Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Confirmed by science: our species is doomed. [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)84. Yes, we can. That doesn't mean we have.
We have the technology to colonize the deep sea. It's absurdly expensive, so we haven't bothered. If it was the last habitable place on Earth, we would bother.
To live in such places, it takes a lot of expense and supplies from places where humans can sustain themselves, supplies that aren't reciprocated in trade.
We do that because that's the cheap way to do it. Not the only way. We've spent R&D time to figure out how to grow food on a spacecraft. We don't do it because we don't have to. If we had to, we could do it.
Trilobites were probably as ubiquitous in every marine environment now as cockroaches are in terrestrial environments. They probably had similar niches. How awful would the worldwide environment have to become if they die out?
Once again, ubiquity is not adaptability.
We're adapted to live on African savannahs. That's it. Everywhere else on the planet does not work for our natural form - too hot, too cold, too dry, and so on.
Yet we do live everywhere else on the planet because of our adaptability. We aren't restricted to our natural form. We can wear clothes, and thus colonize Europe. We can pump water from deep in the Earth, and thus colonize deserts. We invented transportation systems so we aren't limited by places we can walk to. We invented houses and other buildings to protect us from an environment we can not naturally survive.
Your statement about living in every habitat on Earth simply doesn't stand up to observation. Human beings can live everywhere they consider a habitat, and that's something different.
The fact that we don't bother to live in extreme environments does not mean we can not. It means we do not bother because we have elsewhere to live. Take away those other options, and some of us will move there.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I came to this conclusion about a year ago. This when I realized it's pretty pointless.
Katashi_itto
Apr 2014
#1
An evolutionary leap, in a positive direction of course, would be the only thing that might save us.
MoonRiver
Apr 2014
#3
Not necessarily - other animals can adapt as well - cockroachs for example will do just fine
el_bryanto
Apr 2014
#5
Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth.
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#11
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#12
Don't think I have ever done an emoticon. Maybe I have, just don't remember.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#30
That's sweet. Always happy when I can make someone smile. Have a great day. nt.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#47
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#55
By your rationale, then to hell with other life species, we will determine what is "natural".
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#35
You can't separate concepts like "benefit" or "purpose" from your human perspective.
Silent3
Apr 2014
#72
Humans only need technology and "food distribution systems" to live in large numbers...
Silent3
Apr 2014
#70
An estimated 99% of species have gone extinct -- why would humans be different?
FarCenter
Apr 2014
#46
Darwin's theory doesn't have a built in guarantee for long term human survival.
GoneFishin
Apr 2014
#77