News:

Today, for a brief second, I thought of a life without Roger. It was much like my current life, except that this forum was a bit nicer.

Main Menu

I found the solution!

Started by Frontside Back, October 29, 2019, 02:27:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Frontside Back

(1) There is a mass extinction going on

(2) The driving force behind the mass extinction cannot e stopped anymore

(3) Mass extinctions are mainly caused by nature not being able to adapt fast enough to the rapidly changing enviroment

(4) Adapting nature by hand, using gene tech, is too much work to be viable.

(5) Radiation.

(6) We have bunch of residue from our last existential threat lying around unused.

Let's nuke national parks to save the planet!
"I want to be the Borg but I want to do it alone."

altered

I'm sorry to say that radiation only leads to rapid adaptation in Fallout.
"I am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me."

There's over 100 of us in this meat-suit. You'd think it runs like a ship, but it's more like a hundred and ten angry ghosts having an old-school QuakeWorld tournament, three people desperately trying to make sure the gamers don't go hungry or soil themselves, and the Facilities manager weeping in the corner as the garbage piles high.

Frontside Back

Surely stuff would at least die more, adding evolutionary pressure?
"I want to be the Borg but I want to do it alone."

altered

Yeah. To bombs and radiation.

I wanted to be funny about this but it's day six of a nine day work week and my funny died in a smoldering crater this morning. As is the planet.
"I am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me."

There's over 100 of us in this meat-suit. You'd think it runs like a ship, but it's more like a hundred and ten angry ghosts having an old-school QuakeWorld tournament, three people desperately trying to make sure the gamers don't go hungry or soil themselves, and the Facilities manager weeping in the corner as the garbage piles high.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Frontside Back on October 29, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
Surely stuff would at least die more, adding evolutionary pressure?

If the "evolutionary pressure" is "an atomic bomb dropped on your location," then there is no evolutionary effect.  You have simply removed breeding pairs regardless of fitness.
Molon Lube

chaotic neutral observer

The obvious way to increase a species' ability to adapt is to reduce the time it takes to get to reproductive maturity.  However, this also means you end up with simpler species (like mice, and fruit flies).

Irradiating everything may eventually increase the radiation tolerance of the descendants of the survivors, but they won't be able to adapt any quicker.
Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.

The Johnny

Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 29, 2019, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: Frontside Back on October 29, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
Surely stuff would at least die more, adding evolutionary pressure?

If the "evolutionary pressure" is "an atomic bomb dropped on your location," then there is no evolutionary effect.  You have simply removed breeding pairs regardless of fitness.

QuoteAny cause that reduces reproductive success in a portion of a population potentially exerts evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure, driving natural selection.[1]

Weeeell, for the most part it would establish survival benchmark standards for the most part... like you either live or die since the change is so fast...  stuff like Tardigrades and cockroaches will be fine without adapting or evolving (?) while the grand majority of other living things would die off, and whatever it's left that survives long enough will adapt.
<<My image in some places, is of a monster of some kind who wants to pull a string and manipulate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are manipulated; I just want them to be manipulated more effectively.>>

-B.F. Skinner

Doktor Howl

Quote from: The Johnny on October 29, 2019, 04:39:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 29, 2019, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: Frontside Back on October 29, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
Surely stuff would at least die more, adding evolutionary pressure?

If the "evolutionary pressure" is "an atomic bomb dropped on your location," then there is no evolutionary effect.  You have simply removed breeding pairs regardless of fitness.

QuoteAny cause that reduces reproductive success in a portion of a population potentially exerts evolutionary pressure, selective pressure or selection pressure, driving natural selection.[1]

Weeeell, for the most part it would establish survival benchmark standards for the most part... like you either live or die since the change is so fast...  stuff like Tardigrades and cockroaches will be fine without adapting or evolving (?) while the grand majority of other living things would die off, and whatever it's left that survives long enough will adapt.

Cockroaches cannot survive inside the thermal pulse range of an atomic weapon.  Nothing can.  If your model is "change things with instant death," then there is no evolution.
Molon Lube

Frontside Back

When getting further away from the ground zero, things tend to survive more. While they might be struggling with burning alive and dying of cancer, there's certainly a lot more space to make nests in.

Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on October 29, 2019, 04:34:14 PM
The obvious way to increase a species' ability to adapt is to reduce the time it takes to get to reproductive maturity.  However, this also means you end up with simpler species (like mice, and fruit flies)..
I was mainly concerned about insects anyway, all the cute vertebrates will be preserved in zoos anyway.
"I want to be the Borg but I want to do it alone."

altered

The answer to "will nuking it improve things" is easily found:

Do you want everything in a large radius to be completely eliminated and a much larger range to be cursed with eventual, unavoidable, slow and miserable death?

The answers to the two questions are identical. Nukes are good for destroying asteroids and killing things. Using them for purposes other than asteroid destruction is equivalent to killing things. The only selection pressure they add is pressure to have cancer and lose your intestinal lining.
"I am that worst of all type of criminal...I cannot bring myself to do what you tell me, because you told me."

There's over 100 of us in this meat-suit. You'd think it runs like a ship, but it's more like a hundred and ten angry ghosts having an old-school QuakeWorld tournament, three people desperately trying to make sure the gamers don't go hungry or soil themselves, and the Facilities manager weeping in the corner as the garbage piles high.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: nullified on October 29, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
The answer to "will nuking it improve things" is easily found:

Do you want everything in a large radius to be completely eliminated and a much larger range to be cursed with eventual, unavoidable, slow and miserable death?

The answers to the two questions are identical. Nukes are good for destroying asteroids and killing things. Using them for purposes other than asteroid destruction is equivalent to killing things. The only selection pressure they add is pressure to have cancer and lose your intestinal lining.

They're not very good at destroying asteroids.  Would you like to know more?
Molon Lube

chaotic neutral observer

Quote from: nullified on October 29, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Nukes are good for destroying asteroids and killing things.
They're also handy if you want to indiscriminately destroy satellites in LEO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.

LMNO

I miss actual biologists hanging around.

Evolution is breeding enough with enough variety to survive your environment.  "Better" is subjective at it's most extreme.

If massive radiation kills and sterilizes multiple generations, the species dies. 

If massive radiation creates myriad mutations which cannot survive the environment and cannot reproduce, the species dies.

Any evolution that would occur in this situation would be maximized for survival in a radioactive environment; not for intelligence, creativity, cooperation, or love.

This entire thread is stupid, and isn't even outlandish enough to be clever.

Doktor Howl

Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on October 29, 2019, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: nullified on October 29, 2019, 05:45:21 PM
Nukes are good for destroying asteroids and killing things.
They're also handy if you want to indiscriminately destroy satellites in LEO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

This.  Nukes are good for only one thing:  Getting peoples' complete and undivided attention.  For a moment or two, anyway.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: LMNO on October 29, 2019, 06:21:05 PM
I miss actual biologists hanging around.

Evolution is breeding enough with enough variety to survive your environment.  "Better" is subjective at it's most extreme.

If massive radiation kills and sterilizes multiple generations, the species dies. 

If massive radiation creates myriad mutations which cannot survive the environment and cannot reproduce, the species dies.

Any evolution that would occur in this situation would be maximized for survival in a radioactive environment; not for intelligence, creativity, cooperation, or love.

This entire thread is stupid, and isn't even outlandish enough to be clever.

This.
Molon Lube