Conversation
@vii the landmass looks interesting and the fact most of it is connected could mean a stronger biodiversity filled with more generalized animals rather than specialized ones due to landmass breakage.
2
0
1
@f0x We had a connected single landmass for a long time too, though, and on a long enough timescale we might have one again. That being said, fjords _are_ awesome and that bitch got fjords.
1
0
1
@f0x Concerned for temperatures though. She’s a big girl, big girls have gravitational constraints and heat constraints.
1
0
1
@vii sadly this is all speculative; this is an artists rendition of kepler, with no known photography of kepler existing afaik
0
0
1
@f0x @vii biodiversity is a product of biomass density
1
0
1
@nuukaset @vii brother I am autistic about this. Don't worry. I know.
1
0
1
@f0x @vii i dont mind being made too look like an idiot. at least im learning something.

i dont get how just saying a massive connected landmass increases biodiversity.
2
0
0
@nuukaset @vii landmasses being disconnected creates enclosed environments where evolution is explicitly from that point onward specialized ONLY. It's why you get very delicate species from island evolution. I didn't say increased, I said stronger. These are different variables, my friend.
1
0
1
@f0x @vii like i only said biomass density because i think theres a link with biodiversity because there would be more available ecological niches to be filled when there are simply more things around.
1
0
0
@f0x @vii that makes sense i just misread it
1
0
1
@f0x @vii wdym by stronger then?
arent localized adaptations are more resilient?
1
0
0
@nuukaset @vii localization, specialization, is incredibly dangerous. How would reducing the places you can exist make you stronger? Reducing the foods you can eat, or any change in ecological conditions?
0
0
1