Is the Earth really going to die


by johnnymacinta
Tags: earth
johnnymacinta
johnnymacinta is offline
#1
Feb22-12, 11:28 AM
P: 2
Do you believe that at the rate we are going we will in actuality destroy the earth, or do you believe that the earth is strong enough to counteract the mistakes of human kind?
Phys.Org News Partner Earth sciences news on Phys.org
CaptFirePanda
CaptFirePanda is offline
#2
Feb22-12, 11:34 AM
P: 27
I'm sure this will be moderated to some degree, but I'll give it a whirl nonetheless.

The Earth has "survived" far worse than what is going on now. It may take a few million years to erase, but our legacy will eventually succumb to tectonism.

A better question might be, will we survive our own mistakes or will they be our undoing?
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#3
Feb22-12, 12:38 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,340
Mod note: Please be aware of the rules of the site, especially banned topics.

Regarding your question I think it isn't phrased correctly. If you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where most life is dead then my answer would be yes, if you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where there is no life then my answer would be yes, if you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where no life is possible then my answer would be yes and finally if you are asking if the physical body of the Earth will one day be broken apart then my answer is yes.

The difference is obviously when these will all happen and why. Mass extinctions have happened many times throughout the history of life, in some of them nearly all species died out (the End Permian resulted in the extinction of >95% of marine species and >70% of terrestrial species) and there is some speculation as to whether or not we are entering yet another extinction event. There are various things that we could do to severely damage the ecosystem such as nuclear war or mass habitat destruction but just standard population growth with unsustainable practices could cause enough damage.

There are many ways that we could make our civilisations eco-friendly and sustainable, I have no doubt that at some point we will be almost totally sustainable but how much damage we will do in the meantime is still unclear to me.

CaptFirePanda
CaptFirePanda is offline
#4
Feb22-12, 12:42 PM
P: 27

Is the Earth really going to die


Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Regarding your question I think it isn't phrased correctly. If you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where most life is dead then my answer would be yes, if you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where there is no life then my answer would be yes, if you are asking will the biosphere collapse to the point where no life is possible then my answer would be yes and finally if you are asking if the physical body of the Earth will one day be broken apart then my answer is yes.
Are you saying that it is possible for the human population to bring all of these about?
Ryan_m_b
Ryan_m_b is offline
#5
Feb22-12, 12:46 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,340
Quote Quote by CaptFirePanda View Post
Are you saying that it is possible for the human population to bring all of these about?
Oops well spotted, I forgot to clarify that I was saying yes because all these things will one day naturally happen due to the expansion of the sun. We have the capability now (I would argue) to cause a mass extinction though possibly not to completely eradicate life. Anything else (again I would argue) is beyond us.
CaptFirePanda
CaptFirePanda is offline
#6
Feb22-12, 12:49 PM
P: 27
Just thought I would clarify.

I agree with your ideas.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#7
Feb22-12, 12:56 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
The worst humans could do is wipe out ourselves, large biospheres and a large fraction (approaching one) of high-order animals.

It would be virtually impossible to wipe lower-order animals (such as bacteria) from the Earth without a planet-cracking catastrophe (though they could probably decimate the population).
dimensionless
dimensionless is offline
#8
Mar3-12, 05:05 PM
P: 464
I don't think that we will actually destroy the earth. It's not going to break up into multiple peices or go veering off its orbital path. The environment might be in trouble. I'm not sure how that will actually impact humanity though.
jduster
jduster is offline
#9
Mar11-12, 09:10 PM
P: 46
Quote Quote by johnnymacinta View Post
Do you believe that at the rate we are going we will in actuality destroy the earth, or do you believe that the earth is strong enough to counteract the mistakes of human kind?
That is almost certainly impossible.

Earth cannot be destroyed by anything within Earth. It can only be "destroyed" by something of larger mass. Even if 1 million nuclear weapons hit Earth, the peices would gravitate toward the core and Earth would remain intact.

Sure, Earth would be inhospitable to any life, but it would still exist. Even if Earth were broken into one million peices, where would the peices go? They would just clump together into a new mass.

Humans will become extinct far before the Earth. Humans have only lived 200,000 years. They would be lucky to live another million years. Dinosaurs lived 200 million years and still became extinct. Just to show you the scale, humans have little impact on the Earth.
Ophiolite
Ophiolite is offline
#10
Mar25-12, 04:31 PM
P: 257
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
Humans have only lived 200,000 years. They would be lucky to live another million years. Dinosaurs lived 200 million years and still became extinct. Just to show you the scale, humans have little impact on the Earth.
A small correction, but perhaps important. No species of dinosaur lived for 200 million years. Comparing the entire Dinosauria with a single species is misleading. Hominids have been around for a few million years. At the species level I would be surprised if dinosaurs were much more 'resilient' than primates.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#11
Mar25-12, 04:38 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Ophiolite View Post
A small correction, but perhaps important. No species of dinosaur lived for 200 million years. Comparing the entire Dinosauria with a single species is misleading. Hominids have been around for a few million years. At the species level I would be surprised if dinosaurs were much more 'resilient' than primates.
Well, crocodiles and sharks have been around virtually unchanged for many millions of years. Though, technically, they are not the same species.
Ophiolite
Ophiolite is offline
#12
Mar26-12, 12:29 AM
P: 257
I think you are falling victim to the same approach of comparing things that are not directly comparable. Technically the crocodiles alive today are not even the same genus as those which were alive several million years ago. A specialist in Crocodilia would be unlikely to accept your assessment that they were 'virtually unchanged'.

The average lifespan of a species varies between families and orders, and clearly depends upon the extent of relevant environmental changes, but it will tend to be around a couple of million years.
rbj
rbj is offline
#13
Mar27-12, 12:23 PM
P: 2,265
Quote Quote by jduster View Post
Earth cannot be destroyed by anything within Earth.
true.

It can only be "destroyed" by something of larger mass.
well, not quite true. the issue is energy. you could conceivably have a hard heavenly body, say some large asteroid or planetoid that is 1/2 or 1/4 the mass of the moon, slam directly into the Earth at a speed (relative to Earth) of, say 250,000 m/s. that would bust up the Earth pretty good.

Humans will become extinct far before the Earth.
lacking an astronomical cataclysm as described above, yes that's also true.
jduster
jduster is offline
#14
Mar31-12, 06:40 PM
P: 46
i did make somewhat of an error. i do thank you for clarifying.

if an asteroid the size of the moon smashed into Earth, it would break to peices, but the peices would likely coalesce into a "new" Earth. I was being overly technical.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#15
Mar31-12, 11:52 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Ophiolite View Post
I think you are falling victim to the same approach of comparing things that are not directly comparable. Technically the crocodiles alive today are not even the same genus as those which were alive several million years ago. A specialist in Crocodilia would be unlikely to accept your assessment that they were 'virtually unchanged'.
Okay, Coelacanth.
AngeliqueN
AngeliqueN is offline
#16
Mar31-12, 11:59 PM
P: 3
Humans are damaging to the environment, but we will not damage it to the point where it is "destroyed". Before it is comprehensible that we as a race can reach that point, it is more likely that the human race would be extinguished and the Earth's environment as a whole will easily cope.
Ophiolite
Ophiolite is offline
#17
Apr5-12, 07:14 AM
P: 257
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Okay, Coelacanth.
Still not the same genus. As far as I can recall the living species are members of the same Family as the extinct forms, so there are substantial differences between live and fossil examples. The Coelacanthiforme Order went extinct, it was thought, at the end of the Cretaceous and the excitement surrounded finding members of that Order still extant today. I repeat, in terms of species it's not night and day, but April and October.

I don't apologise for harping on about this, for in terms of biology these distinctions are important - loose phraseology leads to loose thinking and often erroneous conclusions.
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#18
Apr5-12, 08:13 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by Ophiolite View Post
Still not the same genus. As far as I can recall the living species are members of the same Family as the extinct forms, so there are substantial differences between live and fossil examples. The Coelacanthiforme Order went extinct, it was thought, at the end of the Cretaceous and the excitement surrounded finding members of that Order still extant today. I repeat, in terms of species it's not night and day, but April and October.

I don't apologise for harping on about this, for in terms of biology these distinctions are important - loose phraseology leads to loose thinking and often erroneous conclusions.
This is good. I know only pop-sci about the Coelacanthe. Beyond superficial appearance, I don't know how different the two forms are. (Or whether they could interbreed if an ancient one were still around.)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Earth Mass Increasing? Photons and Photosynthesis making more matter on earth? General Physics 33
Relative motion of the earth and an aeroplane held above the earth's surface Classical Physics 9
Earth's Gravity if the Earth rotated the opposite direction Astrophysics 4
Was Mars the Earth of the past and Venus the Earth of the future? General Discussion 6