Is conservationism sustainable or will it lead to humanity's extinction?

Not Op. but this is relevant

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615

I was speaking metaphorically. The world's not alive and obviously cannot die in the traditional sense, but eventually it won't be able to support human life anymore.

Hell, there's so many potential extinction events that but we know about as it is, and with every human being on Earth, all our eggs are in one basket.

there is enough energy coming from the sun to power humankind if the entire Earth's biomass was converted into humans. this will be the case one day. its only a matter of time and dead people til we learn to convert it efficiently

"the world is dying" is a retardedly cutesy way of saying "humanity cannot sustain the bulk of itself with the current infrastructure relying on finite resources"

>NASA Statement on Sustainability Study

>The following is a statement from NASA regarding erroneous media reports crediting the agency with an academic paper on population and societal impacts.

>"A soon-to-be published research paper 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota’s Jorge Rivas was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity."

I don't think conservation means we will never try to colonize space. It just recognizes that a life-filled planet like earth is a humongous asset that we shouldn't take for granted. It's more like 'not shitting on your first basket' than 'putting all your eggs in one basket.'

Why?

You just stop sustaining Africa and China/India with aid and trade respectively, then the whole problem is solved.

Or just nuke the 500 most populous cities in the world, whichever.

>>There's a limitless supply of fossil fuel
Yet, for a bit, Germany had too much renewable energy.
>Population is going to magically stop increasing
It will. It's slowing down at an increasing rate..
>Food, clean water, space aren't increasing concerns
Depends.
We just need to play our cards smart.

>Yet, for a bit, Germany had too much renewable energy.

It's still a finite resource even if it's unused.

>we came from slime

You don't really believe that do you?

I think he mean we are related to 'slime' (and all other life on earth too), but obviously we are part of the vertebrates.

So you want to tell me they (vertebrates) came from slime, and we ultimately came from them?

My quick summary would be that early life capable of replicating itself became complex single celled life over time, which then became multicellular (Porifera), and eventually diverged to become many different types of multicellular organisms (plants, animals, fungi).

Not him but there is lotsa natural resources in orbiting asteroids in the solar system, as soon as we are able to im sure we will be mining the fuck outta them

And do you have an alternative theory that includes all geological, palaeontological and genetic evidence?

Tell me what is the difference between this single celled early non-complex life, and the complex single celled life?

I want to talk about genetic evidence for a moment. What exactly do you mean by this?

>difference between this single celled early non-complex life, and the complex single celled life

Instead of colonies of single-celled organisms, you have cells that form tissues. It's a man-made distinction so in the real world, there are cases that blur the line. Cancer, for example, is loss of multicellularity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choanoflagellate

>As the closest living relatives of animals, choanoflagellates serve as a useful model for reconstructions of the last unicellular ancestor of animals

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

So would you say life developed slowly over a long period of time, or that life appears in great variety from the very beginning, and also after extinction events? That is what the fossil record shows, anyway.

Why do they consider it the closest relative to animals?

Accidental read that as single to multicellular. And it's quite difficult to find evidence from that period.

Sounds like the punctuated equilibrium idea.

Genetics

Because we share DNA with them?

We share DNA with bananas.

But what do you think?

I'm not up on the specifics, but it's about sharing more with those groups positioned closer than those further away.

>But what do you think?

More intense selection pressures could increase the rate of speciation, and selection pressure aren't constantly uniform and stable, so a pattern resembling the punctuated equilibrium model is likely to occur, as well as more gradual changes too. And if you're talking about the cambrian explosion then I'd suggest looking into the ediacaran biota.

>bananas

Kent Hovind, please go.