Posted this in a different place a while ago. I I wonder what you could make of it?
I am wondering about extinction and our relation to it, specifically of living organisms that are not human.
We, as a species, are either highly destructive to our environment in our pursuit of excellence and progression... or we strive to maintain a sense of order by maintaining the world as it once was.
Whether this is done through a guilt complex, a culturally designed value for equality and fairness, or thoughtless flow into the socially popular values with rudimentary formulated premises it does change the way we act as a species, and thus, the environment around us.
But when the world changes, nature adapts to it. In the Ice Age, there were far fewer plants in areas that now flourish. In droughts, plants whither and die. Forest fires recycle material and fertilise for the next generation.
While we could spend all day arguing over the rights and wrongs of our actions and their consequences, what I really want to know is how we are physically changing the evolution of the organisms in our world. Obviously we have caused many creatures to go extinct and yes, others may have flourished. But we have also prevented the extinction of species. We have learned to preserve and have taken a cautious attitude to our progression. This is good because we still need nature to sustain us and ecosystems are part of that sustainment.
How, in the future, might nature develop to manage the human problem, though? How are we altering the evolutionary progression of nature? How long until mankind and nature achieve a compromise or admit to incompatibility?
How might the world and organisms have developed without our interference in terms of preventing extinction? Would new creatures emerge, raising where the larger predators now still are allowed to roam?
Why do so many of us instinctively wish to protect what was or is already here? I understand we need sustainment but these issues are often answered with broad statements and actions instead of calculated precision and study. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.
Its going to come to a point where either humanity can stop being complete idiots and destroying everything we touch or we will continue to destroy the world and all life on this planet will go extinct.
Loved the last line on the OP.
Yes, maybe we are asking the wrong questions.
I think some of us are still stucked in an antropocentrist view of the planet, attributing human feelings and needs to it. As it needs to be saved and we are the saviors of the enviroment.
This might be true, but only till certain point. Our impact in the planet is one thing, how the planet works this impact and produces it´s own feedback is other, and the ammount of polution and garbage the planet is not able to process -which is mostly annoing for humans, that´s the biggest problem- is another.
Now, about overpopulation, deforestation and its impact on species again, the enviroment creates its own reaction. There is an ammount the enviroment is unable to cover and will unbalance in a not pleasurable way the habitat for humanity; this is where we can help.
I mean, let´s be honest and accept that in the end we need to take care of the planet for our own well being; let´s do it because of that. And not because the species and the whole planet in itself NEEDS to be saved, this is a waste of time and sources.
There's definitely an argument to be made in favour of this perspective and I don't really have enough faith in humanity's traditional values (and the upkeep of them) to put forth the energy for a counter argument.
I don't think that it's particularly necessary, however, and could end up being a less than ideal approach in the very long term. I'm generally in favour of an approach that leaves open as many possibilities as we can manage. What I mean, I suppose, is that after we've extracted whatever resources we need to spiral out into the universe, we could leave something behind for new life to form. Perhaps become the sort of aliens that people theorise created us. (No, I do not hold that belief, but I know some people do and it's entertaining to think of it as a future as opposed to reasons for our present.)
Loved the last line on the OP.
Yes, maybe we are asking the wrong questions.
I think some of us are still stucked in an anthropocentric view of the planet, attributing human feelings and needs to it. As it needs to be saved and we are the saviors of the enviroment.
This might be true, but only till certain point. Our impact in the planet is one thing, how the planet works this impact and produces it´s own feedback is other, and the ammount of polution and garbage the planet is not able to process -which is mostly annoing for humans, that´s the biggest problem- is another.
Now, about overpopulation, deforestation and its impact on species again, the enviroment creates its own reaction. There is an ammount the enviroment is unable to cover and will unbalance in a not pleasurable way the habitat for humanity; this is where we can help.
I mean, let´s be honest and accept that in the end we need to take care of the planet for our own well being; let´s do it because of that. And not because the species and the whole planet in itself NEEDS to be saved, this is a waste of time and sources.
That's an interesting perspective and one that might actually win over more support than liberally inclined, go-green approaches. I do think that a feel-good approach does do much to win favour with most people, though.
I suppose... would just say that your emphasis on rationality and pragmatism is probably a good thing for environmentalists to consider employing in their efforts to win people over for the cause.
I think I would like to hear more specifically the ways in which you believe we use an anthropocentric view the planet as a whole. It vaguely makes sense to me, but I wonder if you have any specific reasons to think this..? It's an interesting thought. ^^
Posting this from Hotsquidjunk (who has not posted yet, but will hopefully be more active later):
Hotsquidjunk said:
And there are so many questions to ask still, but i'll continue as it pertains to this article.
The idea of how we may be influencing the evolution of other species through our activities is not one that i have thought of often, but i have touched upon it once or twice. I'll express two scenarios, both of which build upon my thesis - which is that any who say that humans /are not/ the dominant species on the planet need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Humankind is clearly the dominant biological agent on the planet, and we hold within our reach the ability to destroy or preserve our own natural order (as it pertains to our own planet).
Scenario 1: Let's say humankind falls victim to John F Kennedy's prophecy - that mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to mankind. By virtually eliminating and severely regulating the populations of what were once dominant predators and other wildlife (such as tigers and elephants), a sudden disappearance of our own species will open the door for other species to take their place. Let's not forget that in this scenario, the environment itself will likely have been dealt a blow it might take thousands of years to recover from. Only the species that are well adapted will survive (that is not to say that those who are best "adaptable", but those who have qualities that will garner success in such a future world, and the genes with which to build upon them.) Those that are best adapted will climb the food chain and dominate.
In continuing with this scenario, it is possible to imagine any number of potential replacements for us at the top of the food chain. Let us never forget that while our evolution as a whole has stagnated over the last 40,000 years, other species' evolution has not. In our current age, we champion the mammal, but the mammal was but vermin to the dinosaur during its age of dominance. There is even the potential that the earth could produce yet another species of intelligence. Perhaps they will be doomed to repeat our mistakes, or they will be to us what we were to the dinosaur - a quantum leap forward in advancement.
Scenario 2: Let's say we outlive our destructive urges, or, at least, are conscious enough to spare the earth itself our misgivings. What effect would we have on evolution? I think the possibilities here are at least as exciting as in scenario 1. Would we be able to resist altering other species to suit our needs? I think not. We don't have a good record with that already. So, in that regard, what are the possibilities?
Many people look to the future, preconceiving robots and machines and silicon and steel. For good reason, of course, such constructs are extremely useful, and are already surpassing our own ability to perform many tasks we deem necessary. But i do not think it will all be silicon. I think nature has already given us a magnificent engine to build upon, it is both effective and supremely efficient. Life. And i am not the only one who feels this way.
This topic is enormously broad, and exploring any of it can make for quite the tedious post, so i'll stick to the potential insects offer us. Insects are the most successful creatures that ever lived on the earth. Throughout all the other 6 or 7 mass extinctions other forms of life have suffered, insects have only suffered 1 or 2. The reason is their adaptability. What if we could genetically infuse ourselves with some of the genes that have made them so successful? What if we could enhance our strength to match the extraordinary feats insects are capable of? Or better yet, what if we could make social insects our own living robots - bees and wasps to explore areas unreachable to us, ants and locusts to gather resources.
Before you try to discount the validity of that concept, know that we have already been successful in something like it. Not long ago, scientists introduced the silk producing genes native to spiders into goats. It worked. Arachnid genes transferred seamlessly to mammals. If we could do something like this now, what does the future hold? Then, consider what other species we could use in this process. Extremophiles have already been considered for space travel. The question then becomes, what of us will remain human, and in the culture and mindset of our future selves, would that concept even matter?
Scenario 1: Let's say humankind falls victim to John F Kennedy's prophecy - that mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to mankind. By virtually eliminating and severely regulating the populations of what were once dominant predators and other wildlife (such as tigers and elephants), a sudden disappearance of our own species will open the door for other species to take their place. Let's not forget that in this scenario, the environment itself will likely have been dealt a blow it might take thousands of years to recover from. Only the species that are well adapted will survive (that is not to say that those who are best "adaptable", but those who have qualities that will garner success in such a future world, and the genes with which to build upon them.) Those that are best adapted will climb the food chain and dominate.
In continuing with this scenario, it is possible to imagine any number of potential replacements for us at the top of the food chain. Let us never forget that while our evolution as a whole has stagnated over the last 40,000 years, other species' evolution has not. In our current age, we champion the mammal, but the mammal was but vermin to the dinosaur during its age of dominance. There is even the potential that the earth could produce yet another species of intelligence. Perhaps they will be doomed to repeat our mistakes, or they will be to us what we were to the dinosaur - a quantum leap forward in advancement.
The notion of dominance is one that entertains a lot of value-based premises, so I'm glad you pointed out that there are several ways to categorise dominance. To the main point of this approach, this is exactly what I was wondering about... and I don't think it's something that has to be an impossibility with our existence. As alluded to before, I do wonder about what the earth might become after our (hopeful) departure. What kind of species will fill our gap? Will we allow a new species to flourish and to prod it down a path of our own choosing, as behind-the-curtain orchestrator’s? Or will we allow it to develop naturally for a while, learning what we can about what happens when a dominant species leaves... for the first time, while that process is occurring (as opposed to retrospectively, as we do with dinosaurs)? Or perhaps we will simply maintain a small population on the earth until the sun destroys it. ._.
Hotsquidjunk said:
Scenario 2: Let's say we outlive our destructive urges, or, at least, are conscious enough to spare the earth itself our misgivings. What effect would we have on evolution? I think the possibilities here are at least as exciting as in scenario 1. Would we be able to resist altering other species to suit our needs? I think not. We don't have a good record with that already. So, in that regard, what are the possibilities?
Many people look to the future, preconceiving robots and machines and silicon and steel. For good reason, of course, such constructs are extremely useful, and are already surpassing our own ability to perform many tasks we deem necessary. But i do not think it will all be silicon. I think nature has already given us a magnificent engine to build upon, it is both effective and supremely efficient. Life. And i am not the only one who feels this way.
This topic is enormously broad, and exploring any of it can make for quite the tedious post, so i'll stick to the potential insects offer us. Insects are the most successful creatures that ever lived on the earth. Throughout all the other 6 or 7 mass extinctions other forms of life have suffered, insects have only suffered 1 or 2. The reason is their adaptability. What if we could genetically infuse ourselves with some of the genes that have made them so successful? What if we could enhance our strength to match the extraordinary feats insects are capable of? Or better yet, what if we could make social insects our own living robots - bees and wasps to explore areas unreachable to us, ants and locusts to gather resources.
Before you try to discount the validity of that concept, know that we have already been successful in something like it. Not long ago, scientists introduced the silk producing genes native to spiders into goats. It worked. Arachnid genes transferred seamlessly to mammals. If we could do something like this now, what does the future hold? Then, consider what other species we could use in this process. Extremophiles have already been considered for space travel. The question then becomes, what of us will remain human, and in the culture and mindset of our future selves, would that concept even matter?
And this is deviating, a bit, but also an interesting thought. I've been more and more interested in Transhumanism and it does seem that there are a couple of drastically different paths humanity might choose when considering how to advance themselves as a life-form. So far, what I have encountered are three main paths... Cybernetic/virtual, Robotic and Biological with some minor overlap between the three.
But back to the main purpose of the thread...
I suppose I'm asking for a leap of imagination, and perhaps some input from anyone who actually has experience researching the matter of evolution/extinction. But with regard to it, how might we further develop in the future? How might our world adapt to our advances/destruction? What can we do to alter it and not just inadvertently so? And... I suppose, what lessons might we take to different planets should we be so fortunate to expand extra-terrestrially?
Why do so many of us instinctively wish to protect what was or is already here? I understand we need sustainment but these issues are often answered with broad statements and actions instead of calculated precision and study. Maybe we are asking the wrong questions.
Rapid environmental changes are no good in terms of survival for a species. In humans, biological mutation is a slow process. If one generation is about 20-35 years, then this is how long it takes to randomly modify the next link in the generation chain. Some mutations are not compatible with the environment, and some are. If the environment changes to a drastic degree which biological mutation is unable to keep up with, the species will go extinct, and will not evolve into a new species. Therefore, things like global warming, and its effects on the environment, is actually a real concern. It's not just because we "like" things the way they are. But we need to be biologically compatible with our environment.
I know it is a popular opinion to declare that we've been bad to our planet and perhaps she's sick and tired of us. Maybe so.
I view it personally as indifference. There have been species far worse than us and there will be species far worse than us long after we're truly gone.
It cannot be understated how incredibly resilient the planet is. Even in terms of the shelter provided to living things. Drop a few million gallons of oil into the gulf and viola, a newly found species of bacteria is discovered that is ravenous on oil.
Think about that. How ignorant and assertive are we to declare that the planet has never dealt with an oil spill before? Oil naturally escapes soil all the time in the basin and is dealt with, naturally. Look up the Coal Oil Point to get a better idea.
This global warming thing is a church; a piece of propaganda for would-be elitists. Al Gore tried it and now another empty suit is trying it. Yes, climate change is real but the truth is more scary than the fiction. We can't stop it. We never could. Controlling how fast or how slow it comes is not in the realm of reality. We could cut our emissions down substantially and it will still happen naturally and probably about the same time otherwise.
Every scientist worth his/her salt knows that our window of growth is just about done. Whether it be a cooling period, a warming period, a caldera or an giant rock striking the planet we're overdue. We'll carry on but not in the same way we have for the entirety of human recording. That is a rare case of my being optimistic for our kind. It could also just be the end for us.
Then life will go on here as it has for a very, very long time. The funny thing about us is that we're so small, so fragile that we will leave almost no trace. Our technology will disintegrate. Our soft bones will decompose. Our writings and our records will evaporate. The only thing the future humanoid might know of us is the probability that something like it preceded it. Or maybe it will be just as ignorant as we have been.
^^^I see your point, but it goes to a few extremes.
First, humanity (homo sapiens) has been around (depending on your prefered estimations) for at least a million years. The hyper-destructive global culture that has resulted in the sixth great extinction period of our planet (albeit not the most cataclysmic, but still technically qualifying) only arose about 10,000 years ago with the Agricultural Revolution. So, it's just the recent 1% of our existence, and only half of that should count because our culture remained relatively confined to the Mesopotamian regions for the first couple thousand years and didn't really spread to Australia or the Americas until like 500 years ago.
Either way, we spent most of humanity being humans, like ducks spend duckity as ducks, and manatees spend manateeity as manatees. We were no more destructive to our environment than any other new preador/resource-consumer on the block.
So to say it's us as a species, regardless of the fact that over 99% of us are now members of this environmentally psychopathic culture, is incorrect.
We are not humanity. We are just one huge failed social and agricultural experiment, and hopefully we will collapse and break apart before we render the planet unfit for human life. (Or the lives of our most favorite species like ducks and manatees).
Because you're right. It's insanely naive to believe that we are the most advanced or only at least human-level-sentient species that will ever live here. The planet as a life-supporting entity will continue on supporting even if everything down to unicellular organisms is wiped out. It's happened before.
But I wouldn't meet our responsibilities with ambivilence. I'm simply not that suicidal. I feel an urge to encourage our unique configuration of genes to propagate and survive future eons. After all, we consider a species "successful" if it survives 10 million years. Some have been around for ten and twenty times longer than that, unchanged. Wouldn't it be cool for our species to still be around to become food, slaves, or scientific guinnea pigs for our successors? I mean, have a little team pride... If not for us, but for our future manaduck overlords...
I wouldn't meet our responsibilities with ambivilence. I'm simply not that suicidal. I feel an urge to encourage our unique configuration of genes to propagate and survive future eons. After all, we consider a species "successful" if it survives 10 million years. Some have been around for ten and twenty times longer than that, unchanged. Wouldn't it be cool for our species to still be around to become food, slaves, or scientific guinnea pigs for our successors? I mean, have a little team pride... If not for us, but for our future manaduck overlords...
Yeah I suppose the way I feel is that any action has to really be significant to bother.
If we're to alter our way of life significantly to shave 20 years off of global warming reaching a cataclysmic point I don't think it worth the time.
It would probably be time better spent to recognize the futility of the situation and to prepare for the inevitable. So far I see very few actually doing that. Though it seems reasonable to assume they (government) are preparing out of the public eye. It would make sense.
I don't hold any grudge against our species. I just don't think we're conditioned for the future. Maybe 1,000 years from now we're still here and maybe like the Protoss fiction of Starcraft lore we are all wired into a network consciousness like the khala. Now that would be cool and would effectively erase this limitation of ours.
I don't hold any grudge against our species. I just don't think we're conditioned for the future. Maybe 1,000 years from now we're still here and maybe like the Protoss fiction of Starcraft lore we are all wired into a network consciousness like the khala. Now that would be cool and would effectively erase this limitation of ours.
The good thing is with an omnipresent knowledge base all ambiguities could become binary. Grey area would cease to exist. Indeed, at that point INTJs would be pointless. Then again, so would we...maybe.
On a side note I find it ironic how humans are deathly afraid of being cared for by omnipresent machines. However creepy the premise it is best to assume our fears of them are mere nightmares. I've personally grown warm to the idea.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
