this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
389 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

15589 readers
931 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

That's so sad.

It's hard to argue how we aren't an infestation. The reach & environmental effects of humans per individual is outstanding even without factoring the explosive growth (globally only a few 100k or a few millions for 4 billion years, then a billon in a single millennia, then 9 billon in just 200 years).

Solitary unconnected gardens can't help, it would barely be possible to sustain us normally if we all were extremely and unambiguously (and with much more knowledge) aware of & actively dedicating our lives to diminish environmental impacts.

But also our overall lives would be better. Imagine forest cities with tall buildings (without critter loss, so maybe glass covered streets?), clean every, waste treatment & reuse, no "waste", etc.

[–] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

If it helps, some models are showing it level off. If we advance climate science and use it to inform policy, we might be able to slowly contract our population while avoiding a "Children of Men" style collapse. I assume it would take a few thousand years to reach an equilibrium that allows us to maintain a habitable environment while still developing space-faring technology. The bonus is that the time it would take might change our practices into something a little more worthy of spreading to other planets if that ever becomes possible. I think with our current energy and pollution situation, we've guaranteed ourselves future hardships for many generations, but I don't think it's hopeless yet.

Regardless, other life has done similar stuff before. It resulted in mass extinction, but life moved on in some form. I hope the earth will be great with us in it, but if not, it will probably be fine without us, too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yeah, 400 million years. We are doing it in centuries.

We are already into the mass extinction event caused by humans, the hardship for biodiversity is measured in millions of years in event we give nature back the space immediately (ie we disappear).

And three are no plans anywhere about that.

The hardship for humans seems irrelevant in comparison, if we have a war & kill 4 billon people that is still a 50 year setback (1975).

Also even if human population is starting to level (geopolitical predictionds still point to 12bn, it's more about the economy & living status than food supply), we will each year consume more of everything, space/surface included.

I don't even see us reaching our max destructiveness on earth's species in the next 100+ years.

Times will get a little tougher for next human gens & with our entitlement we will just destroy more nature.

Nothing in our past or present points to anything other than that.