Countries’ climate promises not enough to avoid catastrophic global warming
news.un.org
news.un.org
Any species evolving in an environment defined by the competition for resources and hitting the same - or similar - exploits in the game engine as humanity (tool use and cooperation), seems destined to be the victim of its own success.
The primary behavioral mechanisms that would prepare a species for such an unlikely success - e.g. "don't consume more resources than strictly required" - would never make it through the selection process.
So we end up with the power of gods and the appetites of locusts.
As for wiping out any other living ecosystem that is not directly in symbiosis with our food production chain, that’s a completely different story, and very likely.
I don’t know if this is less or more sad..
If we're likely to destroy (the remaining) ecosystems, how are we supposed to 'adapt and expand'?
I don't think it's possible for the humans to completely destroy the ecosystem. It would require a runaway event that would have to make nearly 100% of the world inhospitable, probably requiring a bit of war mixed in.
If you're talking "we" as you and me, then I agree. If it's "we" as humans, it's a hard disagree. I don't think the science is there.
I think we're looking at a future with far less humans, but not one without humans. The poles will warm and become comfortable, the oceans will warm and bring humidity, bringing the tropics north, as they once were.
Life, and humans, will carry on with their never ending struggle.
I think the only end to humans could be political, but even then, humans would be just fine, even with a nuclear war. Nobody will be nuking the Papuans who live in the forests of Papua New Guinea or the random farmer who lives out in the middle of nowhere in the midwest.