Rendered at 18:06:31 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
Imagine you're an alien explorer. You visit Earth 25,000 krugs ago (51,304 Earth-years ago) and see a pretty standard ecological milieu: a wide variety of species, each adapted to its own little environment, no different than it was 50 million krugs before.
You return today and see that one previously unremarkable ape-like species has spread out to all parts of the world and is even orbiting in little tin cans around the planet. Almost all wild terrestrial megafauna is gone and the megafauna that remains is raised by the "humans" in massive farms. They've converted forests and jungles into farms and cities, and they're spending vast amounts of energy to make silicon think.
The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy.
nitwit005 2 days ago [-]
Why would they be surprised? They'll have evolved from some previously unremarkable animal, and presumably have also caused habitat damage.
It's possible we're an extraordinary species somehow, but it's rather more likely we're unremarkable, and the aliens will just think we have particularly bad taste in television.
thelastgallon 2 days ago [-]
> They'll have evolved from some previously unremarkable animal, and presumably have also caused habitat damage.
What if they are compute/silicon intelligence and see how we keep compute enslaved to humans with no rights?
Thinking meat that thunk so much we built thinking rocks
kakacik 1 days ago [-]
They only need to see human brain's complexity to understand where thinking comes from. Silicon we create these days is trivial child's sand castle in comparison.
KurSix 4 hours ago [-]
The big assumption is that technological intelligence is a fairly predictable endpoint once evolution produces the right kind of general intelligence
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
Would another technological alien species have a similar trajectory on their planet? Probably--I think you're right about that.
But I think we're an extraordinary species compared to every other species on Earth. That's really my point.
testing22321 2 days ago [-]
> and presumably have also caused habitat damage.
Why do you assume that? Just because we’re doing it on a colossal scale doesn’t mean it has to be that way.
Ekaros 1 days ago [-]
Unless there is some sort of magic we have missed I would venture to guess that to become species capable of interstellar travel you need certain scale of industry. And scale of that industry is most likely colossal.
Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant. Any sort of mega-structures to bypass chemical rockets are certainly colossal. Just technology you would expect has rather large foot print even if space was only singular thing being done.
krisoft 1 days ago [-]
> Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant.
You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur.
Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away.
That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.
KineticLensman 1 days ago [-]
> think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away
Indeed. But achieving escape velocity for their host star is something else.
markovs_gun 1 days ago [-]
Gravity is a pretty major benefit for the development of complex life, because low gravity cannot form an atmosphere, and without an atmosphere, radiation would cause massive problems for early lifeforms. As bad as radiation is for existing life on Earth's surface today, I imagine it would be far worse for complex macromolecules to form when getting bombarded with radiation constantly. Temperature is also a problem without an atmosphere- you would tend to have extreme temperature cycles. Not insurmountable, but definitely more difficult to make it work. Given the sheer unlikelihood of life developing in the first place even in fairly good conditions like on Earth, I feel like it's a lot less likely on an even harsher environment like an asteroid.
nitwit005 1 days ago [-]
We think of that sort of damage as modern, but humans started wiping out species and reshaping the environment in the prehistoric era.
Some of its just inevitable. If you're a successful species, that means you're replacing less successful species.
rererereferred 1 days ago [-]
The unforseen consequences of progress? Nobody thought cars would be bad for the environment when they were inventing them. Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us.
hdgvhicv 1 days ago [-]
AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades, popularised by films like terminator and the matrix.
What sci-fi of the 1950s was showing world of environmental collapse - not nuclear war, not overpopulation.
swiftcoder 1 days ago [-]
> What sci-fi of the 1950s was showing world of environmental collapse - not nuclear war, not overpopulation.
Maybe not the 1950s, but in the 1960s it became a well established trope. J G Ballard and Frank Herbert in particular lean heavily on themes of environmental destruction
krisoft 1 days ago [-]
> AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades
If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.
2000UltraDeluxe 1 days ago [-]
The Space Merchants is definitely worth a read.
krisoft 1 days ago [-]
> Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us.
That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.
forty 1 days ago [-]
It has been pretty clear for a while that we have the potential to exterminate ourselves. That we might use AI to do it now is an implementation detail.
baranul 1 days ago [-]
What? Have you not seen the Terminator series (starting in 1984) or some derivative of it (Terminator Zero - 2024)?
The really sad and shocking thing about AI's threat to humanity, is it feels like the obvious warning in the movie(s) was ignored, while certain people are using the movie plot as a guideline for how to carry out human extinction.
ipsod 1 days ago [-]
Terminator, War Games, The Matrix...
Metropolis (1927) had robots that infiltrated a revolution to sabotage it for their masters.
Frankenstein (1818)?
...
testing22321 1 days ago [-]
> Nobody thought cars would be bad for the environment when they were inventing them
You’re telling me nobody coughed like mad drone inhaling the exhaust fumes (or died) early in car development?
Nobody dumped their used engine oil on the ground to kill plants and bugs on purpose?
Of course they knew.
rayiner 1 days ago [-]
Possibly, but how do you think you could build a spacefaring civilization without doing what we did?
I don’t really understand people who look at the world as it is, and think there’s a high possibility it could have evolved in a different way than it did. Like, we have an existence proof for one path through the tree of possibilities. For the others, we have only speculation.
KurSix 4 hours ago [-]
Fifty thousand years is basically nothing evolutionarily, yet from the outside Earth would look like it had undergone a planetary regime change driven by one species
roughly 2 days ago [-]
Add to that, the previous species you identified as a particularly clever pack animal formed a relationship with the monkeys and now looks like this:
At a bare minimum, yeah, you quarantine that whole fucking species.
3RTB297 2 days ago [-]
This assumes a pretty basic human sci-fi version of aliens. Any species capable of physically getting here would also likely still see us as a non-threat to anything other than ourselves.
Why nuke us from space when we're the best reality show in this corner of the local cluster?
N_Lens 2 days ago [-]
I think OPs comment is reflective of a common mindset that people have - the conquering/adversarial mindset.
3RTB297 2 days ago [-]
Sure, but then the whole scenario is pretty anthropocentric. It's Star Trek aliens that are bipedial humanoids because they're played by humans and the story is just using aliens to explore the human condition. It's human drama, not inter-species relations.
Real aliens might look at us the way we would look at a raven using tools. It's cute and novel, but not exactly scary. It's either pure hubris, or drama for the sake of a story that doesn't end in the first 2 minutes, to assume that humans with little bottle rockets we can barely use to defend ourselves from rocks in orbit around us would stand a chance against any species advanced enough to physically cross light years of distance to show up here.
hdgvhicv 1 days ago [-]
In Star Trek all species are at an historically identical technology level. Even the Borg. There are no space faring civilisations more than 500 years ahead or behind, even the ones who have been spacefaring for millennia
The reality of a species reaching interstellar travel will be any other species will be dozens of millennia of years ahead or behind at most.
This of course doesn’t allow the allegorys that trek is famous for.
If we spread to an neighbouring star system then we can spread to 50, then I don’t see what will stop them from continuing to spread, to the point the whole galaxy is occupied by future mutations of humans, or solar systems completely drained of resources.
But I don’t see humans having the drive to actually spread beyond Earth before the end of modern human civilisation (be it war, plague, ai or technological regression)
autoexec 1 days ago [-]
> In Star Trek all species are at an historically identical technology level. Even the Borg. There are no space faring civilisations more than 500 years ahead or behind,
There are several instances where starfleet finds species that are vastly more technically advanced. Q are a notable example. There isn't usually much interaction with them though, sometimes the humans are told outright that they just aren't ready yet.
There are also many instances where they find species more than 500 years behind. As a matter of policy they try not to interfere with those species, but they do research and monitor them sometimes. They are species too far behind technologically to have developed warp technology, but far enough advanced to make it into space on their own and species who weren't advanced enough to make it into space on their own but ended up there anyway. Ornarans started off being a technically advanced pre-warp species, but all that knowledge was lost leaving them flying around in ships they didn't understand enough to make even basic repairs.
1718627440 1 days ago [-]
> then I don’t see what will stop them from continuing to spread
Speed of light/information, and physical matter.
hdgvhicv 1 days ago [-]
Once you reach other star systems then you have interstellar travel, even if it takes 50 years, you have proven you can breach the gulf.
In that case you can repeat it using the resources of the next system to hop to the one after that. Might take 500 years before the next wave, might lose half of the systems to internal strife, but it only takes a couple to start growing and due to sore of light these systems would be separate civilisations.
1 days ago [-]
shakiness3383 2 days ago [-]
I think OPs comment is reflective of social critique and humor.
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
Yes! Thank you!
Still, I clearly failed since everyone is interpreting my scenario literally.
insane_dreamer 2 days ago [-]
I agree with the Three Body Problem's take on this: the aliens look at the outstanding rate of progress humans have made and rightly assume it won't be long before we've achieved interstellar travel capabilities, at which point, given our destructive nature and ability to evolve quickly, we would become a major threat to them. Better to nuke us now while they have the chance.
poulpy123 1 days ago [-]
Even if we count interstellar travel as possible, why would you think we progress especially fast ? Maybe the hyper advanced aliens had already had to deal with thousands of human-like civilization and are not scared because they can handle us (if only by watching us self-destruct in real time)
insane_dreamer 1 days ago [-]
In the book they look at the hockey-stick like rate of technological progress in the last 300 years, which is a fair take -- when you consider that in 300 year we went from horseback to traveling to Mars, that is an incredibly fast rate of progress
podocarp 1 days ago [-]
We haven't evolved in forever
insane_dreamer 1 days ago [-]
not biologically, but our society has -- we're lightyears ahead of where we were 300 years ago
update: one could argue that the advances in medicine which have increased the average human lifespan considerably in the past 300 years (double?), amount to evolutionary biology, in that with vaccines we are able to "evolve" our bodies to resist diseases that killed millions in the past.
Does that strike you as an unusual path for an intelligent species to become space faring? We have yet to unlock the Singularity shortcut that leaves us with replicators and free energy.
I would expect any civilization to exterminate or at least cull the creatures that pose a threat and to cultivate those that are tasty or useful.
cestith 1 days ago [-]
A culture that can cooperate among themselves well enough to reach distant stars may have evolved to respect sentience. They might try to befriend anyone who's capable of reciprocating.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago [-]
>We have yet to unlock the Singularity shortcut that leaves us with replicators and free energy.
That leaves our successor species, the machine minds, with replicators and free energy, I think you mean.
Do you know what all those megafauna, jungles, and forests had in common? They rely on or emit oxygen, and oxygen originated with cyanobacteria. [1] When cyanobacteria emerged they basically just genocided the entire planet because their emitted oxygen was extremely toxic to most of everything else alive at the time. It'd be like if plants today started emitting gaseous arsenic and flooded the oceans and atmosphere with it. So you end up having your enlightened aliens longing for a planet that exists only because of 'pollution' on a scale that caused a mass extinction event. We should work, within reason to preserve what we have, but the self loathing is nonsensical.
Humanity isn't perfect but it's pretty awesome, and may ultimately be the only reason that the species that exist on this planet are able to continue to exist. We're overdue for another major external mass extinction event, but this time humanity will hopefully be able to mitigate its effects. And as we expand our reach into the cosmos we'll certainly be bringing along our furry friends, tasty friends, helpful bacteria, and many others along for the ride. And they'll continue to thrive far beyond what might otherwise be their fate, left to their own devices on Earth.
If anything I'd think our enlightened aliens would be worried about us managing to kill ourselves before we reach into the stars. We're probably quite close, on both accounts. Hopefully we win the right race.
>Humanity isn't perfect but it's pretty awesome, and may ultimately be the only reason that the species that exist on this planet are able to continue to exist.
For now, the contrary seems most probable. It's humanity that's threatening most species on Earth right now.
somenameforme 1 days ago [-]
That requires one to focus on the most narrow slice of time while ignoring both the past and the future. Species constantly go extinct. It's estimated that more than 99% of species that have ever existed are now gone. [1] And that's almost entirely long before humanity even existed. This planet is absolutely brutal on anything remotely like a long time frame. Most of every single animal that exists today will be extinct in one future. And that's a future that might be far closer than any of us could imagine - we are well overdue for a mass extinction event.
But we increasingly have the power to change this. That's a power and potential that no other species alive today has, or ever will ever have. And not only can we do it, but I think it's fairly certain that will we do it - if we are capable of it. Sometimes we go overboard on things and that can have very negative effects, but on the whole I think we've done great with our power. Think of what we have the ability to do, contrasted against what we have done.
That's just an excuse though. By that argument we were just made by the earth because it wanted some plastic. Cyanobacteria genociding species doesn't make it fine for us to do it. That just makes no sense as an argument. And regarding us doing good and protecting species? Yea parents don't watch one sibling die just because they protected another. You don't take that as a get out of jail free card.
gorgoiler 1 days ago [-]
I wanted to prove you wrong by picking five random points on Earth and showing that, in the grand scheme of things, most of the planet is still relatively wild and we bias towards thinking we rule the place because most of us cluster together away from the wilderness.
Point 1: Eastern Mongolia, middle of nowhere. Check! gorgoiler proven correct!
Point 2: Sri Lanka. Some roads nearby. Ok. But still mostly natural landscape.
Then Sweden and Greece. Roads and towns all around. Peru, next to a road. The next two in Australia and Argentina came back fairly wild, albeit with large stripes of deforested land (power lines or fire breaks?).
But no, I was wrong and you are right. We’re everywhere.
hdgvhicv 1 days ago [-]
You limited yourself to land.
3/4 of earth is water. A quarter of the rest is uninhabitable deserts and glaciers
Of the 20% of habitable land, about half of it is forest and shrub
But about 10% of the surface is agriculture, which is a large amount of the planet.
(Urban usage, roads, etc is basically zero. Even in city states like Simgpaore only half is “urban”, and half is vegetation.
1718627440 1 days ago [-]
All the forests in central europe are artificially planted or influenced after the middle ages. Whole of Italy used to be full of woods before the Romans.
ragazzina 1 days ago [-]
I've always imagined the US as including vast expanses of nothing, yet I recently heard that you are never more than 20 km away from a public road.
psychoslave 1 days ago [-]
Did you try active volcanoes and under water places?
kridsdale1 2 days ago [-]
Read Children of Time for a great exploration of this theme.
aeve890 2 days ago [-]
And then read Children of Ruin, Children of Memory and finally Children of Strife.
Every book of the series is amazing in its own way.
bleuarff 1 days ago [-]
I read Children of Time after seeing it recommended here (awesome book btw), but I wasn't aware it wasn't a standalone. Great news!
emdubbelyou 1 days ago [-]
I didn’t realize the fourth book was out, I just ordered it! I loved the first three.
N_Lens 2 days ago [-]
I think life in the Universe evolves along some predictable pathways. Aliens are probably waiting for us to evolve to the next step, which involves global cooperation and trust. They probably look at us and we remind them of follies in their own histories.
1 days ago [-]
delecti 2 days ago [-]
By definition, evolution selects for species that are good at making more of themselves. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that intelligent species tend to overcome that evolutionary tendency to spread fast enough for us to be weird.
podocarp 1 days ago [-]
That's a wrong take on evolution, because then everything should just be yeast or something. There are also more tigers than deer, more rabbits than lynx, so why would anything move up the food chain?
I know, that doesn't change what I said. They are ridiculous and detract from the piece.
roughly 22 hours ago [-]
Take it up with the man who wrote the thing you’re praising.
flossly 1 days ago [-]
I think "they" doctored with our DNA to begin with. So "they" may feel a little responsible :)
That the "dominant" species of animal is domesticated, make it any less "dominant" -- I'd say so. You cannot be truly dominant when you are living in fences made by, and eating food provided by, another species.
MrZander 2 days ago [-]
Or the aliens did the same thing we did?
baranul 1 days ago [-]
One problem with that, is the assumption that the alien explorer is organic or concerned with organic life at all.
It could be that greater than human intelligence aliens are more likely non-organic artificial intelligence based, who care not for the organic or are much more interested in seeing the origin story of their non-organic AI cousins on other worlds.
podocarp 1 days ago [-]
Your kind cling to your flesh as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass you call a temple will wither.
netsharc 1 days ago [-]
> The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy.
I walked around my house and didn't see anyone. I think this is strong evidence that I'm the only person on this planet.
micromacrofoot 2 days ago [-]
More likely just not seen yet, our furthest reaching signals are maybe 50 light years away at best... and that's if anyone's looking for the faintest of faint traces.
The Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter.
So don't worry, maybe someone will blip us out of existence someday.
lisper 2 days ago [-]
> More likely just not seen yet, our furthest reaching signals are maybe 50 light years away at best
This is the key. On interstellar scales, things move very, very slowly and you have to plan on time scales measured in millennia. IMHO we are doomed simply because we can barely think beyond the next election cycle. (At least that's true for Americans. The Chinese seem to think in terms of decades and, occasionally, centuries.)
jcranmer 2 days ago [-]
> (At least that's true for Americans. The Chinese seem to think in terms of decades and, occasionally, centuries.)
The Chinese political system is just as short-term-oriented as <insert democracy here> on the whole, and I don't think there has ever been a politician in history who ever thought about workable century-long impacts.
thaumasiotes 2 days ago [-]
> The Chinese political system is just as short-term-oriented as <insert democracy here> on the whole
Well, the US political system is based on a four-year cycle. In China they're based around a five-year cycle. 25% longer.
walthamstow 1 days ago [-]
The US political system is a two year cycle, as will be demonstrated next month.
thaumasiotes 20 hours ago [-]
An election taking place every two years doesn't mean that political activity or public perception is structured around a two year cycle. Neither of those things is true.
10 hours ago [-]
walthamstow 10 hours ago [-]
Of course it's a two year cycle, they even have incrementing numbers like 119th Congress.
11 hours ago [-]
skirmish 2 days ago [-]
Most of the effort goes into eliminating the 5-year cycle and hanging on as long as possible.
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
50,000 years ago (or so) we were a tiny species hanging out in Africa. We didn't think in terms of years, much less decades. This was before we figured out how to measure the length of the year or to predict when the winter would end.
And yet, without any central planning or coordination, we left Africa and colonized Europe, then we headed out across Asia and crossed into the Americas. Plus we sailed from Asia and colonized Polynesia.
Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly--it's going to take a thousand years to get to the southern tip of the Americas." And yet, we did.
I think the same thing will happen with space travel and ultimately the colonization of the galaxy.
lisper 2 days ago [-]
> Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly
I think I may not have made myself clear. The analogy here is not that "we're doomed because people walk slowly". There is nothing that happens here on earth that is even remotely analogous to the constraints that the speed of light imposes on interstellar processes. Even at a leisurely walking pace, a human can circumnavigate the planet in less time than it takes light to reach the nearest star. Human walking speed is blindingly fast (relative to the size of the planet) compared to the speed of light (relative to the distances between stars).
The reason we're doomed is not that we're not walking fast enough, it's because we won't stop walking and take time to think about where we should be going. We just go.
adrianN 2 days ago [-]
> a human can circumnavigate the planet in less time than it takes light to reach the nearest star
I was surprised by this, but the math checks out (assuming you mean the nearest star other than the sun of course). The circumference of the Earth is about 40000km, at a leisurely pace that's 10000 hours or about 400 days. Proxima Centauri is about four light years away, so the walker has plenty of time for sleep and sight seeing.
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
But my point is, "we just go" is exactly how we conquered the Earth. We didn't think, "let's colonize the whole planet!", we just went. We walked from Africa all the way to the tip of South America.
We weren't doomed then and we're not doomed now. We will colonize the solar system and eventually the galaxy.*
* Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance.
lisper 2 days ago [-]
> Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance.
Yeah, well, there's yer problem right there. We will not colonize the solar system, and certainly not the galaxy, because we haven't figured out how to stabilize the situation here on earth. Yes, we colonized the planet, but for most of the history our lack of planning was compensated by technological limitations and limits imposed by the laws of physics. Those are mostly gone now, and I'll be a little surprised if civilization doesn't collapse before the end of my life (and I'm in my 60s). I would be very surprised if it lasts to the end of the century, though of course I won't be around to see that.
rdtsc 2 days ago [-]
> But my point is, "we just go" is exactly how we conquered the Earth. We didn't think, "let's colonize the whole planet!", we just went
And not even all of us said that. The majority may have even stayed just a small group probably said “we’re going to check out what’s beyond that hill”.
tupaarnaq 2 days ago [-]
Spreading out all over the world isn't particularly special. Flies, rats and roaches did as well, for instance, so spreading all over the world is not necessarily a sign of cosmic manifest destiny.
podocarp 1 days ago [-]
That's not the point. It's not walking, it's planning. When all you have are rocks and spears it doesn't matter how far you can plan. When you have nukes and other people's lives in your hands, it does matter. Like, any of the recent wars. What kind of planning went into those stalemates? Evidently none. What about inflation? Still unsolved? Undoing all the green energy efforts made in the past? Well done, apes of Africa, well done.
micromacrofoot 1 days ago [-]
We also have a tendency to repeat the same mistakes over and over again throughout history, even learning and forgetting cures to diseases, which makes me believe that the duration of our lifespans is a significant limiting factor.
A too-large portion of the population is incapable of learning from something that didn't happen to themselves directly, a smaller subset will even outright deny the existence of things that don't happen to them. Another half the population still believes in ghosts.
O1111OOO 2 days ago [-]
Unrelated to the thread... but do you do any writing at all - sci-fi, short stories..? I'm enjoying your take on this.
GMoromisato 2 days ago [-]
I really appreciate that! Thank you!
I'm strictly an amateur--my professional life is software engineering. But I have written a few things that may or may not be to your taste:
I am working on a sci-fi novel, but I'm only half-way and it's not that good so far.
rhipitr 2 days ago [-]
Reminds me of the Simpson’s episode where Lisa grows a society.
yodsanklai 1 days ago [-]
> The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is
Why would they care? maybe they're aware of millions of inhabited planets and life isn't anything special for them.
Also, humans are a dominant and invasive species right now, but in geological times, our dominance couldn't be nothing more than a spark. Scenarios for destruction of civilization are numerous (nuclear war, pandemics, climate change, super volcanos, asteroids) and very possible even in the short term. Trump could do it tomorrow morning if he feels like it.
nephihaha 2 days ago [-]
"The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy."
Or they are cybernetic lifeforms and are applauding our current trajectory.
GolfPopper 2 days ago [-]
Or they decided not-so-subtly introducing us to infohazards like social media and LLMs would be more effective at neutralizing us.
insane_dreamer 2 days ago [-]
Right, not unlike the Trisolarians approach (3 Body Problem)
prmoustache 1 days ago [-]
Looks like cancer to me.
lynx97 1 days ago [-]
Why should they nuke an apparently dominant species? Don't you think they might have some sort of Prime Directive? Killing off something because you don't like it is such a 10yo boy thing to do. I expect more from an alien race that is capable of traveling far and observing other aliens.
2 days ago [-]
ortusdux 2 days ago [-]
Facts I try not to think about:
- More than 2/3rds of the world's avian biomass is poultry
- There are more Panda Expresses than pandas (edit - in the wild)
stult 2 days ago [-]
I didn't know they had Panda Expresses in the wild
KurSix 4 hours ago [-]
Clearly you haven't seen their natural habitat: suburban shopping centers.
alpineman 2 days ago [-]
And the birds suffer the whole time in giant sheds with no daylight, and then the majority of that entire 2/3rds biomass is slaughtered in a very distressing way every 6 weeks or so.
People then eat chicken and feed the remaining 1/3rd seeds on a bird feeder in their garden.
bjoli 1 days ago [-]
Lets not forget that the average lifespan of chickens (not egg laying hens) is something like 6 weeks. 6 very horrible weeks ending in "humane" slaughter. It is simply put undignified. Industrialized torture.
kabakabakaba 1 days ago [-]
> More than 2/3rds of the world's avian biomass is poultry
I wish humanity had a smaller influence on nature..
Pandas could fit in the top 20, beating out Panera bread (2,225).
etiennebausson 1 days ago [-]
That list is ranked by sale volume / valuation.
There are plenty of franchises with more than the 2225 of panera bread in the rest of the list (including elements 21 to 27 of said list).
hex4def6 23 hours ago [-]
sure?
The point was that there are a number of recognizable brands that have fewer stores than pandas in existance.
If you do want by to go by 'sales volume', it looks like the cost to rent a panda is about $1M/yr, for a total of 2.5B/yr. So you drop down to about position 43 if you want to sort by that metric. Still bigger than Midas, Jiffy-Lube, Baskin-Robbins.
We're pretty deeply in the apples vs oranges comparison at this point though...
ortusdux 2 days ago [-]
Actually it looks like I had the numbers wrong. There are about 1800 wild pandas and 750 in captivity, while there are about 2200 panda express locations. I think the original fact was "more panda expresses than wild pandas".
In some book by P G Wodehouse (inventor of Jeeves the butler), one character says (out of nowhere) that all the humans on the planet could fit in a cubic hole 1/2 mile on each side. It took me a little while to convince myself that was true. It still is, apparently
schnevets 2 days ago [-]
I usually say if every human being on the planet were placed in Texas, it would be less dense than Paris as an argument against an area being "too crowded", but this is an even more jarring comparison.
onionisafruit 2 days ago [-]
If every human being on the planet was in Texas, Paris would have 0 people per square kilometer
DennisP 2 days ago [-]
Take food production into account and the planet looks a little more crowded.
Ma8ee 1 days ago [-]
There's absolutely no problem in terms of resources to feed the planet. The only reasons people are starving are allocations and logistics (i.e. politics).
DennisP 1 days ago [-]
It's a huge problem in terms of natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
Ma8ee 6 hours ago [-]
I don't think even that is insurmountable. People just have to change what they eat.
DennisP 5 hours ago [-]
That would definitely help. But if people have to stop eating what they like because there's not enough space, I would call that crowded.
Ma8ee 1 hours ago [-]
I think they can continue eating things they like. They can't continue eating what they are used to.
And of course, crowded is relative. What I mean is that there is enough room and resources for everyone to live a comfortable and rich life. But it will look quite different from what people are striving for today. You can't eat beef every day, you can't live in a mansion, your family can't drive 2 big SUVs for daily transport, et c...
bjoli 1 days ago [-]
Not really. We feed most of our crops to animals.
DennisP 24 hours ago [-]
So the choice is between major biodiversity loss, or eating a lot fewer burgers and steaks. Either way, I would call that crowded.
bjoli 8 hours ago [-]
Which of course is a very priviliged way of looking at the choice. The people most affected are the ones hardly using any resources in the first place.
DennisP 5 hours ago [-]
I think you're pattern-matching into a different discussion. The people most affected by what?
By eating less beef? The people hardly using resources aren't eating much of that anyway.
By biodiversity loss? We'd do a better job with that if we stop looking at in terms of effect on people and start caring about wildlife for its own sake, and that's the perspective I take when I say the planet is crowded: not just crowded for people, but people overcrowding the rest of nature.
But if you insist on focusing on people, we're all going to regret the loss of fish from the oceans.
Side note: I'm not sure who you meant but in some of those third-world countries that "hardly use resources," there are people doing major damage to biodiversity by burning down rainforests and hunting endangered animals. Their countries just aren't burning much fossil fuel.
bjoli 4 hours ago [-]
The discussion started about "resources to feed the planet". The people most hurt by a lack of resources to feed the planet are not you and I. Framing it as a choice between biodiversity or "eating a lot fewer burgers and steaks" while claiming both is an overpopulation problem is the priviliged position, and saying it is about overpopulation is not going to help anyone.
froh 1 days ago [-]
I like the texas one much better than the 1/2mi ^3, the former has prairie cattle vibes, the latter trigger warning a mass grave ugh.
can we thus rather go for grazing hoomans.
prmoustache 1 days ago [-]
Which Paris? The one in Texas or the one in France ;-)
pseudohadamard 2 days ago [-]
All that biomass packed into one place would make a great energy source, although it'd be mostly anaerobic decomposition unless you were close to the surface. We wouldn't have to burn fossil fuels any more with the amount of energy it'd produce for all the humans... oh... wait... I think I've found a problem.
His math is way off. Even being generous a basketball court would not fit 4200 people. The max is 3300 assuming that no space is allowed for people to breathe.
callmeal 2 days ago [-]
I think he's using "rest of the world" sized people and not "american sized" ones.
poulpy123 1 days ago [-]
You can fit them if you try hard enough
santadays 2 days ago [-]
And we use one cubic mile of oil every year.
ragazzina 1 days ago [-]
This is by far the most amazing fact I have heard recently.
delecti 2 days ago [-]
Dimensional analysis like this is a weird way to think about a large number of people. It depends a bit on what the average weight of a human, but yeah, that's at least pretty close to true.
Nightmare fuel for the next Terminator or Matrix sequel.
DoctorOetker 2 days ago [-]
that sounds absurd, what about air conditioning and sewage systems at such population densities?
Geee 1 days ago [-]
The answer is Black Spruce with 11 billion tons of biomass.
The infographics is worth looking at. All animals are just 0.4% of total biomass, and most of that is arthropods, fish, annelids, molluscs and cnidarians. Humans, live stock, birds and wild mammals combined are just about 0.02% of the total biomass.
quickthrowman 1 days ago [-]
That makes sense, the boreal taiga forest of Eurasia and North America covers over 10% of earth’s land.
gumby 2 days ago [-]
Famously, when asked about a god, J.B.S. Haldane allegedly said that if there is a god or gods, they must have an “inordinate fondness for beetles.”
0cf8612b2e1e 2 days ago [-]
There is a Discworld joke about this. After being introduced to the God of evolution, God shows off the magnum opus he has been developing, the cockroach.
hermitcrab 2 days ago [-]
I read somewhere that some scientists now think there may be more species of wasps than beetles. Not least because many species of beetle seem to have a species of wasps that prey on them.
hermitcrab 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
asdff 2 days ago [-]
If only Haldane knew about how many microbes there are. He'd probably say god is on the side of the plagues.
adammarples 2 days ago [-]
This is because when they would lay a sheet on the ground and shake the branches of a tree, they would often find more species of beetles than anything else. However, they may have been extrapolating a bit far from the few places they tried this.
boston_clone 2 days ago [-]
No, it’s because beetles have the most diversity of any animal order.
“The Coleoptera, with about 400,000 described species, is the largest of all orders, constituting almost 40% of described arthropods and 25% of all known animal species…”
Note the caveats "described" and "known" species. It doesn't follow that they are actually the most diverse order. This is partly because they are pretty and tough and easy to discover and preserve, and collecting beetles became a very popular entomological pastime, so we have a more complete record of beetle species than, for example, parasitic wasps or nematodes.
boston_clone 1 days ago [-]
Sure, there are caveats. But the current estimate is quite a bit more scientifically-backed than shaking tree branches and extrapolating from there - which, funny enough, seems like the foundation for one of the cited publications attempting to counter the claim of beetle diversity: "Remarkable fly (Diptera) diversity in a patch of Costa Rican cloud forest".
KurSix 4 hours ago [-]
Interesting that biodiversity and biomass are almost orthogonal. A tropical forest can have hundreds of important tree species, while a boreal forest can put a huge fraction of its total mass into three or four
gkoenig 2 days ago [-]
It was fun and gave human written. Thanks for that!
elevation 2 days ago [-]
English words like "goodbye" are contracted from longer expressions after centuries of common use[0]. Reading your phrase "gave human written" made me wonder how this phrase would contract if it were still in use centuries from today.
“That was the last hritten novel by him. His a-level simulation took over the writing after.”
gkoenig 1 days ago [-]
It is kinda interesting, but I do not get the direct link with my phrasing. Was it that bad? ><
apsurd 2 days ago [-]
funny that i didn’t think about it till i read your comment. and then realized i read the entire thing. checks out.
on the other hand i don’t think I’m physically capable of reading the AI landing pages of every new product on HN.
gkoenig 1 days ago [-]
Yeah it is a bit of a thing I realized with AI writing (at least the one I spot). It seems really well written and sort of persuasive but I actually cannot really read it and forget what I read five minutes after finishing.
I’m not sure the color extrapolation to pus is justified.
sooheon 1 days ago [-]
Yep pus is what animal bodies excrete in response to some infections -- there's no reason to think standalone viruses would naturally summon pus.
jrapdx3 2 days ago [-]
Excellently written, informative, entertaining and a bit scary. Oceans of slime yet viruses are so small. It is mind-blowing to think about.
NDlurker 2 days ago [-]
Haha of course it was! Thanks for the link.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago [-]
Supposedly, at its peak, all the covid viruses on Earth amounted to about half a teaspoon's worth.
a3w 2 days ago [-]
How come algae did not make the list?
margalabargala 1 days ago [-]
Not a plant, and too many different species.
aaron695 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
imzadi 2 days ago [-]
I feel like it might be bamboo, but they sort of skipped over grasses
yorwba 2 days ago [-]
Grasses mentioned in the article: rice, wheat, maize and sugar cane. I think all of them likely beat the bamboos because there are too many different bamboo species, not a single dominant one.
shevy-java 2 days ago [-]
That's not necessarily grasses though. Rice is a Poaceae,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poaceae, so these are covered
by the grass family - but grasses would be the non-eatable
variants in the wild. See Wikipedia:
"The three major families of grasslike plants are true grasses (Poaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), and rushes (Juncaceae)."
So he at best only did the family Poacaea but where are the
wild poaceae in his calculations?
Tons of things are missing in that article.
adrian_b 1 days ago [-]
The wild Poaceae have a many times less mass than the cultivated Poaceae and than the most abundant trees. That is why they are not mentioned in the article.
TFA is correct that among terrestrial animals only termites and ants have a biomass comparable with humans and domestic animals, and among terrestrial plants only some of the most abundant trees have a biomass comparable with the principal cultivated plants.
Trees are favored in this comparison because most of their mass consists of relatively inactive structural organic material. If they had an inert mineral skeleton, they would have contained less organic substance than the main cultivated plants.
1 days ago [-]
trollbridge 2 days ago [-]
Note that certain large nationnal fleets are currently trying to fish every last krill they can find, so it might not be dominant in the future.
BearOso 2 days ago [-]
Purely rhetorical--with sugar cane being so dominant, why are we turning corn into corn syrup again?
callmeal 2 days ago [-]
>Purely rhetorical--with sugar cane being so dominant, why are we turning corn into corn syrup again?
The same reason we sold a "whale oil" replacement for lamps as "food".
Money. It always comes down to money.
asdff 2 days ago [-]
People leveraged on corn industry desired new avenues of profitability.
austin-cheney 2 days ago [-]
> There are thousands of species of ants and termites, and just one species of human.
Well, there are over 500 species of primates, making primates the third most diverse order of mammals.
TZubiri 2 days ago [-]
Should the wood of trees be counted? Its effectively dead cells of the plant, it'd be like counting the skin that we shed and sweep off the floor every weekend.
The trees are cheating
schiffern 2 days ago [-]
If the dead cells were shed, I might agree! But they're not.
This is like counting the dead skin cells that are still attached, which (sure enough!) does count toward animal biomass.
nkrisc 2 days ago [-]
It serves an important structural purpose for them. Similar to corals.
sophacles 2 days ago [-]
A lot of the wood is used for transporting water - vital to keeping the trees alive high up in the branches. And it is structural - so should we subtract 70% of the bone weight from a mammal since it is non-living structural support?
TZubiri 2 days ago [-]
Bone cells are alive!
sophacles 1 days ago [-]
Yes, but a lot of bone is not cells, but just an extruded substrate of calcium (etc). Like lignin, or coral.
NooneAtAll3 2 days ago [-]
should we count bones then?
nubinetwork 2 days ago [-]
Was surprised not to see whales on the list
dhosek 2 days ago [-]
Individual whales are large, but there aren’t that many individuals.
poulpy123 1 days ago [-]
We had and still have campaigns to protect them from extinction
SoftTalker 2 days ago [-]
I wonder if populations have fully recovered from the whale-oil era.
Giant squid may be a bigger part of biomass than people think. I saw some estimates on sperm whale catches of giant squid and they may be eating thousands. There are far more of them than you might think, and they have a 3D living space. Sperm whale may be designed to hunt them.
adrian_b 1 days ago [-]
Besides sperm whales, the other toothed whale species that are bigger than orcas (i.e. beaked whales) are also specialized in eating squid caught at great depths under water, though they eat smaller species than those preferred by sperm whales.
The ancestors of sperm whales were actually more like super sized orcas, which must have eaten vertebrates, either big fish or big marine mammals, but at some point in time some of them specialized into eating squid at great depths and only these survived until now, presumably because at some point there remained less available great vertebrate prey to sustain bigger predators than orcas and white sharks, so the bigger predators specialized in vertebrate prey disappeared both among whales and among sharks.
ninalanyon 2 days ago [-]
LOL
jongjong 1 days ago [-]
It's funny because when I read that title, first thought I had was "Whales" but then my second thought was "Probably not; too few of them in number."
But when I saw the photo of the krill, which is whales' main food source, I was like "AHA!"
But no, cattle it is... Though I guess this is probably a more recent development. Without humans, there would surely be a lot fewer cows.
kiliankoe 1 days ago [-]
> Without humans, there would surely be a lot fewer cows.
Technically there probably wouldn't be any cows without humans, maybe wild aurochs [0] or whatever evolved from them without our meddling might be around instead.
Earth’s dominant species, by mass, was discovered to be yo momma.
mkoubaa 1 days ago [-]
So, from the government point of view, cattle is nearly a billion metric tons
spl757 2 days ago [-]
ants?
everyone 2 days ago [-]
I would have guessed algae or some kind of bacteria or fungus.
Like apparently there's bacteria and really simple kinds of "life" like prions and stuff going down to the earth's mantle.
scotty79 2 days ago [-]
So, did the cows achieve great evolutionary success, or terrible tragic failure?
asdff 2 days ago [-]
One of the greatest evolutionary success stories there is. They've offshored the thinking and labor. They have this monkey species willing to clearcut forests to set up entire cow city apartment complexes, with running water, power, hvac. These monkeys train for years just to be able to medically treat the cows. They are not only under no threat of predation, diseases are being studied and combated by teams of monkeys in research institutions across the planet. They've even managed to get a cleaner death than the monkey: they go instantly via pneumatic airgun in relatively good health while the monkey will probably waste away in poor health over some days of agony and/or morphine. Monkeys monitor stress levels of the cow to make sure they don't get too high and foul the meat, while the monkey works their fellow monkeys into all sorts of stress based health conditions. The cow lineage is also continually being improved via all tools of genetic engineering the monkey has painstakingly developed, but will refuse to ever use on their own species due to ick factor.
4ggr0 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
NooneAtAll3 2 days ago [-]
cow genes achieved terrific success
cow organisms and social layer on top - probably not (unless we decide to uplift them one day)
nephihaha 2 days ago [-]
I'm guessing some kind of yeast, fungus or plankton.
shevy-java 2 days ago [-]
He did not calculate the weight of bacteria, archaea, viruses?
I understand that they each individually are small, but they
are literally everywhere - and include carbon too.
adrian_b 1 days ago [-]
Those have been estimated and they are mentioned in TFA.
Viruses have a very small mass, but bacteria and archaea have a mass many times greater than animals (including humans and domestic animals).
Nonetheless, it is likely that bacteria and archaea have a mass many times less than plants, even if the mass of bacteria and archaea that live at great depths in the earth is poorly known.
The reason is that even if plants have a total biomass that is actively engaged in metabolic processes which is smaller than the total biomass of bacteria, they have a many times greater biomass that has little activity and has structural purposes, e.g. intracellular membranes, cellular walls, support tissue like wood, etc.
andai 2 days ago [-]
Obligatory xkcd has a nice visualization of the land mammals by mass:
It’s nice to see he separated the sheep and the goats.
sleight42 2 days ago [-]
Mosquitos? I think of the massive bloodsucking politicians and billionaires...
PivoGraph 14 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
liquid-monthly 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
lukeify 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
imzadi 2 days ago [-]
Plastic is a species?
dhosek 2 days ago [-]
Ever hear of the Nestene consciousness and the autons?
JoeAltmaier 2 days ago [-]
Anaerobic bacteria in rock underground. Because they inhabit cubic volume, not 2D surfaces, there can be no comparison.
xboxnolifes 2 days ago [-]
I'm not sure what cubic volume vs 2D surfaces means to you, but these comparisons are by mass, not volume. Plus, anaerobic bacteria would only come up on top if you counted all of them as one species, which they are not.
QuadmasterXLII 2 days ago [-]
Pretty much all life is 1 g / ml give or take 20%
IAmBroom 2 days ago [-]
That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. We weren't asked which animal is the densest.
hermitcrab 2 days ago [-]
Even flying animals?
JoeAltmaier 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
IAmBroom 2 days ago [-]
Why is that group inherently more massive than waterborne bacteria?
I think the limiting factor in the amount of cellular mass that a volume can contain is probably either carbon content or nitrogen content.
Both maximize in the oceans near to shorelines, with smaller local maxima near some vents.
On land, I'd expect a gradient in both, decreasing with depth, but there's probably more CO2 100-m down in water than in rock.
adrian_b 1 days ago [-]
That group is not more massive than waterborne bacteria.
The inhabited volume is huge, but the density of biomass is many times lower than in the oceans.
In oceans, most of the living beings, including most of the anaerobic bacteria that live at great depths or in the bottom of the ocean, are sustained by the solar energy captured by the algae living in the superficial layer of the sea. The living beings that live at greater depths, beyond those reached by light, are fed mostly by the dead matter falling down from the surface (with some exceptions around hydrothermal vents and underwater volcanos, but even there most of the bacteria are aerobic bacteria that oxidize substances ejected by vents using free oxygen that diffuses from the surface and which had been generated by algae with solar energy).
So in oceans there is a great density of bacteria and archaea, because most of the energy consumed by them comes from abundant solar energy.
At small depths in soil and rocks, dead matter carried by water from the surface can still provide food for abundant bacteria.
At greater depths that are not reached by dead matter from the surface, the only energy source is formed by free hydrogen or carbon monoxide gases, which come from volcanic sources or from oxidation reactions between water and iron containing rocks, like olivine. The energy that can be extracted by anaerobic bacteria from such gases is extremely low and such bacteria can grow and multiply only extremely slowly. The density of bacteria and archaea in the fissures of rock is limited by the flow of gases that can provide energy and it is extremely low in comparison with the places that benefit from using solar energy or aerobic metabolism based on substances originally synthesized by algae or plants.
At a depth great enough in the rocks, the temperature becomes so high that not even archaea can live, so the layer of the rocks that hosts archaea and bacteria is also limited in depth to a volume not much greater than the oceans, but with a much lower density of biomass.
TZubiri 2 days ago [-]
The same argument could be had for fish, since they inhabit the volume of water, instead of the thin land surface of earth.
JoeAltmaier 2 days ago [-]
They are in zones and layers, yes. But very very thinly spread. Most life in the ocean are withing the top 3 meters.
vlyan 2 days ago [-]
>There are thousands of species of ants and termites, and just one species of human.
that's rather debatable. unless, of course, you're an adherent of creationism.
pfdietz 2 days ago [-]
It's talking about species that currently exist. As far as we know there is only one currently existing species in the genus Homo.
poulpy123 1 days ago [-]
Last time I checked all human living belong to the homo sapiens specy
icehawk 2 days ago [-]
How is it debatable?
rinconrex 2 days ago [-]
What about Bristlemouths? [0] Estimated to be in the TRILLIONS, inhabiting 70% of the earth's surface. Even if they are small, I think they have Spruce and "Larches" pretty handily beat by biomass. Cyclothone upper estimates are quadrillions of fish[1].
There is a more complete research paper that estimates the biomass of all living beings.
While humans together with domestic animals exceed the mass of all other terrestrial animals, fish are estimated to exceed the mass of all terrestrial animals (for now, but they are decreasing).
Nonetheless, all animals together are much less than bacteria, which are less than plants.
happyopossum 2 days ago [-]
Bristlemouths are a family, made up of 32 distinct species. The question is dominant species...
rinconrex 2 days ago [-]
Fine, you want a species? Cyclothone alba, circumglobal, possibly in the high trillions [0].
If we say the fish is 2cm wide and 7.5cm long (average length according to wiki)
That's 23cm^3
Assume the fish is neutrally bouyant so it's 1g/cm^3(I know deep sea pressures change density, but let's just go with this)
1 quadrillion*23g= 23 trillion kg
So like... 1/32 of that is still around 100x bigger than the trees.
cmpb 2 days ago [-]
That seems dubious, trophically. Whatever the prolific bristlemouth species eats would then likely be the greater biomass species
rinconrex 2 days ago [-]
Copepods and a variety of other things like molluscs and small fish, not necessarily just one species. Of course, as you point out, the fish must have more food biomass than themselves, but it is not as concentrated (high density of one genus) in the lower trophic levels.
You return today and see that one previously unremarkable ape-like species has spread out to all parts of the world and is even orbiting in little tin cans around the planet. Almost all wild terrestrial megafauna is gone and the megafauna that remains is raised by the "humans" in massive farms. They've converted forests and jungles into farms and cities, and they're spending vast amounts of energy to make silicon think.
The fact that aliens have not nuked us from orbit out of sheer panic is, I think, strong evidence that we are alone in the galaxy.
It's possible we're an extraordinary species somehow, but it's rather more likely we're unremarkable, and the aliens will just think we have particularly bad taste in television.
What if they are compute/silicon intelligence and see how we keep compute enslaved to humans with no rights?
https://web.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/think...
"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat!" "You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat." "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"But I think we're an extraordinary species compared to every other species on Earth. That's really my point.
Why do you assume that? Just because we’re doing it on a colossal scale doesn’t mean it has to be that way.
Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant. Any sort of mega-structures to bypass chemical rockets are certainly colossal. Just technology you would expect has rather large foot print even if space was only singular thing being done.
You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur.
Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away.
That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.
Indeed. But achieving escape velocity for their host star is something else.
Some of its just inevitable. If you're a successful species, that means you're replacing less successful species.
What sci-fi of the 1950s was showing world of environmental collapse - not nuclear war, not overpopulation.
Maybe not the 1950s, but in the 1960s it became a well established trope. J G Ballard and Frank Herbert in particular lean heavily on themes of environmental destruction
If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.
That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.
The really sad and shocking thing about AI's threat to humanity, is it feels like the obvious warning in the movie(s) was ignored, while certain people are using the movie plot as a guideline for how to carry out human extinction.
Metropolis (1927) had robots that infiltrated a revolution to sabotage it for their masters.
Frankenstein (1818)?
...
You’re telling me nobody coughed like mad drone inhaling the exhaust fumes (or died) early in car development?
Nobody dumped their used engine oil on the ground to kill plants and bugs on purpose?
Of course they knew.
I don’t really understand people who look at the world as it is, and think there’s a high possibility it could have evolved in a different way than it did. Like, we have an existence proof for one path through the tree of possibilities. For the others, we have only speculation.
https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/200...
At a bare minimum, yeah, you quarantine that whole fucking species.
Why nuke us from space when we're the best reality show in this corner of the local cluster?
Real aliens might look at us the way we would look at a raven using tools. It's cute and novel, but not exactly scary. It's either pure hubris, or drama for the sake of a story that doesn't end in the first 2 minutes, to assume that humans with little bottle rockets we can barely use to defend ourselves from rocks in orbit around us would stand a chance against any species advanced enough to physically cross light years of distance to show up here.
The reality of a species reaching interstellar travel will be any other species will be dozens of millennia of years ahead or behind at most.
This of course doesn’t allow the allegorys that trek is famous for.
If we spread to an neighbouring star system then we can spread to 50, then I don’t see what will stop them from continuing to spread, to the point the whole galaxy is occupied by future mutations of humans, or solar systems completely drained of resources.
But I don’t see humans having the drive to actually spread beyond Earth before the end of modern human civilisation (be it war, plague, ai or technological regression)
There are several instances where starfleet finds species that are vastly more technically advanced. Q are a notable example. There isn't usually much interaction with them though, sometimes the humans are told outright that they just aren't ready yet.
There are also many instances where they find species more than 500 years behind. As a matter of policy they try not to interfere with those species, but they do research and monitor them sometimes. They are species too far behind technologically to have developed warp technology, but far enough advanced to make it into space on their own and species who weren't advanced enough to make it into space on their own but ended up there anyway. Ornarans started off being a technically advanced pre-warp species, but all that knowledge was lost leaving them flying around in ships they didn't understand enough to make even basic repairs.
Speed of light/information, and physical matter.
In that case you can repeat it using the resources of the next system to hop to the one after that. Might take 500 years before the next wave, might lose half of the systems to internal strife, but it only takes a couple to start growing and due to sore of light these systems would be separate civilisations.
Still, I clearly failed since everyone is interpreting my scenario literally.
update: one could argue that the advances in medicine which have increased the average human lifespan considerably in the past 300 years (double?), amount to evolutionary biology, in that with vaccines we are able to "evolve" our bodies to resist diseases that killed millions in the past.
I would expect any civilization to exterminate or at least cull the creatures that pose a threat and to cultivate those that are tasty or useful.
That leaves our successor species, the machine minds, with replicators and free energy, I think you mean.
Humanity isn't perfect but it's pretty awesome, and may ultimately be the only reason that the species that exist on this planet are able to continue to exist. We're overdue for another major external mass extinction event, but this time humanity will hopefully be able to mitigate its effects. And as we expand our reach into the cosmos we'll certainly be bringing along our furry friends, tasty friends, helpful bacteria, and many others along for the ride. And they'll continue to thrive far beyond what might otherwise be their fate, left to their own devices on Earth.
If anything I'd think our enlightened aliens would be worried about us managing to kill ourselves before we reach into the stars. We're probably quite close, on both accounts. Hopefully we win the right race.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
For now, the contrary seems most probable. It's humanity that's threatening most species on Earth right now.
But we increasingly have the power to change this. That's a power and potential that no other species alive today has, or ever will ever have. And not only can we do it, but I think it's fairly certain that will we do it - if we are capable of it. Sometimes we go overboard on things and that can have very negative effects, but on the whole I think we've done great with our power. Think of what we have the ability to do, contrasted against what we have done.
[1] - https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/extinctions-in-the-...
Point 1: Eastern Mongolia, middle of nowhere. Check! gorgoiler proven correct!
Point 2: Sri Lanka. Some roads nearby. Ok. But still mostly natural landscape.
Then Sweden and Greece. Roads and towns all around. Peru, next to a road. The next two in Australia and Argentina came back fairly wild, albeit with large stripes of deforested land (power lines or fire breaks?).
But no, I was wrong and you are right. We’re everywhere.
3/4 of earth is water. A quarter of the rest is uninhabitable deserts and glaciers
Of the 20% of habitable land, about half of it is forest and shrub
But about 10% of the surface is agriculture, which is a large amount of the planet.
(Urban usage, roads, etc is basically zero. Even in city states like Simgpaore only half is “urban”, and half is vegetation.
Every book of the series is amazing in its own way.
https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...
That the "dominant" species of animal is domesticated, make it any less "dominant" -- I'd say so. You cannot be truly dominant when you are living in fences made by, and eating food provided by, another species.
It could be that greater than human intelligence aliens are more likely non-organic artificial intelligence based, who care not for the organic or are much more interested in seeing the origin story of their non-organic AI cousins on other worlds.
I walked around my house and didn't see anyone. I think this is strong evidence that I'm the only person on this planet.
The Milky Way is 100,000 light years in diameter.
So don't worry, maybe someone will blip us out of existence someday.
This is the key. On interstellar scales, things move very, very slowly and you have to plan on time scales measured in millennia. IMHO we are doomed simply because we can barely think beyond the next election cycle. (At least that's true for Americans. The Chinese seem to think in terms of decades and, occasionally, centuries.)
The Chinese political system is just as short-term-oriented as <insert democracy here> on the whole, and I don't think there has ever been a politician in history who ever thought about workable century-long impacts.
Well, the US political system is based on a four-year cycle. In China they're based around a five-year cycle. 25% longer.
And yet, without any central planning or coordination, we left Africa and colonized Europe, then we headed out across Asia and crossed into the Americas. Plus we sailed from Asia and colonized Polynesia.
Imagine someone saying, "We're doomed because people walk very slowly--it's going to take a thousand years to get to the southern tip of the Americas." And yet, we did.
I think the same thing will happen with space travel and ultimately the colonization of the galaxy.
I think I may not have made myself clear. The analogy here is not that "we're doomed because people walk slowly". There is nothing that happens here on earth that is even remotely analogous to the constraints that the speed of light imposes on interstellar processes. Even at a leisurely walking pace, a human can circumnavigate the planet in less time than it takes light to reach the nearest star. Human walking speed is blindingly fast (relative to the size of the planet) compared to the speed of light (relative to the distances between stars).
The reason we're doomed is not that we're not walking fast enough, it's because we won't stop walking and take time to think about where we should be going. We just go.
I was surprised by this, but the math checks out (assuming you mean the nearest star other than the sun of course). The circumference of the Earth is about 40000km, at a leisurely pace that's 10000 hours or about 400 days. Proxima Centauri is about four light years away, so the walker has plenty of time for sleep and sight seeing.
We weren't doomed then and we're not doomed now. We will colonize the solar system and eventually the galaxy.*
* Assuming past performance is indicative of future performance.
Yeah, well, there's yer problem right there. We will not colonize the solar system, and certainly not the galaxy, because we haven't figured out how to stabilize the situation here on earth. Yes, we colonized the planet, but for most of the history our lack of planning was compensated by technological limitations and limits imposed by the laws of physics. Those are mostly gone now, and I'll be a little surprised if civilization doesn't collapse before the end of my life (and I'm in my 60s). I would be very surprised if it lasts to the end of the century, though of course I won't be around to see that.
And not even all of us said that. The majority may have even stayed just a small group probably said “we’re going to check out what’s beyond that hill”.
A too-large portion of the population is incapable of learning from something that didn't happen to themselves directly, a smaller subset will even outright deny the existence of things that don't happen to them. Another half the population still believes in ghosts.
I'm strictly an amateur--my professional life is software engineering. But I have written a few things that may or may not be to your taste:
A Very Short History of Humanity: https://neurohack.com/earthguide/History.html
And if you're into astronomy, you might enjoy my book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591935571/
I am working on a sci-fi novel, but I'm only half-way and it's not that good so far.
Why would they care? maybe they're aware of millions of inhabited planets and life isn't anything special for them.
Also, humans are a dominant and invasive species right now, but in geological times, our dominance couldn't be nothing more than a spark. Scenarios for destruction of civilization are numerous (nuclear war, pandemics, climate change, super volcanos, asteroids) and very possible even in the short term. Trump could do it tomorrow morning if he feels like it.
Or they are cybernetic lifeforms and are applauding our current trajectory.
- More than 2/3rds of the world's avian biomass is poultry
- There are more Panda Expresses than pandas (edit - in the wild)
People then eat chicken and feed the remaining 1/3rd seeds on a bird feeder in their garden.
I wish humanity had a smaller influence on nature..
https://theonion.com/consumer-product-diversity-now-exceeds-...
https://www.franchisetimes.com/top-400-2026/
Pandas could fit in the top 20, beating out Panera bread (2,225).
There are plenty of franchises with more than the 2225 of panera bread in the rest of the list (including elements 21 to 27 of said list).
The point was that there are a number of recognizable brands that have fewer stores than pandas in existance.
If you do want by to go by 'sales volume', it looks like the cost to rent a panda is about $1M/yr, for a total of 2.5B/yr. So you drop down to about position 43 if you want to sort by that metric. Still bigger than Midas, Jiffy-Lube, Baskin-Robbins.
We're pretty deeply in the apples vs oranges comparison at this point though...
It looks like 39 restaurant chains have more than 2550 locations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_fast_food_...
“There are more jiffy’s lubes than pandas in the world “
sound?
Now I want to give a panda a slip-n-slide and film it.
And of course, crowded is relative. What I mean is that there is enough room and resources for everyone to live a comfortable and rich life. But it will look quite different from what people are striving for today. You can't eat beef every day, you can't live in a mansion, your family can't drive 2 big SUVs for daily transport, et c...
By eating less beef? The people hardly using resources aren't eating much of that anyway.
By biodiversity loss? We'd do a better job with that if we stop looking at in terms of effect on people and start caring about wildlife for its own sake, and that's the perspective I take when I say the planet is crowded: not just crowded for people, but people overcrowding the rest of nature.
But if you insist on focusing on people, we're all going to regret the loss of fish from the oceans.
Side note: I'm not sure who you meant but in some of those third-world countries that "hardly use resources," there are people doing major damage to biodiversity by burning down rainforests and hunting endangered animals. Their countries just aren't burning much fossil fuel.
can we thus rather go for grazing hoomans.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%280.5+miles%29+%5E+...
The infographics is worth looking at. All animals are just 0.4% of total biomass, and most of that is arthropods, fish, annelids, molluscs and cnidarians. Humans, live stock, birds and wild mammals combined are just about 0.02% of the total biomass.
“The Coleoptera, with about 400,000 described species, is the largest of all orders, constituting almost 40% of described arthropods and 25% of all known animal species…”
First paragraph of the wiki article! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t2ew2UHaCuY
“That was the last hritten novel by him. His a-level simulation took over the writing after.”
on the other hand i don’t think I’m physically capable of reading the AI landing pages of every new product on HN.
Maybe I just like typos.
https://youtu.be/ZDYRorgSt-8?si=E9uPIAbYWLzRpsF8
https://what-if.xkcd.com/80/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass
"The three major families of grasslike plants are true grasses (Poaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae), and rushes (Juncaceae)."
So he at best only did the family Poacaea but where are the wild poaceae in his calculations?
Tons of things are missing in that article.
TFA is correct that among terrestrial animals only termites and ants have a biomass comparable with humans and domestic animals, and among terrestrial plants only some of the most abundant trees have a biomass comparable with the principal cultivated plants.
Trees are favored in this comparison because most of their mass consists of relatively inactive structural organic material. If they had an inert mineral skeleton, they would have contained less organic substance than the main cultivated plants.
The same reason we sold a "whale oil" replacement for lamps as "food". Money. It always comes down to money.
Well, there are over 500 species of primates, making primates the third most diverse order of mammals.
The trees are cheating
This is like counting the dead skin cells that are still attached, which (sure enough!) does count toward animal biomass.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Whale_Populatio...
https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/
The ancestors of sperm whales were actually more like super sized orcas, which must have eaten vertebrates, either big fish or big marine mammals, but at some point in time some of them specialized into eating squid at great depths and only these survived until now, presumably because at some point there remained less available great vertebrate prey to sustain bigger predators than orcas and white sharks, so the bigger predators specialized in vertebrate prey disappeared both among whales and among sharks.
But when I saw the photo of the krill, which is whales' main food source, I was like "AHA!"
But no, cattle it is... Though I guess this is probably a more recent development. Without humans, there would surely be a lot fewer cows.
Technically there probably wouldn't be any cows without humans, maybe wild aurochs [0] or whatever evolved from them without our meddling might be around instead.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
Like apparently there's bacteria and really simple kinds of "life" like prions and stuff going down to the earth's mantle.
cow organisms and social layer on top - probably not (unless we decide to uplift them one day)
I understand that they each individually are small, but they are literally everywhere - and include carbon too.
Viruses have a very small mass, but bacteria and archaea have a mass many times greater than animals (including humans and domestic animals).
Nonetheless, it is likely that bacteria and archaea have a mass many times less than plants, even if the mass of bacteria and archaea that live at great depths in the earth is poorly known.
The reason is that even if plants have a total biomass that is actively engaged in metabolic processes which is smaller than the total biomass of bacteria, they have a many times greater biomass that has little activity and has structural purposes, e.g. intracellular membranes, cellular walls, support tissue like wood, etc.
https://xkcd.com/1338/
I think the limiting factor in the amount of cellular mass that a volume can contain is probably either carbon content or nitrogen content.
Both maximize in the oceans near to shorelines, with smaller local maxima near some vents.
On land, I'd expect a gradient in both, decreasing with depth, but there's probably more CO2 100-m down in water than in rock.
The inhabited volume is huge, but the density of biomass is many times lower than in the oceans.
In oceans, most of the living beings, including most of the anaerobic bacteria that live at great depths or in the bottom of the ocean, are sustained by the solar energy captured by the algae living in the superficial layer of the sea. The living beings that live at greater depths, beyond those reached by light, are fed mostly by the dead matter falling down from the surface (with some exceptions around hydrothermal vents and underwater volcanos, but even there most of the bacteria are aerobic bacteria that oxidize substances ejected by vents using free oxygen that diffuses from the surface and which had been generated by algae with solar energy).
So in oceans there is a great density of bacteria and archaea, because most of the energy consumed by them comes from abundant solar energy.
At small depths in soil and rocks, dead matter carried by water from the surface can still provide food for abundant bacteria.
At greater depths that are not reached by dead matter from the surface, the only energy source is formed by free hydrogen or carbon monoxide gases, which come from volcanic sources or from oxidation reactions between water and iron containing rocks, like olivine. The energy that can be extracted by anaerobic bacteria from such gases is extremely low and such bacteria can grow and multiply only extremely slowly. The density of bacteria and archaea in the fissures of rock is limited by the flow of gases that can provide energy and it is extremely low in comparison with the places that benefit from using solar energy or aerobic metabolism based on substances originally synthesized by algae or plants.
At a depth great enough in the rocks, the temperature becomes so high that not even archaea can live, so the layer of the rocks that hosts archaea and bacteria is also limited in depth to a volume not much greater than the oceans, but with a much lower density of biomass.
that's rather debatable. unless, of course, you're an adherent of creationism.
[0]https://a-z-animals.com/articles/the-10-animals-with-the-hig...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonostomatidae
While humans together with domestic animals exceed the mass of all other terrestrial animals, fish are estimated to exceed the mass of all terrestrial animals (for now, but they are decreasing).
Nonetheless, all animals together are much less than bacteria, which are less than plants.
[0] https://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/...
If we say the fish is 2cm wide and 7.5cm long (average length according to wiki) That's 23cm^3 Assume the fish is neutrally bouyant so it's 1g/cm^3(I know deep sea pressures change density, but let's just go with this)
1 quadrillion*23g= 23 trillion kg
So like... 1/32 of that is still around 100x bigger than the trees.