it’s not too much of a stretch to consider, and it’s probably the reality, that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

My Q is….

if the environment is quite different today, what’s the consequences of humans being super abundant.

in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

Widespread obesity, for starters.

transition said:

it’s not too much of a stretch to consider, and it’s probably the reality, that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

My Q is….

if the environment is quite different today, what’s the consequences of humans being super abundant.

in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

Is it a question or a statement?

Bubblecar said:

Widespread obesity, for starters.

Such stuff we already know.

transition said:

it’s not too much of a stretch to consider, and it’s probably the reality, that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

My Q is….

if the environment is quite different today, what’s the consequences of humans being super abundant.

in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

In Nature when an organism outgrows its environment and it cannot move elsewhere, they will simply die in various ways until they either go extinct, or be reduced to sustainable levels. Humankind has exceeded this threshold on many occasions, surviving by using our knowledge and ingenuity to produce more food, plus by medical science, control disease. The problem now, is there are bigger influences building that have been caused by our excessive numbers that are just too large for us to skirt around.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

Widespread obesity, for starters.

Such stuff we already know.

I still think we need an extinction meter separate from the doomsday clock.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

it’s not too much of a stretch to consider, and it’s probably the reality, that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

My Q is….

if the environment is quite different today, what’s the consequences of humans being super abundant.

in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

In Nature when an organism outgrows its environment and it cannot move elsewhere, they will simply die in various ways until they either go extinct, or be reduced to sustainable levels. Humankind has exceeded this threshold on many occasions, surviving by using our knowledge and ingenuity to produce more food, plus by medical science, control disease. The problem now, is there are bigger influences building that have been caused by our excessive numbers that are just too large for us to skirt around.

We need an over population / impact on quality of life meter as well.

that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

extinction of what? a species or an individual?

ChrispenEvan said:

that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

extinction of what? a species or an individual?

both I would think

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

extinction of what? a species or an individual?

both I would think

why, give your reasons for saying that.

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

extinction of what? a species or an individual?

both I would think

why, give your reasons for saying that.

what environmental threats have we been exposed to over the last 200 000 years that threatened our extinction? I’m talking early on in our history in keeping with the OP.

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

both I would think

why, give your reasons for saying that.

what environmental threats have we been exposed to over the last 200 000 years that threatened our extinction? I’m talking early on in our history in keeping with the OP.

One could have been what created Lake Toba?

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

ChrispenEvan said:

why, give your reasons for saying that.

what environmental threats have we been exposed to over the last 200 000 years that threatened our extinction? I’m talking early on in our history in keeping with the OP.

One could have been what created Lake Toba?

a localised extinction event. we’re talking global, or near enough, i thought. I mean, you could included floods, fires, earthquakes if you are only talking about extinction on tribal levels. so i am going to assume that the OP definition of extinction it just small scale, people worried about survival.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what environmental threats have we been exposed to over the last 200 000 years that threatened our extinction? I’m talking early on in our history in keeping with the OP.

One could have been what created Lake Toba?

a localised extinction event. we’re talking global, or near enough, i thought. I mean, you could included floods, fires, earthquakes if you are only talking about extinction on tribal levels. so i am going to assume that the OP definition of extinction it just small scale, people worried about survival.

Toba like Krakatoa, had global effects and we know that Toba did create extinctions just not quite enough to take out humans.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

One could have been what created Lake Toba?

a localised extinction event. we’re talking global, or near enough, i thought. I mean, you could included floods, fires, earthquakes if you are only talking about extinction on tribal levels. so i am going to assume that the OP definition of extinction it just small scale, people worried about survival.

Toba like Krakatoa, had global effects and we know that Toba did create extinctions just not quite enough to take out humans.

toba did have quite an effect, lots of humans died. thing is did we alter our thinking because of it? did we have the capacity to?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

a localised extinction event. we’re talking global, or near enough, i thought. I mean, you could included floods, fires, earthquakes if you are only talking about extinction on tribal levels. so i am going to assume that the OP definition of extinction it just small scale, people worried about survival.

Toba like Krakatoa, had global effects and we know that Toba did create extinctions just not quite enough to take out humans.

toba did have quite an effect, lots of humans died. thing is did we alter our thinking because of it? did we have the capacity to?

No I don’t think so.

transition said:

it’s not too much of a stretch to consider, and it’s probably the reality, that much of human instincts were shaped way back, by and for environments where the threat of extinction was quite immediate.

My Q is….

if the environment is quite different today, what’s the consequences of humans being super abundant.

in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

> in terms of numbers it’s like the threat of extinction on steroids, with distortions.

Yes. There are plenty of possibilities.

Unstoppable plague. The World Health Organisation has shown itself totally unable to cope with any plague like SARS or AIDS. Homogenisation of a closely shared genome over time makes plague more likely. eg. Humans are more likely to be driven extinct by plague than chimps because of the chimps greater genetic diversity.

The lack of inbreeding and childhood mortality leads to the buildup of deadly recessive mutations in the global population. Count about one new recessive mutation per generation. If it builds up too much there will be nobody left on Earth who isn’t a carrier of scores of deadly recessive mutations. Infertility and childhood mortality climb until human extinction becomes possible.

Cats are like cuckoos, lacking only a few million years of experience. Extinction becomes possible.

Descent into a state of permanent nuclear warfare as humanity’s violent instincts reinstate themselves.

Instinct to breed causing human numbers to rise again more rapidly and overpopulation to restart with consequent famine and respiratory diseases.

Reliance on a single supplier to satisfy worldwide demand fails when the supplier is wiped out by a minor disaster.

etc.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92478/

OVERVIEW OF THE SARS EPIDEMIC

SARS is unremarkable in certain ways among infectious diseases. For example, the transmission rate of SCoV pales in comparison with those of other known microbial threats, such as influenza, but appears to be similar to that of smallpox. Despite nationwide vaccination campaigns against influenza in the United States, an average of 36,000 U.S. residents die annually from influenza infections—nearly 50 times more people than the number killed by SARS worldwide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

Yet the quality, speed, and effectiveness of the public health response to SARS brilliantly outshone past responses to international outbreaks of infectious disease, validating a decade’s worth of progress in global public health networking. Thus, in several respects, the SARS epidemic reflected fundamental improvements in how the world responds to an outbreak of infectious disease; and at the same time, highlights the continuing need for investments in a robust response system that is prepared for the next emerging disease— whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced.

The World Health Organization (WHO) deserves credit for initiating and coordinating much of this response through its Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), as do the partner organizations comprising 115 national health services, academic institutions, technical institutions, and individuals. In the future, this public health network—originally developed to manage outbreaks of influenza and other infectious diseases—ideally will encompass more partners and have the capacity to handle outbreaks of greater magnitude than SARS. Nevertheless, it is clear that multinational, collaborative, and coordinated surveillance, research, and containment measures greatly limited the spread of SCoV.

more at link.

seems we did pretty well.

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92478/

OVERVIEW OF THE SARS EPIDEMIC

SARS is unremarkable in certain ways among infectious diseases. For example, the transmission rate of SCoV pales in comparison with those of other known microbial threats, such as influenza, but appears to be similar to that of smallpox. Despite nationwide vaccination campaigns against influenza in the United States, an average of 36,000 U.S. residents die annually from influenza infections—nearly 50 times more people than the number killed by SARS worldwide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

Yet the quality, speed, and effectiveness of the public health response to SARS brilliantly outshone past responses to international outbreaks of infectious disease, validating a decade’s worth of progress in global public health networking. Thus, in several respects, the SARS epidemic reflected fundamental improvements in how the world responds to an outbreak of infectious disease; and at the same time, highlights the continuing need for investments in a robust response system that is prepared for the next emerging disease— whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced.

The World Health Organization (WHO) deserves credit for initiating and coordinating much of this response through its Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), as do the partner organizations comprising 115 national health services, academic institutions, technical institutions, and individuals. In the future, this public health network—originally developed to manage outbreaks of influenza and other infectious diseases—ideally will encompass more partners and have the capacity to handle outbreaks of greater magnitude than SARS. Nevertheless, it is clear that multinational, collaborative, and coordinated surveillance, research, and containment measures greatly limited the spread of SCoV.

more at link.

seems we did pretty well.

Only because we had local scientists like Zarkov on the front line of vigilance.
Zarkov is someone we don’t talk about at parties but deep down we want him on that wall, we need him on that wall.

Peak Warming Man said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92478/

OVERVIEW OF THE SARS EPIDEMIC

SARS is unremarkable in certain ways among infectious diseases. For example, the transmission rate of SCoV pales in comparison with those of other known microbial threats, such as influenza, but appears to be similar to that of smallpox. Despite nationwide vaccination campaigns against influenza in the United States, an average of 36,000 U.S. residents die annually from influenza infections—nearly 50 times more people than the number killed by SARS worldwide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

Yet the quality, speed, and effectiveness of the public health response to SARS brilliantly outshone past responses to international outbreaks of infectious disease, validating a decade’s worth of progress in global public health networking. Thus, in several respects, the SARS epidemic reflected fundamental improvements in how the world responds to an outbreak of infectious disease; and at the same time, highlights the continuing need for investments in a robust response system that is prepared for the next emerging disease— whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced.

The World Health Organization (WHO) deserves credit for initiating and coordinating much of this response through its Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), as do the partner organizations comprising 115 national health services, academic institutions, technical institutions, and individuals. In the future, this public health network—originally developed to manage outbreaks of influenza and other infectious diseases—ideally will encompass more partners and have the capacity to handle outbreaks of greater magnitude than SARS. Nevertheless, it is clear that multinational, collaborative, and coordinated surveillance, research, and containment measures greatly limited the spread of SCoV.

more at link.

seems we did pretty well.

Only because we had local scientists like Zarkov on the front line of vigilance.
Zarkov is someone we don’t talk about at parties but deep down we want him on that wall, we need him on that wall.

He’s off the wall

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92478/

OVERVIEW OF THE SARS EPIDEMIC

SARS is unremarkable in certain ways among infectious diseases. For example, the transmission rate of SCoV pales in comparison with those of other known microbial threats, such as influenza, but appears to be similar to that of smallpox. Despite nationwide vaccination campaigns against influenza in the United States, an average of 36,000 U.S. residents die annually from influenza infections—nearly 50 times more people than the number killed by SARS worldwide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2002).

Yet the quality, speed, and effectiveness of the public health response to SARS brilliantly outshone past responses to international outbreaks of infectious disease, validating a decade’s worth of progress in global public health networking. Thus, in several respects, the SARS epidemic reflected fundamental improvements in how the world responds to an outbreak of infectious disease; and at the same time, highlights the continuing need for investments in a robust response system that is prepared for the next emerging disease— whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced.

The World Health Organization (WHO) deserves credit for initiating and coordinating much of this response through its Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), as do the partner organizations comprising 115 national health services, academic institutions, technical institutions, and individuals. In the future, this public health network—originally developed to manage outbreaks of influenza and other infectious diseases—ideally will encompass more partners and have the capacity to handle outbreaks of greater magnitude than SARS. Nevertheless, it is clear that multinational, collaborative, and coordinated surveillance, research, and containment measures greatly limited the spread of SCoV.

more at link.

seems we did pretty well.

Only because we had local scientists like Zarkov on the front line of vigilance.
Zarkov is someone we don’t talk about at parties but deep down we want him on that wall, we need him on that wall.

He’s off the wall

Geeky women with thick rimmed glasses want him, men on drugs want to be him.