Gould was wrong.

Gould was wrong.


How long is twenty thousand years in geological time scales? It is a mere moment right? If we humans continue growing at our current growth rate, around 1% per year, how many humans will there be? Did you do the math? How many individual atoms are there in the known universe? That's more humans created in a mere geological moment than there are individual atoms in the known universe. The idea that we are powerless over the earth at geological timescales is wrong.

Let's assume our energy consumption as a species remains constant per individual, just for the sake of a conservative argument. Let's also assume we create living space on and around our planet which all of our new generations may live. In just one thousand years we will be using more energy than the what the earth receives from the sun. In a mere three thousand years we, as a species that Gould says is "... virtually powerless over the earth at our planet's own geological time scale." will be using more power than the entirety of the sun's output.

With the way technology is advancing, one or two generations after us may live to see us become a Kardashev II civilization. Even if cataclysms reduce our numbers to tiny fractions of what we are several times, humans will return before geological time has ticked in a significant way. The options are that we are completely annihilated, we prevent ourselves from growing in number and advancing technologically, or we completely dominate the earth in mere moments. The second option is unrealistic since groups of us with higher numbers and greater technology will naturally out compete those who are staying static. Annihilation or domination are the only realistic options.

In order for the earth to survive at all, two things are made apparent:

1. We do live on a fragile planet now subject to permanent derailment and disruption by human intervention;

2. We must learn to act as stewards for this threatened world.

There is nothing stopping humans, and who we engineer our future selves to be, from dismantling earth bit by bit to build habitats to house our quadrillions of children other than our ethics. On our current path, ecosystems are regularly destroyed and we are clearly headed for another mass extinction. Should we save every species? Even the idea of saving a species becomes a vague idea since what defines a specifies is just DNA. DNA is just information, which we can reliably store for millions of years if needed. We can print out DNA right now from data storage. Is it our future responsibility to create safe environments for the species that have been eradicated by our actions? An analogue for Jurassic Park, but for all the species of earth?

If we consider the life of the universe to be a day in length, the next few seconds will decide the future of earth. If we stick to the golden rule, then earth will still exist as an entity that we Shepard; Not the other way around.