Dysfunctional or super efficient

[Antonio]

I'm suggesting asteroids are efficient at changing  environments .

Nope. Efficiency requires an objective and asteroids, along with all other inanimate objects, notoriously lack those. It would be as sensible to say that asteroids are inefficient at origami.
 

I am saying the reality is we are changing the environment . We can speculate on the reasons but it doesn't change the facts

The fact is that our objective isn't to change the environment. That's merely a side-effect. 

Humans are impacting the composition of the atmosphere , oceans , forests etc. the total planet . We are quite efficient

If we're so efficient at changing our climate then why haven't we done precisely that? Do you think there's an oil company out there that wants climate chang .e? Do you think that we wouldn't pull the global mean temperature back to something sane if we could? The fact that we haven't changed our climate for the better demonstrates that we're rubbish at it. You're looking at unintended consequences and misinterpreting them as the objective.

You're equating evolution and a task

perhaps for a task to be efficient you need an objective


We can see can see what humans have done to planet earth . Was that our objective at the beginning of our evolution .
No one can say . But we have evolved with the capabilities to change the environment . And we are doing it.

[Cavebear]

This is a very interesting discussion to me. Evolution, task, intent, efficiency, objectives, deliberation, and animate/inanimate are all involved and mean very different things. Some of which are connected and some not.

For example, I have had discussions with some people who think (or write/speak as if) evolution has a purpose or direction. It doesn't of course. I even catch scientists on TV shows slipping up about that in casual discussions. Evolution is a perhaps a tree with many branches of equal success, but is certainly not any linear progression.

I found a plush tardigrade online once and I keep it on the dashboard of my car to remind my that the (seemingly) "least" are just as evolved in their own way as any reptile, bird or human. I mean, tardigrades are nearly unkillable while we humans die rather easily in many conditions!

Intent has nothing to do with evolution, but intent is a major aspect of intelligence. Some non-human animals have shown aspects of intent regarding food sources. Scientific American mentioned that some populations of squirrels have become somewhat predatory on small birds. I witnessed that myself once on a golf course.

Most animals are obligatory in their feeding habits. A cow isn't going to suddenly eat a bird. A tiger isn't going to suddenly start eating cabbages. But some sort of intelligence allows some clever animals to change and that suggests some "intent" to me.

Humans are, of course omnivores. But we came from a long lineage of primate herbivores and somewhere along the line, some human/chimp common ancestor suddenly decided to grab a mouse or bird nearby and eat it. That suggests some form of "intent".

Tasks, objectives, and deliberation all seem to require some brain-power. But it doesn't have to be the human kind. I read once about a marine laboratory where the workers discovered some animals in isolated tanks just "missing". It turned out (with some camera setups) that a small octopus had learned to escape it's tank, crawl over to another, and find something to eat, then returned and re-sealed the top to its own tank.

If that's not "tasks, objectives, and deliberation", I don't know what is! And there are other examples of similar events. Crows can count up to about 6 hunters. If you want to hunt crows (no idea why) you bring a 8 guys along and then leave one behind. And ravens have been known to drop pebbles into a bottle of water until they could drink from it.

I'm sure you know about chimps hunting monkeys. It is all kinds of deliberate. It's one thing for a cheetah to chase a gazelle and catch it. It would be another thing for several to surround one and have a leader to chase it to the rest. Cheetahs are "intelligent" but not very "deliberate". But chimps are.

So it's not like octopuses are particularly more intelligent than cheetahs, but there seems to be a part of their brain that has more ability for "deliberation".

And what about animate/inanimate? An asteroid has no intelligence. Its path through space is all just physics. One can hit us or not, but there is no intent involved. Yet, even animate objects like viruses can equally have no "intent". A virus that invades your body has no concept that you exist. So "animacy" doesn't especially matter.

Sometimes none of these ideas matter. Evolution, task, intent, efficiency, objectives, deliberation, and animate/inanimate only matter as they are combined in specific environmental niches.

And, OK, I am mentally exhausted by all this, so I'll just stop and hit "send"...

[Thumpalumpacus]

If asteroids are so efficient in modifying terrestrial ecospheres, why does it take so many of them to attain one solid hit?

[Antonio]

If asteroids are so efficient in modifying terrestrial ecospheres, why does it take so many of them to attain one solid hit?

A lot of space out there

[Thumpalumpacus]

If asteroids are so efficient in modifying terrestrial ecospheres, why does it take so many of them to attain one solid hit?

A lot of space out there

Right, not terribly efficient. When they hit, gadzooks ... but until then, we've got a few hundred million years to work on it.

[Cavebear]

If asteroids are so efficient in modifying terrestrial ecospheres, why does it take so many of them to attain one solid hit?

A lot of space out there

Yeah, you see space movies and the ship is desperately trying to avoid asteroids. But they are actually about a million miles apart. You would almost have to work to hit one.

[Deesse23]

Efficiency requires a goal. Since ruining the environment is not a goal of humanity, there is no efficiency.period. We are using that word "efficiency" not properly colloquially, thats what Paleo is about. The goal of humanity is (lately) to preserve the environment. Our efficiency is bad, but we are improving. Thats a better use of the wording and concept.

Words like efficiency (and effectiveness for that matter) are often used not properly, in the wrong context. Technically and scientifically, there is a proper definition to use them, like it or not.

[SYZ]

... Our shortsightedness and carelessness is what makes humans efficient at causing massive changes in the environment.

Well, yes, depending on its variable, intrinsic interpretation,
"efficiency" can have diametrically opposed meanings.  And I'm
unclear as to which you repeatedly refer to.

The atom bomb was very efficient (for its purpose) when used
by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to kill
214,000 innocent civilians.

But Australian conservation biologists have also been very efficient
in regenerating and sustaining both koala and numbat populations in
our region.

So... you need to clarify exactly what you mean—in this instance(s) by
"changes".     For the good or the bad?  For the better or the worse?

To cite only one of your ambiguous comments here:

Humans are impacting the composition of the atmosphere, oceans, forests etc. the total planet. We are quite efficient.

Nope.  Those example are a classic example of gross inefficiency.

What do you mean exactly by "impacting"?  Do you in fact mean affecting?
At any rate, you haven't made it clear whether you consider this impact is
a positive or a negative.

—Finally, if you don't mind me asking, is English not your first language?    

[Antonio]

... Our shortsightedness and carelessness is what makes humans efficient at causing massive changes in the environment.

Well, yes, depending on its variable, intrinsic interpretation,
"efficiency" can have diametrically opposed meanings.  And I'm
unclear as to which you repeatedly refer to.

The atom bomb was very efficient (for its purpose) when used
by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to kill
214,000 innocent civilians.

But Australian conservation biologists have also been very efficient
in regenerating and sustaining both koala and numbat populations in
our region.

So... you need to clarify exactly what you mean—in this instance(s) by
"changes".     For the good or the bad?  For the better or the worse?

To cite only one of your ambiguous comments here:

Humans are impacting the composition of the atmosphere, oceans, forests etc. the total planet. We are quite efficient.

Nope.  Those example are a classic example of gross inefficiency.

What do you mean exactly by "impacting"?  Do you in fact mean affecting?
At any rate, you haven't made it clear whether you consider this impact is
a positive or a negative.

—Finally, if you don't mind me asking, is English not your first language?    

Finally are you actually trying to be an asshole or is it part of personality. Fuck off

[Minimalist]

Thank you America! [sic]  We salute your increased
   efforts to further destroy our planet's ecology at the
   behest of avaricious multi-national oil and gas barons.

But SYZ, can't you understand that immigrants - but only immigrants from South America - eating cats and dogs was a far bigger problem to Magatards?

[SYZ]

Finally are you actually trying to be an asshole or is it part of personality. Fuck off

I'm sorry mate, but I don't waste too much of
my time responding to puerile insults like this.
I obviously struck a raw nerve LOL.

[Antonio]

Humans are doing are doing an excellent job of destroying planet earth for living creatures .

Humans seem to be relentless in this endeavor becoming more efficient decade by decade
.
There is no stopping this path of destruction as  long as money is being made .
 
A list of some dangerous pollutants being released into the environment 

Particulate matter (PM)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Ozone (O3)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Lead
Radionuclides
Mercury
Chromium
Pesticides
Cadmium
Asbestos
Hydrogen chloride
Benzene
Toluene

[Paleophyte]

The goal of humanity is (lately) to preserve the environment. Our efficiency is bad, but we are improving.

Our efficiency is so bad that, despite improvements, it remains negative.

[Deesse23]

The goal of humanity is (lately) to preserve the environment. Our efficiency is bad, but we are improving.

Our efficiency is so bad that, despite improvements, it remains negative.

Well, yeah, but the dy/dt, the slope....it's becoming more flat, and I am expecting the second derivative to change sign soon.

[SYZ]

Humans are doing are doing an excellent job of destroying planet earth for living creatures .

Humans seem to be relentless in this endeavor becoming more efficient decade by decade
.
There is no stopping this path of destruction as  long as money is being made .
 
A list of some dangerous pollutants being released into the environment 

Particulate matter (PM)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Ozone (O3)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Lead
Radionuclides
Mercury
Chromium
Pesticides
Cadmium
Asbestos
Hydrogen chloride
Benzene
Toluene

   Uh... you left out DJ Trump.

[Antonio]

Shrinking trees and tuskless elephants: the strange ways species are adapting to humans

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...ldlife-aoe

[LastPoet]

Since a flat earther complained of me to a therapist that i was a pompous arsehole, i have tried to dumb me down. I did it to the extent that, after reading this thread I don't understant the point of it.

Given all that, I am here, most of what i've done might be considered menial, somewhat hard labour. I murdered a few thousand pigs, accidentely shoved my penis into my wife a few times and that only got me into trouble. Had i kept it in my pants, i wouldn't be so worried about this species, alas, i did not.

So, what are we talking about?

[LastPoet]

Oops, sorry Mathilda.