The chances of life on Earth, statistics by INPES

[Christophe]

I zapped this afternoon on a spot, extremely well done on the chances of probability of life on Earth (and yours in the end).

It is for an anti-tobacco campaign but the last shot of the spot could very well concern the ecological problems: the destruction of the biodiversity on earth, the greenhouse effect ... etc etc

See here ou leaves

Some stastitic figures are likely to be discussed and debated but one thing is clear: life is extremely rare and biodiversity on Earth may be the only one in the universe (at present). But this brings another debate to which the fermi paradox gives an interesting reflection http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxe_de_Fermi

[Christophe]

The spots of INPES are generally very well done, here are some of them: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_t ... inpes&aq=f

[marieagnes]

maybe I'm too optimistic .... but here's what I think about it;

The man started 4 paws then evolved ... and his evolution is not over (why would it be?). So I think it's the same for biodiversity: new breeds of plants will be born, humans will still mutate (and start breathing CO2 and release oxygen why not ...)

I think we live in an area of ​​change.

and as the mutations are long ben may be that our rear great grandchildren will see more than us ...

live life !

[Former Oceano]

Evolution takes place even during the life of an individual. The genome of a tree evolves throughout one's life. It adapts, so that the youngest branches are better suited than the old ones. Studies on the Amazon canopy have given this interesting result.

One can then ask the question of the annual cut of the branches which removes the branches younger so the best adapted ...

[nonoLeRobot]

Marieanges, they are funny debates, but the question is more concretely, that it lives for our small children, for the evolution of the species it is necessary to count in hundreds of thousands of years. The man as one is already exists since about 200 000 years.

Otherwise the optimistic side I am less, 99,9% of animal species have disappeared today. After the question is is it important that the man does not disappear. What worries me is that man suffers.

ex-océano: The genome of an organism does not change with time (apart from errors that most often give rise to cancers) but it is the expression (activation) of the genome that can vary.

[Olivier22]

Is the modern man still viable?
Not sure.
Do you know many Westerners who give birth alone, like a few thousand years ago? And babies who live without having been disinfected, washed, incubated at controlled temperature, nourished with sterile foods, etc.
And what would happen if we had no medoc? At the first cold, danger of death?
Not to mention the wild life, the cold, feed on half-rotten meat, everything prehistoric men did and some tribal people still do.
But we, if we were to return to this state, not sure we would survive for a long time.
(See the film "into the wild": even if it is knowledge, and not the genome, that is at issue, it gives an idea of ​​what could happen!)

Simple explanation: today, we give birth and live everyone. The weak: medicine, energy, technology help them. And they make children, themselves weak. Among the weak, there is one weaker still, that medicine will help to make other children always weaker, and so on.
Natural selection has been eliminated, which makes it possible to reinforce species and adapt them to the environment as they go along.
Our environment is heating, pasteurized food and pharmacy, so it's ok: it's him who adapts to us ... But it's all that can, it can disappear suddenly, and then it does not would remain only Nature.
And the weaker descendants, it would be too bad for them.
Too bad for us, what

[Former Oceano]

Nono,
In the case of age-old trees researchers have seen a shift in the genome of canopy high leaf cells and that of cells of much older branches.
We are more about the expression or not of genes and that is what is interesting.
For animals, these changes appear as errors and cause cancers that kill us because our organs are interdependent and our animal biology more complex than that of plants.
For animals, the mutation is not good, the animal gets sick and dies. On a tree, the mutation is not good, the branch does not grow much and dies. If it is an adaptive asset, it will flourish much faster and become a big branch.
The notions of time and "growth" are really not the same between a tree and an animal.

[marieagnes]

for trees, I do not know but exoceano your speech seems very logical. species evolve, we see it on trees because they live for some several hundred years ...

Olivier22: the future of the man does not concern only the Europeans ... believe me in guinea the women give birth alone, the medocs are almost absent, the pasteurization also ... and yet their population does not cease to grow (the mortality is more important, yes that's for sure ...)

nonolerobot you say that the real question is what life for our grandchildren and well I will answer you that all the generations have asked the same questions, and it is this same question which made advance the world ....

Have you never heard "in our time it was easier" or "I don't know what the new generation will do" ....

for me, it is clear that as long as the man loves his children, hope will be present. we realized a short time ago that the planet was suffering. we will finish by remedying it, I believe it.

[nonoLeRobot]

Ok ex-oceano I did not know. And indeed plants also have cancers but it is not fatal because less interdependence.

But then on this account, it is the oldest sheets which would be the best “selected”, since dead if not adapted then the new sheets would only be “better” or “less” good completely by chance. Unless it is a more complicated process than evolution or there is a phenomenon of reproduction of the "best" old leaves.


Olivier22 actually you're right but must not forget that the selection of the weakest was not necessarily made to the detriment of the strongest, all the population to increase incredibly 18-19th centuries with the improvement of hygiene: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_mondiale

Fortunately today most of the time hospital deliveries are only surveillance in case? It should not be forgotten that not so long ago the mortality in bed was enormous.

When we see the graph we say that even if there was a cataclysm suppressing all the weakest 90% we would end up at the year 1000. Human diversity and more.



Otherwise what we see reassuring (I did not know) on the graph is the decline in growth of the world population and therefore we could hope for a stabilization towards 2050. This would allow everyone to live without endless constraints on the planet.

[Olivier22]

Olivier22: the future of the man does not concern only the Europeans ... believe me in guinea the women give birth alone, the medocs are almost absent, the pasteurization also ... and yet their population does not cease to grow (the mortality is more important, yes that's for sure ...)

Certainly. that's why I'm talking about Western women (Western does not want to say much more economically, in terms of standard of living - let's talk about (fairly) developed countries)
In Guinea, women give birth alone, as in most so-called poor countries, but will this last? Certainly not. The global standard of living is increasing, today Europeans are more or less stagnant, but Asians are growing enormously; one day or another it will be Africa's turn; not necessarily in the same proportions, but there is a remarkable thing with "progress", it is that globally in terms of comfort of life, either one stagnates, or one advances, but one does not retreat.
So one day, even the poorest country in the world will have maternity, probably.
(imagining that no global economic cataclysm (nuclear war?) or climate change will upset the situation, of course)

Olivier22 actually you're right but must not forget that the selection of the weakest was not necessarily made to the detriment of the strongest, all the population has increased incredibly 18-19th centuries with improved hygiene

Yes, the population necessarily increases because we do not let people die anymore.
The survival of the weakest is not done to the detriment of the strongest ... in the moment; except that in the end, we find ourselves completely unsuited to the natural environment, whether we are the strongest or the weakest. Because the strong as the weak live, the average does not move towards the strongest. And as strong can be reproduced with weak, it limits the possibility of seeing strong among the strong.
In short, more natural selection
Now I do not say that we should zigzeal all the sick We will not kill our species in the short term to ensure a long-term future (anyway, even if we tried it would crash, as for all areas where we try to be more beautiful than Nature.)