If Half of All Species Go Extinct, Will One of Them Be Us?(nautil.us)
nautil.us
If Half of All Species Go Extinct, Will One of Them Be Us?
http://nautil.us/blog/if-half-of-all-species-go-extinct-will-one-of-them-be-us
4 comments
If you believe in evolution, then presumably not, assuming humans really are fit, which our current situation would seem to indicate.
On the other hand, generally what happens is that species grow larger and heavier (because that allows for increased energy efficiency at the cost of reduced adaptability), and then disappear. That's why larger animals are disproportionally likely to go extinct. We are quite large.
So the short answer is : the jury's still out. After all, if we are not in fact better than other species, why should we survive ?
On the other hand, generally what happens is that species grow larger and heavier (because that allows for increased energy efficiency at the cost of reduced adaptability), and then disappear. That's why larger animals are disproportionally likely to go extinct. We are quite large.
So the short answer is : the jury's still out. After all, if we are not in fact better than other species, why should we survive ?
Humans are fit, to our current situation. That's the point. We are perhaps more flexible than many other species, but we are not infinitely flexible.
As the article, in one experiment, removing a top predator caused certain tree species to die off (the predator controlled the beasts that gobbled the trees). There are cascading downstream effects.
Removing half of all species might, just might, change the environment so much we no longer fit it, we can no longer adjust. Or perhaps some of us will survive.
Note that your last sentence betrays a common misunderstanding about evolution: some notion of superiority. Evolution isn't about superiority, it is about goodness of fit, how well various species fit their environment. This isn't fitness as in strength, it's fitness as in suitability. It's not optimization, it adequate-ization.
As the article, in one experiment, removing a top predator caused certain tree species to die off (the predator controlled the beasts that gobbled the trees). There are cascading downstream effects.
Removing half of all species might, just might, change the environment so much we no longer fit it, we can no longer adjust. Or perhaps some of us will survive.
Note that your last sentence betrays a common misunderstanding about evolution: some notion of superiority. Evolution isn't about superiority, it is about goodness of fit, how well various species fit their environment. This isn't fitness as in strength, it's fitness as in suitability. It's not optimization, it adequate-ization.
Do we now? Ignoring the idea that it's simpler to predict the economic, political, and ecological consequences of stopping large amounts of economic activity (which, the article should recognize, is the exact damn problem they're trying to avoid solving); how DO you actually convince all 7 billion people that it's in their best interests to stop doing things that will let them put food on their family's table?
HINT: Non trivial problem.