Human Ecological Overshoot

You’re missing survivorship bias - nature didn’t just create these balanced ecosystems, it creates anything that goes, and things that don’t work out just die. Humans ruining earth for themselves is just as natural, just that we might die as result. But life won’t - it’s much more resilient than just one species. Or several.

Wow. It's almost like humans are governed by the same rules as algae blooms and predator-prey systems, where unsustainable growth causes total collapse on a timescale somewhat longer than any individual's life.

The problem is that we are not specialized, we are adaptive. If we were specialized, we would ruin one particular biome through overpopulation, starve a little and eventually reach equilibrium. But we are adaptive, we will keep adapting and consuming until there is nothing left. Almost like a paperclip maximiser, but for food and amenities instead of paperclips.

maybe self destroy their own species and so only the short lived one persist

The human biomass and its byproducts do grow at an exceptional rate, that's true, we are exceptional. But being exceptional in one way should not be mistaken for being supreme or better, which I feel like a lot of commenters are suggesting.This growth is clearly unsustainable, and the bubble, so to speak, will eventually pop. Other species have managed to survive for an exceptional time, e.g. the horseshoe crab, or most species of moss. There are species whose individuals might be older

You want to see the same thing in nature, put some yeast in a bottle full of sugar water. They won't think much about their waste products or the limits of resources either. Nature is full of boom/crunch scenarios. You are seeing a biased view because you are seeing the ecosystems that lasted - ones that oscillate perhaps, but average to balanced.Humans and our works are as natural as ants and anthills. All creatures strive to expand - humans, uniquely, have the ability to apply choice

I'm thinking in terms of an organism going against its own ecosystem.Imagine if a new species of killer ant evolved that has no natural predators, procreates quickly and eats up its habitat. For a short while it's going to be the greatest species in its ecosystem...Of course we likely wouldn't see such an ant because it would have wiped itself out by resource exhaustion unless it adapted (or e.g. a natural predator came about).An ant couldn't do much about its biolog

>Life looks a lot like cancer. Cancer looks a lot like life. "Being cancer" isn't a bad thing, cancer is only bad when it is a disease in humans. Otherwise it is the way of the world. We are surrounded by patterns that propagate themselves quickly.You lack holistic understanding of the science behind life and what cancer is. I will explain. And once I'm done, you should understand.First off most energy on earth comes from the sun. Life feeds off the sun and energy th

Actually, that's the case for every species. If ants could work around natural regulatory mechanisms (like predators and diseases), they would probably destroy the Earth as well.The question now is: are we humans capable of controlling ourselves, or are we just too primitive for that, waiting for nature to solve our problem (by killing most of us)?

Neither, this is a false dilemma. Humanity, as any form of life, always balances the equation when one side gets too prominent.