• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    The only examples this article gives of irreversible damage:

    • homes destroyed by hurricanes: clearly and obviously reversible. Build new houses. Fin.

    • rising sea levels: reversible. Cool the climate, get more glaciers, lower sea levels. Obviously it’s more of a “100 years from now” solution, but it’s definitely a solution.

    • lives lost: yeah, that’s a fair point.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        And to those who say “well, the Earth will bounce back”: we’re much closer to the end of Earth’s ability to support life than to the beginning. Earth doesn’t have endless time to evolve new kinds of creatures. We could be doing damage from which Earth’s biodiversity never recovers.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s not a good argument… this is such a small blip, the earth has been much hotter and colder then now and will stabilize again before it’s eventually destroyed.

          To me, the better argument is simply: Wouldn’t you like there to be humans or soem sentient beings that remembered you in the future? Maybe not you specifically, but the culture and art that you contributed to?

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Right, Earth will be here, life will find a way …… but cockroaches and jellyfish can’t read

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, I’ve always wanted us to have a genetic Doomsday Vault, with the sequenced genome of every species. We can clone them from that.

        • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          We are wildly far away from having the technology to do that. A single genome wouldn’t provide the genetic diversity for a sustainable population. We would need hundreds or thousands of genomes for each species to ensure that non-related individuals could mate.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            We absolutely have the technology, we just don’t have the money to gather the data. Or we haven’t chosen to allocate it.