while birds are 150m (wild diversity).

By whatever metric, humanity has no claim to adaptability as a species because we’re really quite too new on the scene. At best we’re more a virus - came on quick but spread at unprecedented rates all across the world bringing ecological destruction with us.

We have yet to see if we can survive the Earth’s immune response.

[nlitened]

> By what metric?

For example, humans are able to live in most climate zones of this planet, more than any other creatures (though, on land, not under water).

Another metric: by total biomass, humans far exceed any other animals their size (a huge outlier), with the exception of livestock (which is specifically grown by humans for own consumption).

[vlovich123]

Yes, humans have demonstrated quite the dominance for the world as it exists today. You’d agree that the ability to survive millions of years of changes to the worldwide ecosystem is quite different, no? For example, the world is experiencing quite a substantial desertification. Will humanity maintain its ability to build and survive at the current levels of consumption when food becomes significantly less available?

[nlitened]

My opinion is that no change of climate (beyond external impact) would be able to wipe humanity from the face of Earth. Even world-wide nuclear war would merely dent the total human population numbers for a few decades at most.

Food production and logistics are getting more effective and more efficient over time, any hunger that has happened in the past century and will ever happen — was and will be entirely social/political in nature. We’re in no danger of food randomly disappearing naturally, as far as I understand.

We are in danger of social changes though. Current civilizations might collapse, bringing hunger and death to hundreds of millions.

[vlovich123]

A serious dent in the human population or something as severe as a world-wide nuclear war would look like a complete destabilization of existing supply chains and world economy. Sure, humans might exist on earth but nothing about the quality of that life is guaranteed - might be backed to subsistence agriculture at best and never recover since all the raw materials that are accessible that let us leave that kind of lifestyle have been thoroughly mined.

Basically, the current quality of life is never again attainable by any other species full stop because of those resources having been consumed to get to today. If the point of life is just to exist as animals then sure, no need to worry. If the point of life is to reach and strive to touch the stars and achieve a kind of immortality for our species, it feels like we’re in danger of permanently dooming planet Earth to never producing such a species.

[nlitened]

I agree with you 100% here, and I worry about people causing self-destruction politically (nuclear war, socialism) much more than any climate change.