Ship of Fools: Do we deserve to survive?

Thread: Do we deserve to survive? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020085

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have recently finished reading Elaine Storkeys excellent and traumatic books "Scars Across Humanity", and it makes me realise that such a lot of humanity is, in fact, utter shit.

I started reading Naomi Klein "This Changes Everything", but have temporarily paused it. This book is about our total lack of concern over climate change, and the fact that we are now at or beyond the tipping point.

Which makes me question whether humanity, being as utterly and unrepentantly shit at being responsible for ourselves and our planet, deserves to exist. Whether the planet would be better off without us. And theologically, whether our being made "in the image of God" means that a)God is also an abusive shit or b) our disappearance would make God less.

Or if you want, what are the theological implications of humanity becoming extinct?

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

SC, this puts, very succinctly, the fears that I try and stuff down and keep a lid on quite a lot of the time now. Whether this discussion thread will increase or allay my pessimism, well, we'll see.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

The planet will be fine with or without us.

Survive? Well, we've been very good at it so far to the detriment of the rest of nature. No doubt we'll adapt to the crazy weather patterns which we are partly responsible for.

'Deserve' is a bit of a strange way of putting it - species survive because they can, not due to any favours for good behaviour.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
SC, this puts, very succinctly, the fears that I try and stuff down and keep a lid on quite a lot of the time now. Whether this discussion thread will increase or allay my pessimism, well, we'll see.

'Increase' probably if I get posting here [Razz]

The popular secular theory is that we are just apes who got lucky. Or we are just bags of chemicals floundering about. Or, as D. H. Lawrence put it *humanity is a mistake of nature*.

But one thing is undeniable even if our perfectness is not, and that is we are unique. Well, given our knowledge to date.
A peaceful visitation by some other intelligent life form from outer Space would change that perception overnight, and maybe there will come a point whereby humanity will need this to happen in order to stay sane.

Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :

Cognitively, would the planet even exist without our perception of it? Would it not simply be just another unnamed ball floating through space with complex organic chemical reactions running on its surface?

In other words, without us to behold and evaluate Earth, can there be a better or worse off? Would nature not just be running its course with animals and plants feeding upon one another as they draw energy from the light of the sun to sustain their biological processes?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
SC, this puts, very succinctly, the fears that I try and stuff down and keep a lid on quite a lot of the time now. Whether this discussion thread will increase or allay my pessimism, well, we'll see.

Sorry. But I think it is a very real issue.

The thing is, I have seen and read a lot a SF/post-apocalyptic stuff, and most of it is based around the "95% die, but the rest fight on bravely", which is what most people seem to assume will happen. But I also see the fallacy in this. If we break the world, the chances are that none of us will survive.

The "deserve" issue is about whether, given the depraved nature of people that the Storkey book reveals, we can claim any special rights - theologically, have we given up any claim to divine protection by the lack of compassion and consideration for each other.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Technology gives some people a chance of survival. We already have the technology to allow small numbers of people to live for short periods in the most severe environments on Earth - Antarctic, deep sea etc, even in space. It's not beyond reasonable speculation that we can create artificial environments capable of allowing a larger number of people to survive indefinitely regardless of the wider environmental conditions. It will take a lot of money, and military force to create and protect such environments. Of course that means that these refuges will be the preserve of the wealthier portions of technologically advanced nations - the same nations responsible for the global environmental degradation, and those who have most benefited by it. So, the least deserving of a refuge from the environmental catastrophe of their own making.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

The weather is unpredictable, often vile, and probably getting worse. Are we causing climate change? Probably yes. Can we affect it? Possibly. Will we affect it and reverse it? Probably not.

But, are we causing the Holocene Extinction? Yes. Can we affect it? Possibly yes. Can we reverse it? No.

Are we a species that will become extinct? Possibly. Do we know enough to say whether we will be swept out with the extinction? No.

If we did know, could we avoid that fate? Possibly? Would we act to survive? Probably not.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The "deserve" issue is about whether, given the depraved nature of people that the Storkey book reveals, we can claim any special rights - theologically, have we given up any claim to divine protection by the lack of compassion and consideration for each other.

The premise here is that "divine protection" is based on what we deserve. That's not true in many (most?) Christian theologies. We don't earn our survival/salvation. It's a gracious gift of God.

You don't have to take the story of Noah literally to take the message that God is committed to restoring/redeeming what is not wiping out and starting again with something new. And again you don't need to be a fundamentalist or a wacky interpreter of Revelation to see it as saying the we, humanity, will be there at the end. Yes there's a "new heaven and new earth" but it is populated by those rescued from the old.

Of course there's a lot of collective and individual guilt for awful things we've done to each other and the planet, and we need to reflect on that, repent and change - but one way to interpret the message of the Bible, is as God saying, "I can and will fix this. Come be a part of that."

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The planet will be fine with or without us.

Survive? Well, we've been very good at it so far to the detriment of the rest of nature. No doubt we'll adapt to the crazy weather patterns which we are partly responsible for.

'Deserve' is a bit of a strange way of putting it - species survive because they can, not due to any favours for good behaviour.

Seconded.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Of course there's a lot of collective and individual guilt for awful things we've done to each other and the planet, and we need to reflect on that, repent and change - but one way to interpret the message of the Bible, is as God saying, "I can and will fix this. Come be a part of that."

I am all with that, but what when we say "We can't be arsed to do anything about that." I want to make things better, but those in power don't.

I know that divine protection is not strictly earned. But Noah was identified as being a holy and spiritual person. And when nations are corporately sinful, it seems that God is quite happy to destroy them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I've often felt, when various things happen on the world stage, that I want to grab God by the lapels and shake Him and say, "What the f*** were you thinking rescuing Noah & his sons? You should have drowned the whole bloody lot of us."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

See, that is part of the fucking problem. Besides ignorance and greed and selfishness, the idea that there is anGid who has, and might again, save humanity from disaster is not a good thing.

More proof that the short, but full and complete, answer to the OP is No.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
In other words, without us to behold and evaluate Earth, can there be a better or worse off? Would nature not just be running its course with animals and plants feeding upon one another as they draw energy from the light of the sun to sustain their biological processes?

Absolutely, I think this is the key thing.

The OP makes the assertion that the planet is falling apart in front of our eyes and we are the greedy demented donkeys who have brought this disastrous situation about. Quite understandable, and this is what most of us are increasingly coming to believe Is the case.

Yet that view is only relative to what humanity has experienced in a mere, what? 100,000 yrs,( being generous). Before that we were not here to make sense of, or blame ourselves for a whole series of catastrophic upheavals battering the Earth from the day the moon formed out of a vast globe of freshly melted mineral, gas and what-have-you. Not to mention all the various life forms preceding us whose only purpose seemed to be to eat each other.

Maybe we will survive in one form or another to witness the Sun expand and turn everything to ash, maybe we won't. It could be that a small group will Space hop to another part of our Solar System to eke a few more generations.
Taking the entirely irreligious overview, it matters not to anything/anyone else in the Cosmos as to what we get up to, for to best of our current knowledge even if other advanced life forms do exist then they are way way to far away to know, even give a shit.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

My own take on this, currently, may be revised, is that the ones who will survive will tend to be the ones who can afford to survive, the ones who have caused the mess and done nothing to alleviate it, cruising around on their superyachts to where they have cached their food under mechanical protection. (Can't rely on armed bodyguards with the training the top dogs have not got to use the arms.)

And then they will realise that they don't have any skills, that they can't survive themselves, either, and they die too.

I suppose it is possible that some people like the uncontacted Amazonian tribes could carry on.

[ 18. February 2017, 19:24: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

From a biblical perspective surely we don't 'deserve' anything, do we? We exist due to the mercy of God, not due to any special goodness of our own.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I suppose the think is, many of them have money and not a lot else (because money can provide them with most other things). And if their money is meaningless, they have nothing else.

Yes, they have probably stashes, but no real plan It is not a survival plan, it is a retreat plan. When there is nothing left, they will not survive (as you point out).

And there is a lot in me that says lilBuddha is right - we don't deserve to survive, and we probably won't. We are likely to all die, and be unlamented by all other life and divinity.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

My feeling is that if someone asks me "Do we deserve to survive?" I answer, "You first". Nobody ever offers to take himself out first for the sake of the planet, or the universe, or whatever.

[ 18. February 2017, 23:09: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Besides ignorance and greed and selfishness, the idea that there is anGid who has, and might again, save humanity from disaster is not a good thing.

Or the idea that a changing climate is proof of the prophecies in Revelation so the Second Coming must be around the corner. So perhaps lets hasten it... [cf those mad types wanting a war in the Middle East for the same reason].

After Chernobyl I read loads of stuff saying as Chernobyl translated as "wormwood" -- cue more Revelation quoting -- it was a sign of Christ's Return. Still waiting.

I think it pains God's Humanity taken up in Christ, not sure I feel confident enough to say Divinity, to see what we are doing to His Creation. And ourselves in the process.

Depending on how you view the Second Coming's literal interpretation, it seems to indicate humanity will be here at the end. Not sure if that is wishful thinking on my part...

From a biological view the planet may be fine without us. From a theological view, given it was gifted to us to care for and exercise stewardship, I do not think so. What that exactly means in terms of God's Plan I'm not sure.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
My feeling is that if someone asks me "Do we deserve to survive?" I answer, "You first".

You're not answering the question that was asked, then.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I've wondered whether Earth would be better off without humans. And it might, except...

I lean towards the idea that everything is alive, in some way. Earth is a being, organism, living system, what have you. So we're one of its constituent parts, just as we have cells, a gallbladder, skin, and hair.

If we suddenly died off, that might do Earth harm, like removing a body part.

OTOH, given the way humans have treated Earth, it might decide we're like an angry gallbladder, and need to be removed...

[Votive]

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
My feeling is that if someone asks me "Do we deserve to survive?" I answer, "You first".
You're not answering the question that was asked, then.

You're right but the point remains ("Nobody ever offers to take himself out first for the sake of the planet, or the universe, or whatever."). I do think that when the question is usually asked it's almost rhetorical and the person asking already has an answer to the question.

If you really want to know what else I'd say to that question it's "yes" (humanity deserves to survive) and to this:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Which makes me question whether humanity, being as utterly and unrepentantly shit at being responsible for ourselves and our planet, deserves to exist. Whether the planet would be better off without us. And theologically, whether our being made "in the image of God" means that a)God is also an abusive shit or b) our disappearance would make God less.

Or if you want, what are the theological implications of humanity becoming extinct?

I would say that I don't like some of the implications of this statement. It's saying all of Humanity is equally responsible whether someone is powerful or powerless, rich or poor. It presumes to know better than God after God made Man, started over with Noah and the Flood, promised not to do that again, and then sent his Only Beloved Son Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to fix it once and for all. It implies Christ's Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection was in vain. I'm tempted to say it commits the sin of despair, except that the despair seems to be about the state of the Earth rather than about the state of one's soul so maybe it's really committing sin of idolatry as it seems to set the Earth above everything else.

[ 19. February 2017, 06:20: Message edited by: Pancho ]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

SC:
I wonder of you took from Storkey's book what she intended? Of course I could read it and may do so. But my to-read list is quite long already.

I guess, since she was successor to John Stott and the Inst for Contemporary Christianty, she is more or less a mainstream evangelical, a bit Tom Wright-ish. Stott was definitely conservative.

So I guess she would say that the HR no more deserves to survive any more than it deserves salvation, and possibly also that the eventual extinction of life on this physical planet is a standard part of christian eschatology, and in the long run inevitable, based purely on science.

And that by nature all mankind is radically depraved aka shit.

So bog standard evangelicslism.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
You're right but the point remains ("Nobody ever offers to take himself out first for the sake of the planet, or the universe, or whatever.").

This is stupid on several levels, but let's start with this: The people most likely to think the world is better off without humans are the ones least likely to be causing the problems.

quote:

It implies Christ's Incarnation, Passion and Resurrection was in vain.

if it was meant to cure humanities unworthiness, then yes it was. But, ISTM, that wasn't its purpose.

quote:

I'm tempted to say it commits the sin of despair, except that the despair seems to be about the state omf the Earth rather than about the state of one's soul so maybe it's really committing sin of idolatry as it seems to set the Earth above everything else.

Dude, we are making the place God supposedly gave us a hellhole for the people he supposedly created. If that doesn't say volumes about the poor condition of humanity's soul...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

anteater:

Mankind does not need to be fundamentally depraved, only selfish. Which we are, fundamentally.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
SC:
I wonder of you took from Storkey's book what she intended? Of course I could read it and may do so. But my to-read list is quite long already.

...

So bog standard evangelicalism.

No, she is not standard (i.e. conservative) evangelicalism. I did take from it more than just this, but the book is bleak and dark, however you read it.

Pancho - you really don't know me do you? Yes I am
quite desperate, depressed and often suicidal. So really don't try that line.

And yes, we do all have a responsibility. We fucking well elected the dickheads who make stupid decisions. We elect and support the rich and powerful. Yes, we all have a responsibility, and we have all blown it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If we suddenly died off, that might do Earth harm, like removing a body part.

OTOH, given the way humans have treated Earth, it might decide we're like an angry gallbladder, and need to be removed...

If we're to run with the analogy of humanity being a body organ, then I think the evidence is beyond conclusive that whatever organ we represent has turned cancerous and metastasized throughout the body.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
anteater:

Mankind does not need to be fundamentally depraved, only selfish. Which we are, fundamentally.

As is every other species on the planet.

But we can, and do, rise above it. People are actually very good at living in relative harmony with each other - big cities and small villages would not function without an enormous degree of cooperation.

But, as far as caring for the planet goes, every one of us is selfish. This is because the consequences of our actions (taking a holiday in Spain by plane etc) are far removed from the actions themselves. We can't see the harm so it's very hard to live in a planet-friendly way. Some people succeed better than others. My son is one. He lives on very little, cycles everywhere, has only one pair of shoes and never buys anything without considering its environmental impact.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What's all the woe, woe and thrice woe about? We're half way. AMHs (anatomically modern humans), the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, is 200,000 - two hundred thousand - years old. 40 times older than history. Barring a total nuclear exchange, the risk of which is unquantifiably small, the Doomsday Clock's 150 seconds to go will chaotically oscillate, damp down for centuries, millennia.

We will learn to live more sustainably, more equitably, more intelligently. We will become healthier, smarter. Those oscillations up will occur because they can. At 0.1% up a year minimally. With no absurd sci-fi developments, no fusion power, no space elevator let alone worse fantasy. We'll start thousand year conversations with ET of course. In a thousand years.

The first social upswing has to be liberalism embracing illiberalism. Not uselessly self-congratulatedly self-righteously woundedly whinging against it.

Oh, and Christianity will actually become incarnational. Meaningful.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I lean towards the idea that everything is alive, in some way. Earth is a being, organism, living system, what have you. So we're one of its constituent parts,....

That is pretty much my sentiment on a good day.
We, and our activity, is not much different from the stromatolites which first colonised the planet and created gases which the whole flaura and fauna later came to depend upon.
Yes we are doing a load of crap stuff, and could do more if we decide to have a grand fireworks display with all our nukes. Even this would not though destroy everything, as didn't the asteroid wallop which kissed goodbye to the dinos.
Humans need the Earth more than the Earth needs us, things would rumble on whether we collectively zap ourselves tomorrow or not.

< wb. Martin >

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

George Carlin turns it all on end:

quote:
The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… asshole.”

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

LilBuddha: Agreed. Depraved as it is commonly used today is not the intent of the reformed belief in total depravity, and selfish is good enough.

I was just hearking back to my Calvinst former self.

Schroedinger's cat: Well I did try to contrast what I called motr evangelical with John Stott who is indeed a conevo, albeit a bit controversial in his rejection of Hell.

But I confess to reflecting Wkipedia here, and assuming people associated with Stott and McGrath were evo of some stripe. Presumably she is a recognisable believing christian.

Plus nothing in you post contradicted classical reformed evangelical christianty, which itself is quite dark.
.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

So I'd like to make a more considered response, since I had wrongly assumed that the book being referred to was more generally dealing with human sin, from the standpoint of a believing christian, which Elaine Storkey surely is.

And it is true that this is in no way at variance with christian belief, which does indeed create a dark picture of the human race, especially if you go to the more reformed end with the doctrine of total depravity, which quite a few christians consider to be overblown.

I can see that the book would be dark, as it deals specifically with the issue of sexual violence towards women. Having already read "The origin of mysogyny" and the even more depressing book whose title and can't get by googling but was something like "The history of the warfare of men against women", and can see how this would make anybody wonder whether it's worth carrying on. I've often thought that if I were God, I'd pull the plug, and this is reflected in the biblical myth of The Flood.

What I don't know is the extent to which Storkey looks to Christianity for answers. I am current reading a book recommended on this ship "Humanity" by Jonathan Glover, and that book is definitely from a non-believing perspective.

But I still don't think any of this undermines christian theology, since it's already included as part of the world view that the human race, if it deserves anything, deserves the Wrath of God.

That doesn't mean that there's not a more hopeful side.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I like Martin60's approach here.

Like St. John describing the end what we do not need is logic or philosophy. The theological approach has always been for wild acts of fantasy and imagination.

The Revelation of St John defies a logical explanation. Sit back and visualise the imagery — it is Picasso meets Dali, but stunning.

If you want a logical approach to the end of the world, I recommend watching the Terminator series of films. Nothing answers What If questions like SF.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Elaine was an early supporter of feminism within Christianity, and so was never entirely acceptable within the more conservative end. She is without doubt a clearly identifiable Christian, but not at the criticising and condemning end.

And yes, the book is particularly about one area, but it highlights to me the fundamentally broken nature of so many people. I wrote more in my blog if you are interested, so I won't go on here.

Which is why the "deserves" issue comes in. Given the way that people behave - and not just a few, not just occasional incidents, but hundreds of thousands across the world - and if (as the Klein book seems to consider) we are trashing the world, deliberately (we have been warned, we have been given an explanation, nevertheless, we persist) why should any deity care to let us continue? Even a kind, generous and loving one?

And Martin - I admire you optimism. But I think I have run out of it. I think this is Deus ex Machina answer, and the Deus isn't going to help, because any such magic conclusion is purely in fiction.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Schroedinger's Cat:
Your post raises many thoughts, but here are two, which are totally unrelated.

1. Wherever does Christ, the Bible or the Tradition talk about what the Human Race deserves, in any favourable terms? It's almost as if you believe a book shining the spotlight on the Sin of Man is casting doubt on a belief system which has that right at its centre.

I can well see that the sheer weight of the suffering of mankind (to which I would add animals, as I'm sure you would) just makes the whole things too depressing for words, and could lead to a Hume-like decision, who whenever he looked so hard at life that all coherence and meaning was likely to vanish, he took a break with IIRC Port and Backgammon. One can do worse.

But Christian faith is always a light shining in darkness.m When Julian said that All shall be well, I'm sure she was under no illusion about how it was at the time.

2. Because I'm very influenced by (admittedly westernised) Buddhism, one of my gurus is the ever popular Matthieu Ricard. In his book on happiness, he discusses the view that it is almost obscene to be seeking happiness in a world with so much suffering, but in the end that is what he goes for. It's a while since I read it, so beware possible filtering.

To me, to still find happiness and tranquility in a world that is as it is is a genuinely worthwhile goal. We'll all find different paths and I suspect you are more sensitive to the suffering of others than I am. Christianity helps, but so does (in my case) music, croquet good friends and laughter. And that's not a crude attempt to offer self-help (before you tell me to STF up) it's just a statement that happiness is also there in the same world that is so full of shit. And shits.

(You don't by any chance work for CSC? I'm more relaxed now I've gone). [Razz]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have recently finished reading Elaine Storkeys excellent and traumatic books "Scars Across Humanity", and it makes me realise that such a lot of humanity is, in fact, utter shit.

I started reading Naomi Klein "This Changes Everything", but have temporarily paused it. This book is about our total lack of concern over climate change, and the fact that we are now at or beyond the tipping point.

Which makes me question whether humanity, being as utterly and unrepentantly shit at being responsible for ourselves and our planet, deserves to exist. Whether the planet would be better off without us. And theologically, whether our being made "in the image of God" means that a)God is also an abusive shit or b) our disappearance would make God less.

Or if you want, what are the theological implications of humanity becoming extinct?

An awful lot of things about humanity are utter shit. Unbearable shit, PTSD nightmares.

And an awful lot of things about humanity are the exact opposite, too good, too bright, to be borne. This morning we had a homeless ill ex-offender at communion. The pastor noticed he didn't come forward and asked his friend (who did) whether he wanted to receive, and brought it down to him in the pew. Afterward a group of people gathered round him to hug him and talk, and a safety net to get him back off the street is beginning to form (may have formed already, I'm trying to find out as I'm not in that loop).

This is my problem with the world, and with humanity. It's unbearable in either direction, evil or good. I don't feel built to handle the extremes.

No, we don't deserve anything, but by God's mercy we still keep some of God's image. And I'm looking forward to the complete finished redemption.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
...
And Martin - I admire you optimism. But I think I have run out of it. I think this is Deus ex Machina answer, and the Deus isn't going to help, because any such magic conclusion is purely in fiction.

We've come this far without magic for two hundred thousand years. We will therefore go much further.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Lamb Chopped. Inspiring. Incarnational. And DESERVING, all round. We deserve God's love. We've got it. To give. To all.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

We who are depressed or manic don't see the world as it is. But then again who does?

My forbears threw their shit in the street, and then someone came around and collected it. They put some on the fields, but most of it went in the river. Does that still happen somewhere on the planet?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm of strong opinions on this. I am not sure we will win with logic and preaching to the converted.

How do we reverse species loss, climate change, toxins, pollution, general over usage of the Earth? We have the science, and the people I talk to about it in university and industry say that humanity at the large does not have the political will. That our's is a pre-ecological political world. The native people wonder how we are so disconnected from the natural world, those who haven't adopted another way. That all our conversation is corrupted by mad clinging outmoded ideas. Just as we use 19th century ideas of nation states, all selfishly pursuing self interest, just as outmoded capitalism encourages selfish self interest.

Maybe we have to be patient. It might take 5 generations to change.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

How do we reverse species loss? Can we reverse species loss?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do we reverse species loss? Can we reverse species loss?

We can stop the processes by which we cause species to become extinct.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

Species extinction happens all the time, and has done since millions of years before our ancestors first evolved opposable thumbs. The ecology changes, the species that were adapted to it die, and new species that are adapted to it take their place.

So yes, the polar bears will go extinct. So will the elephants, the rhinos, the cats and the humans. And the continents, for that matter.

And eventually, when the sun exhausts its fuel supply and expands into a red giant, the planet itself will be destroyed. Of course, by then our silly little species with all its self-important waffling about whether we're somehow destroying the planet will be further in the past than the dinosaurs are to us.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Can't help but think of Dave Clark's production - TIME -

End of act 1 had this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkLSkBewa3o

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Species extinction happens all the time, and has done since millions of years before our ancestors first evolved opposable thumbs. The ecology changes, the species that were adapted to it die, and new species that are adapted to it take their place.

So yes, the polar bears will go extinct. So will the elephants, the rhinos, the cats and the humans. And the continents, for that matter.

And eventually, when the sun exhausts its fuel supply and expands into a red giant, the planet itself will be destroyed. Of course, by then our silly little species with all its self-important waffling about whether we're somehow destroying the planet will be further in the past than the dinosaurs are to us.

Yes that is the deep time version, particularly of no help when we look at rates of extinction and our human created, greatly accelerated rate. That is one of the attitudes which encourages doing little or nothing. I understand how people can think this way. It facilitates living as you will without caring about others and the planet. Or perhaps is empowered by individualism. Or would you explain?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do we reverse species loss? Can we reverse species loss?
We can stop the processes by which we cause species to become extinct.

Many rivers in this country were deemed dead at the height of the industrial revolution and beyond, they are now teeming with life.

That isn't to say that once a particular species is lost worldwide then it is lost forever. This happened with large mammals like sloths when are ancestors were mere beginners. If anything we are better placed to hang on to gene pools now.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes that is the deep time version, particularly of no help when we look at rates of extinction and our human created, greatly accelerated rate. That is one of the attitudes which encourages doing little or nothing. I understand how people can think this way. It facilitates living as you will without caring about others and the planet. Or perhaps is empowered by individualism. Or would you explain?

Some people think we're right at the start of the sixth (or seventh, depending on who you ask) mass extinction event in planetary history. The last one was about 66 million years ago, which is not an unprecedented gap. Of course, there have been many other, smaller, extinction events throughout history - and in terms of extinction events caused by life forms themselves we're very late to the party as the first such event was due to the oxygenation of the atmosphere by photosynthesising cyanobacteria roughly 2.3 billion years ago.

Those horrid selfish cyanobacterial bastards, doing whatever they wanted with no thought for the effect their atmosphere-polluting ways would have on the obligate anaerobes they were sharing the planet with. History will judge them harshly. Except, of course, it won't because them killing off most of the other species of their time also created the conditions for future life to thrive.

All I'm saying is, it's entirely possible that if we're doing the same thing now then it may have the same result. Sucks for the species that will die (which may well include our own), but it's great for the ones that will rise to take their place. Life goes on.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Yes, multiple mass extinctions. But not of our preventable doing. Do you think we should no try to intervene in our own human destructiveness?

I am an optimist by nature. I think we will probably eventually sue all the oil and coal companies to extinction, redesign renewably, no more cars. The best idea recently coming to my attention is "embodied costs", which means making users pay the full and real costs of things. Example, a car costs about 6 years equivalent in emissions to manufacture. So the price must reflect this. So must price of fuel. Perhaps a fee per mile or km travelled as well because roads are not carbon neutral.

Travelling right where there is a fuel carbon fee. Gas is 20 cents more because of it per litre than home, roughly 80 cents per gallon. It isn't near enough to change driving behaviour, but it is a start.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes, multiple mass extinctions. But not of our preventable doing.

The Quaternary Extinction Event (the one that did for the mammoths, amongst many others) wasn't one of the big six (or seven), but it was at least in part due to overhunting by our ancestors. This isn't even the first such event that we've caused.

quote:
Do you think we should no try to intervene in our own human destructiveness?

I think we should, yes. But that's for
the purely selfish reason that I'm quite fond of the human race, rather than some vague concern for the rest of life on earth.

And I think that a lot of the stated concern for other life is rooted in a desire to keep the planetary ecosystem exactly the same as it is now, as if the period in which we live is some kind of culmination or endpoint of the planet's evolution. But it isn't, and the species that are alive today are no more worthy of everlasting preservation than any that have gone before or will come later.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The planet will be fine with or without us.

Survive? Well, we've been very good at it so far to the detriment of the rest of nature. No doubt we'll adapt to the crazy weather patterns which we are partly responsible for.

'Deserve' is a bit of a strange way of putting it - species survive because they can, not due to any favours for good behaviour.

There's a TV series called "Life After People" which looks at what would happen to the earth, especially the structures we've built on it, if we all suddenly disappeared. This series gave me the same thought--that the earth doesn't need us. It brings to mind Psalm 8:4 - "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
How do we reverse species loss? Can we reverse species loss?
We can stop the processes by which we cause species to become extinct.
Many rivers in this country were deemed dead at the height of the industrial revolution and beyond, they are now teeming with life.

Easier to fix the damage of a leaky tap than a river whose banks are overflowing.

quote:

If anything we are better placed to hang on to gene pools now.

Extinction is at an ever-increasing rate and affects organisms that we do not have direct contact with.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I agree things aren't great.
Evidence that humans are going to significantly curtail their activity as the environmental consequences of it become ever more plain is still painfully thin.
To avoid despair on this matter it can help to observe small positives. Personally I find post-industrial regeneration of habitats to be encouraging even if it is bucking the downward trend worldwide.

Not sure if the question is whether we deserve to survive on this planet. Ought it not be 'do we deserve the dominion we have been granted?'

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not sure if the question is whether we deserve to survive on this planet. Ought it not be 'do we deserve the dominion we have been granted?'

Same answer, No. Even if one buys the idea that God created humans as primary, we have very obviously failed in our stewardship.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not sure if the question is whether we deserve to survive on this planet. Ought it not be 'do we deserve the dominion we have been granted?'
Same answer, No. Even if one buys the idea that God created humans as primary, we have very obviously failed in our stewardship.

I totally agree. In any sense of "stewardship" over the world or over our fellow people, we are abject failures.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Not sure if the question is whether we deserve to survive on this planet. Ought it not be 'do we deserve the dominion we have been granted?'
Same answer, No. Even if one buys the idea that God created humans as primary, we have very obviously failed in our stewardship.

Some Christians take the view that we were meant to be like park rangers: helping out other creatures, as needed, and trying not to mess things up too much.

Epic fail, for the most part. I think, though, that, much of the time, we haven't understood that, haven't had the perspective.

Has anyone else read Daniel Quinn's novel "Ishmael" and/or its sequels? Thought provoking. Reinterprets human history as "takers" vs. "leavers", and talks about how we can save the world.

Note: That page has a rather over-done publicity piece. I'd suggest starting by reading the emboldened paragraph, then clicking on the "Excerpts" link just above it. That will take you to .jpg pics of the first several pages. The book has a cult following, so you may be able to find a site that's more accessible. (E.g., text excerpts rather than pics.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In any sense of "stewardship" over the world or over our fellow people, we are abject failures.

That's rubbish, because stewardship isn't the same as preservation.

Take the redwood forests of North America. You might say that preventing or quickly extinguishing forest fires would be good stewardship of them, but nothing could be further from the truth - the trees need fire in order for their seeds to germinate. If you prevent the fires then the trees will eventually die of old age, and without new growth the forest will be no more. In this case, good stewardship means allowing the forest to be burned down once in a while - or even burning it down yourself if nature doesn't make it happen.

Or what about a great herd on the plains of Africa? Several of its members will get picked off by predators, but this is actually good for the herd as a whole because the ones that survive are the strongest (or smartest) and thus the herd as a whole keeps getting stronger and smarter. Good stewardship of the herd means allowing a proportion of it to be killed.

Good stewardship doesn't mean keeping things the same as they are in perpetuity, it means helping them to change and grow. Yes, there are some species that are facing extinction because of human activity - but there are other species that are flourishing in a way they could never have managed without us.

Is life on earth as a whole improving because of us? I don't know, and frankly the timescales required to make such a judgement are too vast for anyone to say for certain one way or another. But I think it's clear that your claim that "in any sense of "stewardship" over the world or over our fellow people, we are abject failures" is false.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

So....if.... we accept the whole We Are Abject Failures (or was it We Have Failed? There is a slight difference..... )....
....if we accept that as a starting point...what is the next step?

Is it to wait until governments change and do we activate for that change until it happens?

Do we say that governments will never change?
In which case, realistically how do we live while that particular boat sails towards the whirlpool?

Is it valid to take responsibility for our own corner of the earth and make whatever necessary changes we can...whilst also activating for change?

ISTM that unless we sort this, as individuals it might be very easy to get either violently angry.....or....deeply depressed....

Is there a middle way?

And i reckon i don't deserve anything.....so anything that i do get is a bonus....(my 2p worth)
.
.

[ 22. February 2017, 11:44: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
In any sense of "stewardship" over the world or over our fellow people, we are abject failures.
That's rubbish, because stewardship isn't the same as preservation.

Jesus wept! The bit of your post that follows this is breathtaking in its stupidity. That individuals die to preserve a species is not anywhere close to causing species to go extinct.

quote:

Is life on earth as a whole improving because of us? I don't know, and frankly the timescales required to make such a judgement are too vast for anyone to say for certain one way or another.

Timescale is the whole point. We are extinguishing species at a rate unseen outside of massive catastrophe. We can document species we've destroyed and the resultant damage to their ecosystem. The more we learn the more this is evident.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I suppose that dominion is different from stewardship, since it seems to involve a hierarchical scale of nature, with humans at the top. This is a kind of exceptionalism, or if you like, narcissism, but I don't think religions are responsible for this, although they have transmitted it ideologically.

Even being 'stewards' strikes me as odd, since it still suggests that we are in charge. This is a kind of fantasy that is very difficult to let go of.

Even the OP question strikes me as exceptionalist, why us in particular? I suppose this is a Christian thing, that humans are especially beloved? Dunno.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jesus wept! The bit of your post that follows this is breathtaking in its stupidity. That individuals die to preserve a species is not anywhere close to causing species to go extinct.

Species are to life on earth as individuals are to a species.

quote:
Timescale is the whole point. We are extinguishing species at a rate unseen outside of massive catastrophe. We can document species we've destroyed and the resultant damage to their ecosystem. The more we learn the more this is evident.

We'll have to go some to rival the cyanobacteria in terms of percentage of other species destroyed. And you're ignoring the species that we've helped to thrive.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jesus wept! The bit of your post that follows this is breathtaking in its stupidity. That individuals die to preserve a species is not anywhere close to causing species to go extinct.
Species are to life on earth as individuals are to a species.

Not even close. Dude, crack open a biology text.

quote:

We'll have to go some to rival the cyanobacteria in terms of percentage of other species destroyed.

Show me some evidence that they did so with conscious purpose then you might have a point.

quote:

And you're ignoring the species that we've helped to thrive.

Many of those have been helped to the detriment of quite a few others.

[ 22. February 2017, 15:49: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that dominion is different from stewardship, since it seems to involve a hierarchical scale of nature, with humans at the top. This is a kind of exceptionalism, or if you like, narcissism, but I don't think religions are responsible for this, although they have transmitted it ideologically.

Even being 'stewards' strikes me as odd, since it still suggests that we are in charge. This is a kind of fantasy that is very difficult to let go of.

Even the OP question strikes me as exceptionalist, why us in particular? I suppose this is a Christian thing, that humans are especially beloved? Dunno.

We are exceptional. We affect our environment in a way no other creature in earth can. Even if we only care about our own species, this necessitates a better policy towards our resources and the other life forms which inhabit our bit of celestial rock.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Bacteria are the exceptionalest, they produced oxygen.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Bacteria are the exceptionalest, they produced oxygen.

sigh
As I said to MtM: Prove to me they do so with conscious purpose then we have a comparison.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Prove to me that we're committing ecocide with conscious purpose and we don't.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There are more (good) bacteria in our bodies than our own cells.

We need the others too - making soil, breaking down detritis etc etc.

I don't think we consciously or deliberately destroy the environment. Some may, but most of us do it just by living an 'ordinary' life.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Prove to me that we're committing ecocide with conscious purpose and we don't.

Exactly.
I mean who is to say everything our homo sap brothers and sisters have done since a mutation occurred allowing our craniums to expand has been done with conscious purpose?

Why not overlook the past distortions religion may have caused and consider what drives most of us now, this minute. Betterment , pleasure seeking, fear that the things we cherish will be taken away. Are we in control of these driving forces? Maybe we are, yet also at the same time we are compelled and encouraged by the various institutions and establishments which govern us to tow the line.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Prove to me that we're committing ecocide with conscious purpose and we don't.
Exactly.
I mean who is to say everything our homo sap brothers and sisters have done since a mutation occurred allowing our craniums to expand has been done with conscious purpose?

Yeah, who said that? Wait, nobody did. But we have known for quite a while that removing a keystone species can have a devestating effect on an ecosystem, we know acidification is affecting levels of plankton, the base building block of nearly the entire ocean ecosystem. We learn more all the time but do less than we can. Cheeto and his stooges will set back what we have done at nearly the worst posssible time.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

It is worth remembering that there is an ice shelf half the size of Wales that will probably break off very soon (this year or next). And then lots of the remaining shelf will also go.

That is a single event that would take centuries to repair. Is it caused by human activity? Well, all of the science says that we are causing warming, and that we are warming this year quicker than ever. So probably.

And a lot of environmental scientists say this year - these few years - are a critical tipping point. So we are probably fucked.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Jesus wept! The bit of your post that follows this is breathtaking in its stupidity. That individuals die to preserve a species is not anywhere close to causing species to go extinct.
Species are to life on earth as individuals are to a species.
Not even close. Dude, crack open a biology text.

I'll grant you that that was more of a philosophical claim than a scientific assertion,

quote:

quote:

We'll have to go some to rival the cyanobacteria in terms of percentage of other species destroyed.
Show me some evidence that they did so with conscious purpose then you might have a point.

As others have already pointed out, humanity isn't destroying other species with conscious purpose either. As a side effect of other stuff we do to improve our lives, sure - but in that case we're back to the cyanobacteria again.

quote:

quote:

And you're ignoring the species that we've helped to thrive.
Many of those have been helped to the detriment of quite a few others.

That's just the way the evolutionary cookie crumbles.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It is worth remembering that there is an ice shelf half the size of Wales that will probably break off very soon (this year or next). And then lots of the remaining shelf will also go.

Yep.

quote:
That is a single event that would take centuries to repair.

The implication here is that the current quantity of ice at the poles is something that must be maintained. But why? There have been periods in the past when there was no ice at the poles whatsoever, there have been periods in the past when the entire planet was covered in ice, and obviously there have been periods with all amounts of ice in between. What makes the current amount so special?

quote:
Is it caused by human activity? Well, all of the science says that we are causing warming, and that we are warming this year quicker than ever. So probably.

I agree. The evidence is overwhelming that these climate changes are being caused by human activity.

quote:
And a lot of environmental scientists say this year - these few years - are a critical tipping point. So we are probably fucked.

Again, I agree - we are probably fucked. But life on earth will go on.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
....we have known for quite a while that removing a keystone species can have a devestating effect on an ecosystem, we know acidification is affecting levels of plankton, the base building block of nearly the entire ocean ecosystem. We learn more all the time but do less than we can.

Yes we do indeed know these things. A while back we learnt about biological pest control, cats keeping rodent numbers down for example. Then there is the conscious action of introducing a species purposely to provide food.
OK, we do consciously *tweak* our environment so, in theory, with some extreme tweaking we could halt or postpone our apparent one way journey into the Pit.

Alas, like the smoker with the box of fags fossil fuel burning may have dire warnings printed all over it, we are though fully hooked, wholly dependent, and seemingly quite incapable of giving up the path of energy fuelled activity.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Life will go on. Maybe not human life. That is why the collapse of the ice shelf is important - to us.

Not necessarily for the earth. Not necessarily for some creatures. But for us, this is crucial. And if we are the only intelligent life here, that is critical (philosophically, not evolutionarily).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'll grant you that that was more of a philosophical claim than a scientific assertion,

Even philosophy has greater rigour than that.

quote:
As others have already pointed out, humanity isn't destroying other species with conscious purpose either.

Yes we have, for hundreds of years. Not always with knowledge of the consequences, but certainly on purpose.
We are still doing it. And with no excuse of ignorance.

quote:

As a side effect of other stuff we do to improve our lives, sure -

Also for convenience, vanity or out of annoyance.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What makes the current amount so special?

Your general posting doesn't indicate much concern beyond what you see in the mirror so, for you, nothing.
For those of us who do care about the next generation and beyond, humans are causing problems for others that we do not have to cause.
We can take measures that will reduce our impact but we don't want to do so.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Humanity will not be destroyed by the disappearance of one, or even both of the Ice caps. Hindered of course, but not destroyed.
I think that some of what we feel about the dramatic alteration of the geography of the Earth isn't fear that our species will be wiped out, it could be grief over time honoured things around changing in an apparently irreversible way.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Humanity will not be destroyed by the disappearance of one, or even both of the Ice caps. Hindered of course, but not destroyed.
I think that some of what we feel about the dramatic alteration of the geography of the Earth isn't fear that our species will be wiped out, it could be grief over time honoured things around changing in an apparently irreversible way.

Is this what happens when people use religious texts as science?
Weather patterns will change even more than currently; destroying crops, flooding cities and eliminating low-lying island nations. Famines will occur, generating even more strife than we currently have.
This isn't about inconvenience, but devastation.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Er, rolyn isn't arguing from any perversion of scripture: 'Earth abides', it don't matter how much oil and coal we burn, Jesus'll fix it on His return to split the the Mount of Olives.

Any more than you are arguing from science.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Er, rolyn isn't arguing from any perversion of scripture: 'Earth abides', it don't matter how much oil and coal we burn, Jesus'll fix it on His return to split the the Mount of Olives.

He isn't arguing from knowledge, either.
Didn't think he was actually arguing from religion, the comment was more sarcasm than anything.

quote:

Any more than you are arguing from science.

Actually, I am. Stating it in a general way, but climate scientists are very much in agreement that we are creating significant change that will be very detrimental to our current population levels and way of living.

[ 23. February 2017, 20:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

When? How much? Sounds like Wormwood.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The implication here is that the current quantity of ice at the poles is something that must be maintained. But why? There have been periods in the past when there was no ice at the poles whatsoever, there have been periods in the past when the entire planet was covered in ice, and obviously there have been periods with all amounts of ice in between. What makes the current amount so special?

Narwhals have no where to hide when there is open water and insufficient ice, because ice-shy orcas (killer whales) can pursue them. Inuit may also more easily take narwhals. So no ice, narwhals will go. So will belugas, bowheads, fins, pilots, several porpoise and dolphin species. That's just the whales.

Permafrost melting means the ground is unstable and travel not possible for humans and other animals. The indirect effect of warmer temps enabling mosquitos to have a longer season (there are species which successfully live at about water freezing temp. We can expect collapse of populations of caribou due to that. We can expect geese (snow and canada geese) to increase and destroy the land with heavy destructive grazing and poop as they already have in the Hudson Bay lowlands. Polar bears are the poster children for climate change in arctic. They will certainly move north and be extirpated from their southern range, e.g., near Churchill, Manitoba.

We're going to see the northern boreal forests (spruce mainly, but also some pines) continue to be killed by spruce bark beetles which turn the tree needles red. And massive fires of burning trees.

It will take 300 years or less for rivers in Canada to become intermittent, as the glaciers are gone. A bit of water in the spring, nothing elsewise. I'd expect the whole of the USA and much of Canada between the Great Lakes/Mississippi and Rocky Mountains to become one huge desert, right up at least the edge of the Canadian Shield which runs roughly from 60°N in the west to 49°N at Lake Superior.

We can expect the same scenario in Europe and Asia. Africa and Australia, I've no time line idea, but hotter and drier. I guess the surviving humans can eat rats and beetles. The scenario makes the 600 million dead in WW3 in Star Trek: First Contact seem like a pretty happy outcome.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Er, rolyn isn't arguing from any perversion of scripture: 'Earth abides', it don't matter how much oil and coal we burn, Jesus'll fix it on His return to split the the Mount of Olives.
He isn't arguing from knowledge, either.
Didn't think he was actually arguing from religion, the comment was more sarcasm than anything.

I wasn't using Scripture or sarcasm on this occasion, admitting to sometimes falling into the latter.

It was a dispassionate observation based on the evidence we the public are given and the evidence of our own experience of changes in weather patterns, increase in skin cancer incidents, species die off and so on.

It is just stating the obvious to say that continuing with A B C, (no matter how much it perplexes us/me), will result in E F G.

It is the absolute Law of life on Earth, God's Law if People want to believe that, --Adapt or die.

[ 23. February 2017, 22:12: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When? How much? Sounds like Wormwood.

When? Now. The full 70m that all the ice melting will cause may take quite awhile. But the effects are happening now. Not sure why that matters. Do you have information on the people of the future that they do not deserve our best effort?
Here is a vid explaining some of it.
Sorry, hosts, it is nearly 6 minute long, but it does contain pictures! to assist a few of the less, erm, well.... to assist.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I meant my comment was sarcasm.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
--Adapt or die.

Kinda the point. The biggest difference between the normal use of this term, environmentally, is that we can adapt proactively.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
As others have already pointed out, humanity isn't destroying other species with conscious purpose either.
Yes we have, for hundreds of years. Not always with knowledge of the consequences, but certainly on purpose.

If we're not deliberately trying to destroy them, then we're not doing it with conscious purpose. A side effect of an action is not the reason why that action is carried out, even if it's known that it will happen.

Climate change and species extinction are side effects of actions we're taking for other reasons. To say that we are causing climate change and species extinction "with conscious purpose" would mean we are doing those actions with the express intention of causing those effects, and that just isn't true.

It would be more accurate to say that we know what the side effects of our actions are, but we judge their impact to be less pressing than the impact of not doing the actions at all. Is that judgement correct? Time will tell.

quote:
For those of us who do care about the next generation and beyond, humans are causing problems for others that we do not have to cause.
We can take measures that will reduce our impact but we don't want to do so.

You say that as if taking the measures necessary to halt climate change wouldn't cause problems for current and future generations. Different problems, to be sure, but real and significant ones nonetheless.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The passenger pigeon was made extinct on purpose. As was the marsupial wolf and other predators. When creature like the great auk we're found to be going extinct because of over predation by humans, did it start a conservation effort? No, it started a move to kill more for collectors to have a taxadermy specimen. There wouldn't be wolves in America if it were as tame a landscape as Britain. After the refining of petroleum, hunting whales was unnecessary by all but subsitance humters, but it still continued.

A massive help to the reduction in greenhouse gasses would be buying less shit that we do not need. Hardly significant damage to your lifestyle.
Another is greater use of greener power, easier to breathe the air as well.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The passenger pigeon was made extinct on purpose.

So humans deliberately and knowingly set out to make the species extinct, as opposed to accidentally causing its extinction due to reckless overhunting?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When? How much? Sounds like Wormwood.
When? Now. The full 70m that all the ice melting will cause may take quite awhile. But the effects are happening now. Not sure why that matters. Do you have information on the people of the future that they do not deserve our best effort?
Here is a vid explaining some of it.
Sorry, hosts, it is nearly 6 minute long, but it does contain pictures! to assist a few of the less, erm, well.... to assist.

At the present rate 70m will take 10,000 years.

Until the clathrate boils.

I agree eternal life is now.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
At the present rate 70m will take 10,000 years.

Sea level rise and warming are having a serious effect now and it is only cm.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The passenger pigeon was made extinct on purpose.
So humans deliberately and knowingly set out to make the species extinct, as opposed to accidentally causing its extinction due to reckless overhunting?

One, partially, of example and you dismiss the argument?
Whatever is convenient, I suppose.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The passenger pigeon was made extinct on purpose.
So humans deliberately and knowingly set out to make the species extinct, as opposed to accidentally causing its extinction due to reckless overhunting?
One, partially, of example and you dismiss the argument?
Whatever is convenient, I suppose.

I'm trying to point out that "on purpose" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
--Adapt or die.
Kinda the point. The biggest difference between the normal use of this term, environmentally, is that we can adapt proactively.

And we are. Wind turbines, Solar power, electric cars etc.

Some like to say it is all too little too late. Then there is the sum zero response of -- Why should we care when China and various 2nd World Countries are pumping out CO2 and ripping down rain forests at one a hell of a rate.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

"Adapt or die"
Evolution is adaptation to local conditions. Nothing more. Most of it is slow accummulation of characteristics which are either better or worse for adapting. There is another process which catastrophic change, which genetic variation doesn't help with because the environmental conditions are so different and rapidly changed, there are no favoured individuals in a species. All die. This is what we're creating.

Humans are different, we massively adapt conditions to us. We won't die out until we can't adapt the local environmental conditions to us.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0