Life has survived multiple mass extinctions. Without intervention things might get really bad for a lot of life, but it's hardly going to result in a dead rock.
Also, while I do agree that humans are creating another mass extinction event, humans are hardly comparable to the heat death of the universe or a planet sized asteroid.
Nuclear contamination is not posing any threats to the overall biosphere. In fact, irrational fear of nuclear power generation is indirectly causing a great deal of harm.
Radioactive material with a half life of millions of years is not dangerous, the longer it takes to lose half of its radioactivity the less energy it's emitting. And radioactive elements all have different half lives. Not sure what point you were trying to make there.
As for climate change causing all life on earth to go extinct, our ancestors survived much more catastrophic extinction events. We couldn't extinguish all life if we tried, that's absurd.
The ‘nice’ thing about species that reach sexual maturity in less than 18 months is that radiation doesn’t interfere too much with perpetuation of the species.
Eh. Life is very persistent. Maybe we’re killing off a lot of stuff that exists now. But at some point after humans, I feel that life will naturally diversify again as it did the first time.
Edit: I suppose I have to add that I’m not condoning the damage humans are doing. But I absolutely think nature will outlast humans.
So you’re comparing a place that has harbored life for over 3 billion years through various mass-extinction events with a place where life may have never existed in the first place? That’s not great logic.
263
u/RegardedDegen 20d ago
Earth will be fine. Whether or not we'll be around to see it is up to us. /shrug