I have been reading David Attenborough’s book “Life on Earth”

The final sentence is:

“The fact is that no species has ever had such a wholesale control over everything on earth, living or dead, as we now have.”

I think those words merit some consideration.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have been reading David Attenborough’s book “Life on Earth”

The final sentence is:

“The fact is that no species has ever had such a wholesale control over everything on earth, living or dead, as we now have.”

I think those words merit some consideration.

David never minced his words. He always had something to say and said it. Though he did credit the genus of wheat with the capacity to cause us to cut down forests so that it could flourish. So he doesn’t really think we are the only species capable. He does say that we are the only species in control at the moment.

“wholesale control” is debatable

I reckon some punters are going to misconstrue this one.

Ian said:

“wholesale control” is debatable

Yep.

Ian said:

“wholesale control” is debatable

Depends how you interpret those words.

Peak Warming Man said:

I reckon some punters are going to misconstrue this one.

It seems you are right :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

“wholesale control” is debatable

Depends how you interpret those words.

There is a debate there already.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

“wholesale control” is debatable

Depends how you interpret those words.

There is a debate there already.

Feel free to debate away.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Ian said:

“wholesale control” is debatable

Depends how you interpret those words.

There is a debate there already.

what I say

sounds like the global warming debate, are we fully responsible, are we partially responsible, are we responsible, who is responsible,

It’s happening we should do something

but who is responsible, how responsible are they, should the responsible do something, how responsible do you have to be to do something

don’t worry God will fix it

SCIENCE said:

sounds like the global warming debate, are we fully responsible, are we partially responsible, are we responsible, who is responsible,

It’s happening we should do something

but who is responsible, how responsible are they, should the responsible do something, how responsible do you have to be to do something

don’t worry God will fix it

Doesn’t need God.

Scomo has it all in hand.

He’s going to reduce our GHG emissions without incurring any cost and without reducing the work opportunities for those engaged in mining fossil fuels.

He said so last night, repeatedly.

He didn’t actually say how he was going to do it.

We just need faith.

‘til the rivers all run dry. ‘til the Sun falls from the sky. ‘til life on Earth is through.

Seems a reasonable comment, to me.

related, also interesting, exploring the comfortable limits of the apparently moral, and conscious species, are questions to do with the extent we borrow and extract from an earth and universe that is pre/dominantly indifferent, or to give it a twist, why Attenborough wouldn’t advocate for voluntary extinction of the species, even as a moral thought experiment

I don’t see the threat of unintentional extinction as a serious intellectual challenge, anyone can give legitimacy and amplify the instincts that dominated on the african savanna when human numbers by comparison were few (the ancestral environment), and the threat of extinction from that real

I raise the idea of voluntary extinction because to reduce human numbers intentionally, to reduce the population, is in some ways analogous to the proposition of voluntary extinction, in the territory of paradoxical thought space that is nearer reality

most of what makes up this earth and the universe is totally thoughtless, cares about nothing, is completely indifferent, even if you reduce the physics of a human being you’ll see the component aspects are comprised things indifferent

so there’s a dimension of philosophy, a dimension of morality worth exploring, to do with what extent humans secretly (and dishonestly, it’s an art) extract from the indifference of nature, and transform it

dv said:

Seems a reasonable comment, to me.

Thank you.

At the end of the ‘Time Machine’-Wells…the book…he travels to a cold reddish earth with large insectty crabby things.

It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine

The only competition we have is from microbes and this is the typical hunter prey scenario where one gets the upper hand, but is eventually knocked back by the other and so it see saws back and forth.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I have been reading David Attenborough’s book “Life on Earth”

The final sentence is:

“The fact is that no species has ever had such a wholesale control over everything on earth, living or dead, as we now have.”

I think those words merit some consideration.

Some consideration, but as regards population explosion. The biomass of the human species plus stock is way way larger than the whole of the rest of the vertebrates, even including fish. Only insects and marine invertebrates come close to matching anthroposphere biomass.

That’s why mankind has such a dominant influence. And why we need to move extra carbon from the lithosphere to the biosphere.