this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
45 points (94.1% liked)
[Dormant] moved to !space@mander.xyz
10777 readers
1 users here now
This community is dormant, please find us at !space@mander.xyz
You can find the original sidebar contents below:
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think my reasoning has more to do with keeping all of biodiversity with us. Why start over each time the habital zone moves, when we could just move it all.
Obviously it's easier moving a select group of living things. But who knows ๐คทโโ๏ธ
Assuming we've "defeated" natural selection, or at least made it slower, humans will still be relatively the same. This is in comparison to the rest of life on Earth, which we assume will evolve at the same and/or faster rates as they always have. So the animals that you're talking about "saving" will have spent millions - billions? - of years adapting to the slowly changing environment. Rapidly moving the earth would change everything - tides, gravity, the length of the days and years - would just result in mass extinction anyway.