Conditions capable of supporting multicellular life are predicted to continue for another billion years, but humans will inevitably become extinct within several million years. We explore the paradox of a habitable planet devoid of people, and consider how to prioritise our actions to maximise life after we are gone.
I react: Wait, inevitably? Wait, why donāt we just try to not go extinct? Wait, what about places other than Earth?
They go on to say:
Finally, we offer a personal challenge to everyone concerned about the Earthās future: choose a lineage or a place that you care about and prioritise your actions to maximise the likelihood that it will outlive us. For us, the lineages we have dedicated our scientific and personal efforts towards are mistletoes (Santalales) and gulls and terns (Laridae), two widespread groups frequently regarded as pests that need to be controlled. The place we care most about is south-eastern Australia ā a region where we raise a family, manage a property, restore habitats, and teach the next generations of conservation scientists. Playing favourites is just as much about maintaining wellbeing and connecting with the wider community via people with shared values as it is about maximising future biodiversity.
I react: Wait, seriously? Your recipe for wellbeing is declaring the only culture-creating life we know of (ourselves) irreversibly doomed, and focusing your efforts instead on ensuring that mistletoe survives the ravages of deep time?
Even if your focus is on maximising future biodiversity, Iād say it still makes sense to set your aim a little higherātry to keep us afloat to keep more biodiversity afloat. (And it seems very unclear to me why weād value biodiversity intrinsically, rather than individual nonhuman animal wellbeing, even if we cared more about nature than humans, but thatās a separate story.)
This was a reminder to me of how wide the gulf can be between different peopleās ways of looking at the world.
In 2011, I was reading this paper called Fungi and Sustainability, and the premise was that after the dinosaur killing asteroid, there would not have been sunlight and there were lots of dead trees and so mushrooms could grow really well. But its conclusion was that maybe when humans go extinct, the world will be ruled by mushrooms again. I thought, why donāt we just eat the mushrooms and not go extinct?
Epistemic status: Unimportant hot take on a paper Iāve only skimmed.
Watson and Watson write:
I react: Wait, inevitably? Wait, why donāt we just try to not go extinct? Wait, what about places other than Earth?
They go on to say:
I react: Wait, seriously? Your recipe for wellbeing is declaring the only culture-creating life we know of (ourselves) irreversibly doomed, and focusing your efforts instead on ensuring that mistletoe survives the ravages of deep time?
Even if your focus is on maximising future biodiversity, Iād say it still makes sense to set your aim a little higherātry to keep us afloat to keep more biodiversity afloat. (And it seems very unclear to me why weād value biodiversity intrinsically, rather than individual nonhuman animal wellbeing, even if we cared more about nature than humans, but thatās a separate story.)
This was a reminder to me of how wide the gulf can be between different peopleās ways of looking at the world.
It also reminded me of this quote from Dave Denkenberger: