Should we try to safeguard our species?

[StormHammer]

Heh, thought I'd throw a really heavy subject into the mix.

 

Okay, now we all know about the threat of extinction from comets etc., and it is debatable that we might at some time in the near future be able to deflect such objects from their trajectories. All well and good.

 

But what are we going to do about the Yellowstone Super-Volcano when it blows? If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's a link...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/supervolcanoes.shtml

 

Basically, the Toba Super-Volcano erupted over 70 thousand years ago, and they reckon it brought humankind to the brink of extinction.

 

Yellowstone is bigger than Toba ever was, and an eruption is overdue by approximately 40 thousand years ( on a 600 thousand year regular cycle ). So basically it could erupt at any time - including in our lifetimes. When it blows, it will obliterate a large part of the USA and probably plunge us into the next Ice Age. It could potentially wipe us out completely.

 

So, my question is, should we be doing something now to try and safeguard our species? Is there anything that you think we could or should do?

 

Do you think we have time to terraform Mars, for example, and live there for a while?

 

Or with on-going breakthroughs in genetic science, is it feasible to freeze a large batch of human (and other species) embryos etc., and somehow trigger them into a growth cycle some way down the line?

 

I'd like to hear your views and ideas.

[Guest Krayt Tion]

I'm looking at my glass, it is half empty as I respond to you.

 

Sometimes, frankly, I despise my own human nature. We are the all-singing, all-dancing greedy craps of the world. If the volcano doesn't get us, we'll probably get ourselves. Sometimes I wonder, are we even worth it?

 

This post doesn't address any of the scientific theory you're hoping for, you'll have to leave that to someone else. I'm perfectly happy to comment in general on our demise.

[acdcfanbill]

if anyone in charge had any sort of half-a-brain, we would already be terraforming mars, an have people living there, and the moon... and those people who say moon landing were fake, i got words for them...

 

but seriously, if not for natural disators, we need to colonize other places just due to overpopulation, and lack of natural resources... i would be happe to colonize the moon, or an astroid, or cool **** like that!!!

[WD_ToRMeNt]

Bah who cares. Humans are just animals that can do math. If you studied history well, you will find that nothing is really new, and humans have been repeating the same mistakes over and over again since the beginning of recoreded history. Perhaps humanity could become something another 50,000, but I doubt we'll last that long.

 

We almost annihilated ourselves in 1967 (cuban missile crisis, could be a year or two off. We were only a couple hours from from a nuclear war when Krustov backed down.) and again in 1995 (Little known norweigan missile incedent, russia started a ten minute countdown to full nuclear release when a science test missile flew over moscow. They were less then 2 minutes away from launch when the count down was aborted).

 

All sources of oil will be depleted in 80-100 years. Do you have any idea as to what will happen when we're out of oil? War, Famine, choas, anarchy, and that's just the beginnning. Can't get to the store to buy food. Wouldn't matter anyway because there are not trucks to bring to food to the store. No need for the trucks because trains run on desiel. No need for trains anyway because farmers won't have the mechinery to harvest and plant. Factories wouldn't have the power to process or refrigerate food even if they had it. Do you have any freaking idea?

 

Don't forget about the out of control population of humans. The population will prolly be well over 20 billion before we run out of oil. Lots of mouths to feed, when there is no food, lots of people to spread disease, lots of people to go fight a war...

 

Don't forget the possiblity if global destruction by a coment or astroid (almost happened a couple years ago, if the astroid had arrived 6 HOURS earlier, we'd ALL be dead).

 

How do you expect to survive a 10k year ice age with no oil, a huge population. Solar isn't gonna do you much good when the skys are filled with clouds.

 

Don't forget that the sun will burn out in about a billion years, but before that it will consume what it has rapidly and grow large enough to swallow the earth. Oh well, I'm sure we won't even the fossils by then.

[TornSoul]

Something huge disaster will happen one day. Wether it's an asteroid, vulcano, nuclear war, alien invasion or some kind of virus, it will happen. But, since there are so many of us and humans are an adaptive species, we will probably survive. I think that for the human species as a whole it might even be a good thing. Right now, the human species is getting weaker and weaker (mainly because of the over-use of medication). In a hard time like an ice age, the strong would survive, have (strong) children, etc, making the human species stonger.

[WD_ToRMeNt]

Survive? Possibly, but say good by to technology, culture and the current living standards of the industrial world. It's back to the stone age for anyone unlucky enough to survive a disaster on the scale we're talking about.

[GonkH8er]

i give the human race 300 years max.

 

 

all we need is a virus with the letality of something like ebola with the contagiousness of the common cold, and we're done for. it shouldnt be too long before something like this pops up.

 

but we should be well into our 7th world war before this happens, so dont worry, you'll already be nuked

 

 

ahhh such a happy thread. love this posotive atmosphere.

 

we need to make a help group.

 

P.A. Pessimists Anonymous

[Wilhuf]

Humans have demonstrated a great ability to adapt to adversity, so I think it's somewhat arrogant to assume that humans could actually exterminate themselves.

 

Here are a few interesting descriptions of the Yellowstone Hotspot from the US Geological Survey (USGS):

 

The Yellowstone hot spot has interacted with the North American plate for perhaps as long as 17 million years, causing widespread outpourings of basalt that bury about 200,000 square miles in Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Idaho under stacks of lava flows half a mile or more thick. Some of the basaltic melt, or magma, produced by the hot spot accumulates near the base of the plate, where its heat melts rocks from the Earth's lower crust. These melts, in turn, rise closer to the surface to form large reservoirs of potentially explosive rhyolite magma. Catastrophic eruptions have partly emptied some of these reservoirs, causing their roofs to collapse. The resulting craters, some of which are more than 30 miles (50 kilometers) across, are known as volcanic calderas.

 

A hot spot that can cover 200,000 sq. mi with basalt.

 

The most recent caldera-forming eruption about 650,000 years ago produced a caldera 53 x 28 miles (85 x 45 kilometers) across in what is now Yellowstone National Park (Figure 2). During that eruption, ground-hugging flows of hot volcanic ash, pumice, and gases swept across an area of more than 3,000 square miles. When these enormous pyroclastic flows finally stopped, they solidified to form a layer of rock called the Lava Creek Tuff. Its volume was about 240 cubic miles (1,000 cubic kilometers), enough material to cover Wyoming with a layer 13 feet thick or the entire conterminous United States with a layer 5 inches thick.

...

The eruption also shot a column of volcanic ash and gases high into Earth's stratosphere. This volcanic cloud circled the globe many times and affected Earth's climate by reducing the intensity of solar radiation reaching the lower atmosphere and surface. Fine volcanic ash that fell downwind from the eruption site blanketed much of North America. This ash layer is still preserved in deposits as far away as Iowa, where it is a few inches thick, and the Gulf of Mexico, where it is recognizable in drill cores from the sea floor.

 

Lava flows have since buried and obscured most of the caldera, but the underlying processes responsible for Yellowstone's tremendous volcanic eruptions are still at work. Eventually, another "bead" may be added to Yellowstone's 300-mile-long string of calderas, with global consequences that are beyond human experience and impossible to anticipate fully.

 

One theory is that the catastrophic events that alter the fundamental climate and Earth morphology (shape) are actually 'desirable' in that they force species adaptation and change. The earth is literally turning itself insdide out, and of course species must adapt to this (very gradual, and sometimes almost instantaneous) change.

 

Biological diversity is all well and good, but still, I wouldn't enjoy a half-mile high wall of lava flowing right at my house.

 

Consider how US residents along the Eastern Seaboard loose their homes to hurricanes every year and yet refuse to move away from areas of high annual hurricane frequency. Given that, I don't see what kind of realistic and yet effective preparation could be done for this supervolcano. Given that the USGS concludes that 'no eruption is imminent' from the hot spot, residents are not going to evacuate a 200,000 sq. mi. area 'just in case.'

 

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Well I think it's arrogant to assume we are really so special and capable. The cockroaches will probably still be here long after we are gone and they aren't exactly the most sentient of beings. Generally speaking we are greedy, high-maitenance consumers. Nothing on this planet consumes like we do. The virus metaphor from the Matrix really isn't that far off.

[acdcfanbill]

hmm, all good points, but i would like to think we cant be killed off so easily, even though our situation her is somewhat precarious and easily upsetable... im thinking that humans would survive as long as cockroachs, unless there was some sort of human-targeted disease (i.e. 12 monkeys, but some people were still around...) that kills humans only... hopefully the smart ones will be kind enough to pull us dumb ones through when they figgure out how to save us...

[Wilhuf]

And no other species creates and uses tools the way humans can. No species has mastered cultivation at the level humans have (except for Termites and probably a few others. Not that termites have an actual understanding of soil chemistry and climate of course).

 

Presumably you're assuming human 'greed' and 'high maintainence' because of your Western background and experience. Go to the developing world and see if 'consumption' is really out of control. People get by with so little in so many countries.

 

It's true to say that no other species consume the way humans do. Generally speaking humans do not consume so much that there is no resource left for use. (Although oil will eventually run out, ethanol will address the problem.) Other species do not plan for the future, and in many cases simply eat themselves into starvation.

 

So, to all you pessimists: there's really no reason the energy problem can't be solved by gradually switching to renewable energy resources (e.g. hydro, nuke, wind, solar). So when the oil is gone, we switch to ethanol, a renewable energy source.

 

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: Wilhuf ]

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by Krayt Tion:

<STRONG>I'm looking at my glass, it is half empty as I respond to you.

 

Sometimes, frankly, I despise my own human nature. We are the all-singing, all-dancing greedy craps of the world. If the volcano doesn't get us, we'll probably get ourselves. Sometimes I wonder, are we even worth it?

 

This post doesn't address any of the scientific theory you're hoping for, you'll have to leave that to someone else. I'm perfectly happy to comment in general on our demise.</STRONG>

 

Heh, didn't mean to depress you. But your point is valid. Are we, as a species, even worth preserving? In my youth I classed myself as an Anti-Humanist - I truly despised mankind and what we have done to our planet and to ourselves.

 

But then I realised we are just another animal fighting for survival, that any life is precious simply by its very nature, and we probably have some potential as a species in the future if we can get past the basest aspects of our nature.

 

So I think there is hope for our race.

 

Originally posted by acdcfanbill:

<STRONG>if anyone in charge had any sort of half-a-brain, we would already be terraforming mars, an have people living there, and the moon...

 

but seriously, if not for natural disators, we need to colonize other places just due to overpopulation, and lack of natural resources... i would be happe to colonize the moon, or an astroid, or cool **** like that!!!</STRONG>

 

There does seem to have been a lot of apathy since we achieved a moon landing. Instead of the space program taking off in a big way, it seemed to fizzle out until the 1980s.

 

The international space station is a step in the right direction, but it is probably far too little and much too late.

 

I saw an episode of a TV program called Space recently(currently showing on BBC TV in the UK), which discussed a few of the issues of terraforming other worlds, such as Mars.

 

Ironically, they think that we would have to pollute Mars to raise it's temperature before trying to grow algae there that would produce more oxygen in the atmosphere. From there, you could start growing other plants, etc.

 

A suggested timeframe for accomplishing this was approximately 120 years. I'm not sure we could make Mars habitable in that time, but even so, we're not likely to see human habitation of Mars in our lifetimes.

 

The question is whether we have the luxury of that amount of time, and the physical resources that would be needed, to make this effort.

 

Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:

<STRONG>Bah who cares. Humans are just animals that can do math. If you studied history well, you will find that nothing is really new, and humans have been repeating the same mistakes over and over again since the beginning of recoreded history. Perhaps humanity could become something another 50,000, but I doubt we'll last that long.</STRONG>

 

I agree that as a species we've made many mistakes, and suffered from many regressions due to natural disasters, tyrannical despots, and downright apathy. However, if you think it might take 50,000 years for us to amount to something, then would it not be worth preserving our species? After all, if we are made extinct, we will never accomplish anything, and never realise this long-term potential.

 

<STRONG>All sources of oil will be depleted in 80-100 years. Do you have any idea as to what will happen when we're out of oil? War, Famine, choas, anarchy, and that's just the beginnning. Can't get to the store to buy food. Wouldn't matter anyway because there are not trucks to bring to food to the store. No need for the trucks because trains run on desiel. No need for trains anyway because farmers won't have the mechinery to harvest and plant. Factories wouldn't have the power to process or refrigerate food even if they had it. Do you have any freaking idea?</STRONG>

 

Yes, actually, I do have a very good idea because I have a vested interest, and watch programs that explore such topics.

 

If anything, I think your estimate of 80-100 years is a bit conservative, as a recent study indicated we will reach the peak of supply in about 5 years. From there, demand will far outweigh supply, and so the reduction of resources will become a severe downward curve. Economies will indeed fall, the cost of remaining oil supplies will increase exponentially (and you think the cost of petrol is high now...hehe), and many people will be forced back to older forms of travel.

 

Although there are alternative fuel sources being explored for the motoring industry, the pace is nowhere near fast enough, and even if an appropriate fuel source is made viable, the infrastructure to distribute it will not be in place for many years to come.

 

Of course, you forgot about the other fossil fuels that are being rapidly depleted, such as gas and coal. They reckon gas will reach it's peak in around 20 years. I'm not sure about coal, but I suspect that resource might last maybe two hundred years - providing the demand remains at it's current level, which of course it will not.

 

<STRONG>

Don't forget about the out of control population of humans. The population will prolly be well over 20 billion before we run out of oil. Lots of mouths to feed, when there is no food, lots of people to spread disease, lots of people to go fight a war...</STRONG>

 

There is a solution to population growth, which has already been used in China, but which would be extremely unpopular in most Western countries. The idea is simple - you limit each family to one child only. It would be a long-term process, but eventually the population would decrease. However, I don't think governments (or people) will be strong enough to accept such a strict regime, and so I believe your scenario will come to fruition. There will be war, famine and disease on a catastrophic scale - and they will do the job of depopulation for us. We will effectively release the Four Horsemen upon the world by our own actions (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death). Have we, then, become the masters of our own Apocalypse?

 

<STRONG>

How do you expect to survive a 10k year ice age with no oil, a huge population. Solar isn't gonna do you much good when the skys are filled with clouds.

 

Don't forget that the sun will burn out in about a billion years, but before that it will consume what it has rapidly and grow large enough to swallow the earth. Oh well, I'm sure we won't even the fossils by then. </STRONG>

 

As far as Ice Ages go, there should be a narrow band of Ice-free country around the equator, where most species, including our own, would gather. Again, the population problem would start to diminish as the weaker of the species succumb to environmental extremes and hunger. Wars will again play their part.

 

I'm not going to worry about the sun turning into a Red Giant just yet, because a billion years is a long way away. I can only hope that by the time our Sun goes Nova that we will be a space-faring species. Could we potentially become like those aliens in the film Independence Day, drifting from world to world, eating up resources in our quest to survive?

 

<STRONG>

Survive? Possibly, but say good by to technology, culture and the current living standards of the industrial world. It's back to the stone age for anyone unlucky enough to survive a disaster on the scale we're talking about. </STRONG>

 

If anything, I think those who survive to live in a new Stone Age would consider themselves lucky. After all, in our industrialised world we have managed to pollute and destroy our environment to our own detriment. At least our impact on the environment was not as great during the Stone Age, and we probably had cleaner air to breathe.

 

The only problem with that scenario is that we would again regress, lose knowledge, and our hopes for expanding into the greater universe would again not be realised.

 

GonkH8r: LOL

 

Wilhuf: Thanks for the other info about Yellowstone, it's certainly interesting reading.

 

<STRONG>Originally posted by Wilhuf:

One theory is that the catastrophic events that alter the fundamental climate and Earth morphology (shape) are actually 'desirable' in that they force species adaptation and change. The earth is literally turning itself insdide out, and of course species must adapt to this (very gradual, and sometimes almost instantaneous) change.

 

Biological diversity is all well and good, but still, I wouldn't enjoy a half-mile high wall of lava flowing right at my house.

</STRONG>

 

Yeah, I totally agree that the planet itself has shaped the evolution of many species, including our own. We cannot hope to remain as we are now - we too must eventually evolve if given the chance. I have a feeling that evolution is going to be a very painful process.

 

<STRONG>

Consider how US residents along the Eastern Seaboard loose their homes to hurricanes every year and yet refuse to move away from areas of high annual hurricane frequency. Given that, I don't see what kind of realistic and yet effective preparation could be done for this supervolcano. Given that the USGS concludes that 'no eruption is imminent' from the hot spot, residents are not going to evacuate a 200,000 sq. mi. area 'just in case.'</STRONG>

 

Yeah, I agree that as a species we will not bow down to natural disaster - our survival instinct and determination to conquer our environment will probably always cause us to put ourselves in the firing line of the next natural disaster.

 

However, an evacuation would probably be pointless, even if it could be achieved, because the effects of the Yellowstone eruption will be on a global scale. I believe it will kick-start another Ice Age - and there will only be a few pockets of plant-life left on the planet, which forms the the first rungs of our food chain. We are totally reliant on plant-life for our own life.

 

We will not be able to save the majority of our species - but we may be able to preserve something of our species, and those other species on which we rely for food. How that can be accomplished, I don't know, but I think it is worthwhile to attempt it.

 

I think it would be a shame to see us go the same way as the majority of the dinosaurs.

 

Thanks for all the feedback so far, people.

 

And I guess that's a Force long post.

[Syndrix]

When a species such as ours is threatened with extinction their is no telling what it is capable of, literaly.

 

Of course a question of kind has an almost infinite scope, you can not really comprehend the variables involved in this sort of issue.

Sure missle crises have occured, big deal, have happened much more than most think. Quite a few times, that we common folk know, in the last 50 years has nuclear war threatened our existance. While the scale is much larger and more devistating, with after effects in nuclear wars case, it has happened before. If the right warring nations had gone to battle in the past, the scattered remnants would have stood no chance of surviving. Had we not fallen into the Dark ages, scientists agree that we would be very much advanced as opposed to where we stand now.

 

But that is what the "human" factor of this discussion is based on, our own technology destroying ourselves. But will it destroy us before we can harness its power? Eventually, if we survive long enough, we will make a distinction between useful tech and that which is harmful. Then to do this we have to realise the mistakes we have made, as the saying goes "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it". But saying we have been making the same mistakes over and over is a bold statement, with the industrial revolution catapulting the rate of which technology advanced, compaired to previous generations, we as a race were bound to trip over our own feet as we went to fast. But I dont think you can make the assumption that we will, through our own fault, extint ourselves. Really how we advance is up to us.

 

While making sure we are actually around to advance technology, and do not kill ourselves, is up to us, much of what we do in the coming centuries will be based on developement. Cloning, genetic manipulation, cybernetics, nanaotechnology, food replication. Imagine being able to code the DNA of a human being so that instead of molecules absorbing radiation they repulsed it. Having lungs that are augmented with technology that is able to discern beteween breathable air and polution. And while "what ever doesnt kill us can only make us stronger", why go through something at all when microscopic little machines can be injected into your body that can attack and kill a virus, which is what it was going to do to your cells. It is more science faction than fiction these days.

 

While there are other variable that are independent of us, such as plagues and meteors and of course volcanoes, if we are able to stumble through for long enough we will eventually get to a point where we may overcome such threats. If we are able to terraform other planets in the distant future before some catastrophy occurs, why not morph the planet we are on now.

 

With the population increasing we may consume ourselves out of everything before we even have time to advance, but anthropoligists have noticed a slow stability creaping into the graph of population that over the last 10 years has been rising rapidly. Over the next 50 years we will undoubtably see a slowing of increase to the population, espesially in 3rd world contries where the population problem is at its roots. Of course we will still have problems with fossil fuels and other supplies, but that is no way related to pure poulation increase. Actually it the total opposite, the top nations consume more and more, because as they advance they do it not caring the long term costs. Something that will prove fatal if not curved.

 

Also, we can not forget evolution and adaptability, "only the strong survive". Maybe, maybe not. But the human body has a great capacity to change for what it needs, it has survived diseases in the past, being shaped by them in some cases. We dont have the resilience of a cockroach, that is because they have evolved in one form or another over 400 million years. If we are able to survive for even a 1/1600 of that time frame we may have undergone great evolution, even if we have to survive through "catastrophic events that alter the fundamental climate and Earth morphology", which cockroaches most certainly did.

 

In the greatest irony we may destroy ourselves due to technology we created to defend nation-states, but then we may not. The earliest known fossils of huminoid life date back 5 million years or so. If we are able to survive even a 1/8 of that period again, maybe we will have evolved in nature (mindset).

 

While Yellowstone would be the same as the demise of the Dinosaus and their meteors (cloud the sky, no light, cant breath the air etc.), they are the same as nuclear war, which would do the same except nuclear radiation would infiltrate the atmosphere and pollute the entire world. So we have to take responsibility for the things that people have mentioned, why do we invest in buisnesses that make money when funds should go into companies that research solutions to our future, alternative fuels etc. Is this short sightedness going to be our downfall. Not only that but we must also be lucky enough to survive things we cant, in the short term, control.

 

And ending on the subject of humanity destroying itself I find this appropriate:

 

"If we let people see that kind of thing, there would never again be any war."

-- Pentagon official, on why U.S. military censored footage of Iraqi soldiers sliced in two by U.S. helicopter fire

 

Also I forgot to factor in that evil entity that will consume us all, I of course speak of... Microsoft. Hehehe couldnt resist that joke.

 

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: Syndrix ]

[JediTACC]

What really sucks about this is that I live in that 200,000 square mile area. All my life. If that Yellowstone area went up (Been to Yellowstone, nice place when your not thinking of what is under you...) I would be dead before I knew it. When Mt. St. Helens went (I wasn't alive, but anyway) the ash was like a snow storm over 400 miles from the mountain. My grandpa gathered over 7 seven gallons of the ash. It was like a very fine powder. I can't even think of what would happen if the Yellowstone place blew.

 

To me, the cup is only got a few drops left in it...

 

 

Also, I saw a quote that just made me laugh:

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

-Gen. Patton

 

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: JediTACC ]

[Guest Krayt Tion]

Actually, I've spent about a year of my life in a 3rd world country partaking in the hospitality of locals countless numbers of times. I know better then most what people have to live on and have to offer in "developing" places thank you very much. Oh well you couldn't have known.

 

The fact that people can get by with so little means nothing so long as there are plenty of other 'Western-types' that would glady take others' share (and then some) simply because they can. The resource problem is only as good as the worst link.

 

And while we are at it, let's ditch such a blatantly egocentric evolutionary interpretation. Seems my bug point went completely over your head. The issue here is "resilience" as Syndrix pointed out. Yep, hundreds of millions of years for a little bug that doesn't make tools, benefit from the exploration of its own consciousness, and can't piss its own name in the snow. We are simply not the 'superior' form of life on this planet evolved from all other forms of life.

 

If I had to guess if we will we survive as long as the cockroach, picking yes or no, the answer would be a definite no.

 

"But that is what the "human" factor of this discussion is based on, our own technology destroying ourselves."

 

Yes, such a thing happening by a person's or people's own will. This is a matter of faith, not science. I do not have faith in my fellow human being to the point where I would unflinchingly state that I felt my species has a secure place on this planet or anywhere else, even in my immediate lifetime.

 

edit: That quote is delicious, Syndrix.

 

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: Krayt Tion ]

[matt--]

Time for my 2 credits.

 

_-OIL-_

Sure. Oil will run out. As Wilhuf said, ethanol. But I don't think ethanol will make the best lubricant. Have no fear! There is some crazy thing called buckmeister fullerene molecule(C₆₀, if I recall correctly. An almost-perfect sphere made out of carbon. Also, plants can now be genetically altered to produce a substance that could potentially substitue oil in coming decades.

 

_-Terraforming-_

We should have began with the moon, directly after we landed, in my opinion. The cancellation of that new space shuttle project(I forget the name), is definitely a step in the wrong direction. The ISS is a step towards the goal, as is that guy(Tito something, right?)that had a vacation on the station. I pray that I'll be able to retire off-planet.

 

_-Big Volcanoe-_

I think they should drill. Use that useless oil equipment that we won't need in 80 years anyway. Hire some morons. "Oh yeah, there's oil down there..." It would releave the techtonic stress, gradually.

 

_-Asteroids, Comets, and meteors, oh my!-_

We've got to develop some sort of wide band collision detection system. How can we blow them up, if we have no clue where they are. Next up, shields and tractors.

[acdcfanbill]

i find your lack of faith dirtrubing, k-ti... but really i dont think that the whole of society will let the stupid people distroy humanity. i would drive a non-poluting vehicle... but there are no american ones yet, and, ya gotta love wheel spin on top of it... but i think humankind in general is a thoughful, curtious species, it is only the bad which get the attention, because we all know, "there is no news, like bad news" E. Carver (for you bond fans...)

[Guest Krayt Tion]

If you can make those kinds of promises to yourself, that's one less thing you'll have to think about bill, so more power to you I guess. However things don't always happen as planned, as expected, or even within probable estimations. There are some pretty obvious examples of things people never thought possible with war and destruction done by our own species, but they sure as hell happened anyway.

 

Different times, different circumstances, but the same lack of foresight and fooling of ourselves is still prevelant. What I find disturbing is the blind faith people put into to thinking things will definitely be alright. This encompasses just about everything that scares people when they don't want to look it in the face. This is also much different from hope springing eternal.

[Wilhuf]

. I do not have faith in my fellow human being to the point where I would unflinchingly state that I felt my species has a secure place on this planet or anywhere else, even in my immediate lifetime.

 

That's a pretty safe conviction. Most people would probably not hold an unflinching belief in humanity's security. That is why there are so many US public institutions to actually help with humanity's security (e.g., the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), USDA, NOAA, Center for Diseases Control, FBI, and the US Agency for Internatioal Development (USAID), but to name a few).

 

All of these institutions take steps to help with the security, in one form or another, of residents of US and foreign countries. And it also explains why globally, defense expenditures take the lion share of public spending. To say nothing of the thousands of non-profit chartible groups who also strive to help out their fellow man.

 

This addresses the original question of this thread 'should we safeguard our species.' Governments have already shown the answer is a demonstrated yes.

 

We've lived with nuclear weapons for 56 years. And with biological weapons for more than 80 years. But gee whiz, the world hasn't come to an end.

 

I spent five years in a country that was militarily and politically dedicated to overthrowing the 'western way of living.' This country, armed with atomic weapons, tended to blame the 'imperialist West' and its 'capitalist consumption' for its problems. But nothing ever came of it, and that country no longer exists. Actually the eventual dissolution of this country went a long way toward reducing military tensions in Europe.

 

The arms treaties of the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., START) dramatically reduced the threat of nuclear war between NATO and the (now nonexistant) Warsaw Pact. The US and the USSR went to the 'Brink' but no further. The timing of this subtopic is appropriate: the US just yesterday destroyed the last missile nuclear missile silo required as part of the START Treaty. The world is being made safer.

 

I cannot imagine any realistic scenario, created by man, including nuclear war, that would actually extinguish humanity. There are settlements in so many remote parts of the world that would indeed be safe from burn, blast and fallout. Man has already demonstrated he can survive an 'ice age,' so I tend not to pay attention to the 'nuclear winter' doomsayers. I don't think man even has the capability to wipe itself out, even if it tried.

 

The fact that people can get by with so little means nothing so long as there are plenty of other 'Western-types' that would glady take others' share (and then some) simply because they can. The resource problem is only as good as the worst link.

 

The fact that people can get by with less means everything because it is proof that humans can survive without Western-style luxuries. We must not forget that our ancestors somehow survived without modern conveniences such as petroleum and electrification. This was true for the great majority of human history, for the great majority of the population. No reason to believe that humans couldn't survive future adversity.

 

What I find disturbing is the blind faith people put into to thinking things will definitely be alright. This encompasses just about everything that scares people when they don't want to look it in the face. This is also much different from hope springing eternal.

 

Are you concluding that optimists don't face reality because they are afraid? The same is true for pessimists: 'pessimists assume the worst in people because they are afraid.' It is impossible to ask 'how do I make the world better?' without first recognizing its problems to begin with.

 

It's easier to just throw one's hands up in the air and say 'oh yeah, people are evil and will destroy humanity' than to actually recognize that 'people' have and will continue to do good things for each other. It is harder to focus on how to continue to make life better, than to just say 'I give up, I trust noone.'

 

As long as man can focus on and improve upon the successes and advances of the past, mindful of past mistakes, and plan for the future, then we'll be fine. Dwelling on past failures alone isn't sufficient. It's the failure to focus on past successes in particular that is one of the greater threats to human security.

 

If you can make those kinds of promises to yourself, that's one less thing you'll have to think about bill, so more power to you I guess.

 

There is nobasis for the assumption that people with a positive outlook don't think about, recognize or do anything about world problems.

 

I would really like to know what is the point of living one's life assuming that society will somehow end? Does that somehow make one more 'prepared' for 'the bad times ahead?'

 

What does the adept nature of roaches have to do in any way with whether or not humans can survive in the long run? Should we adapt some of their traits or something so we can survive unchanged? How about we start breeding in horrendous numbers. We'll simplify our brains and genetic makeup, and live in dark recesses, eating waste. Somehow I don't think that will play in Peoria, sparky.

 

OT: If humans are not the 'superior' life form on this planet, then which one is, and can they even talk about it?

[matt--]

The duck-billed platypus of course!

[wardz]

Wilhulf started a very good point about it being "western philosophy"

 

I wonder what the oriental people would do or what slant they would place on this. I think the westerner's mentality has a lot to blame for the troubles in the world.

 

Recently Garry Kasparov came to my school to give a lecture because he awards scholarships... and he made some points about war and that if put into perspective are extremely petty. If you look at the troubles in the Middle East they are fighting over a bit of land which is no different to any other bit of land, but these two races have decided belongs to their "god."

 

I mean god is a fictional notion IMO and all religion has ever done is cause war, I don't mean to offend anyone here who is religious, but there is truth behind my arguement...

 

 

What are your views on this?

 

wardz

[Guest Kurgan]

Yeah, we've all got our share of problems, I don't think any human on the planet can claim that their philosophy or history is flawless. As a human race, we have a share in the blame and a share in the solution.

 

Of course I am not saying by any means that people today are responsible for what their ancestors did. All we can do is live with the consequences and try to make things better.

 

Personally, I think we should invest in colonizing the ocean and figuring ways to harness it's natural resources for our survival (hopefully in the least environmentally destructive way of course).

 

Mars is an option, but it's too far away to be pratical at the moment, the oceans are right in our own backyard (and make up more of the world than land masses).

 

Of course I think one of our biggest setbacks are the fact that we're constantly at war with one another, but that's a problem I don't know the answer to...

 

If we as a species didn't try to solve most of our percieved problems with violence, maybe we'd get somewhere for a change.

; p

 

As far as our being the "dominate species" I guess in terms of technical achievement, I think we can claim that (barring any hypothetical spiritual or extraterrestrial beings that may or may not exist alongside us). Sure as a group, insects take up more space and are evolving at a faster rate, but our effect on the world can't be ignored either.

 

We've gone into space and our technologies are always advancing (and of course with each new discovery comes the potential for both good and bad consequences).

 

I think if the human race did die off completely, the insects would "take over" again (as they did before the Dinosaurs), or some other niche species's.

 

But hopefully when the end comes it won't be our own fault, that would just be plain stupid, but I guess fitting. ; p

 

I'm sure the fuel crisis will solve itself shortly, or we'll have to go back to burning wood or something. Maybe there's a future in wind/solar/water power after all, assuming we don't invent cold fusion or something. Sure we might have to learn to get by with less (the "1st world" anyway), but at least we'd survive and still be able survive without having to live in caves or mudhuts or something (figuratively speaking).

 

As far as religion is concerned, I think it's arrogant and naive to make such assertions like "all religion does is cause war."

 

I guess you're condeming the thousands of belief systems all over the world, that you know nothing about. Janists for example would really take offense that you claim they are causing war. They don't even believe in killing insects!

 

Sure you have a right to your own opinion on "religion" but I think that too many people make the mistake of thinking that all religion is bad just because of a few crusades and inquisitions. Most wars are faught over economic, not ideological concerns.

 

Sure religion can be used as a cover for it, but there are plenty of cases in history of people with radically different religious beliefs coexisting peacefully and sharing culturally without bloodshed.

 

And there are also plenty of examples from history of people with virtually indistinguishable religious beliefs fighting and killing one another.

 

And of course I'm sure we can also think of a few examples of people with NO religious creed (or who are anti-religion) that have committed horrible atrocities, as bad or worse than the worst "religious" despots and fanatics. The sword cuts both ways my friend.

 

So I don't think religion is the problem, it's how people act. If they want use religion to justify (key word here) their depraved behavior, that doesn't prove that religion itself is bad.

 

If you want to get in a debate over this, I can list some examples and cite some sources to support my counter-claims. For one thing, most of what I've heard/read about the middle-east conflict has little to do with religious differences. After all, the Zionist movement was almost totally secular (most Orthodox Jews opposed the establishment of the state of Israel for example, while more secular, ie: non-practicing Jews supported it).

 

You could say the middle east conflict is an ethnic conflict (ethnic arab vs. ethnic jew), but it's being faught over LAND. Few people are actually using theological arguments to justify attacking each other. It's usually just "we won this land fair and square, now you get off" and "you killed some of our people, now we want revenge."

 

There is ideology behind it, but it's definately not Judaism verses Muslim theology here. Just ask conservative Jewish scholar and theologian Marc Ellis.

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[Guest Kurgan]

Oh and a quick note.. the sun isn't supposed to burn out for FIVE billion years (not one billion), if anybody didn't know.

 

No species that I know of has lasted five billion years, so I think chances are good we won't be around to see it anyway (whether we blow ourselves up or not, eventually everything comes to an end).

 

Heck, if we WERE around still in five billion years, we'd probably have figured a way to leave the solar system, though I admit it is a long way to the next planet we could inhabit, or maybe we could terraform a few moons or something. ; )

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

[StormHammer]

Hmmm...I dunno wardz. I don't think it's necessarily religion that causes wars. I think it comes down to a difference in beliefs, no matter whether they have a basis in religion, and there will always be someone with a particular belief who will attempt to force it onto others.

 

The conflict between different religions is probably just more visible. I mean, we even get the same thing on forums like these, where some people cannot seem to accept a belief or opinion different from their own, or even accept the right to have a different opinion. Sometimes these people do things to try and harm what they do not understand.

 

I think as a species there is an inherent part of us that abhors anything that is different from ourselves. Many of us have managed to overcome these destructive tendencies, but sometimes they arise. Just look at the ethnic cleansing that still goes on in Europe, Africa and other parts of the world. It appears that many people on the planet learned nothing from the Holocaust in WWII.

 

Fighting over land, or religion, or colour, all seems pointless to me. I will not go so far as to say that I am a pacifist - if my family was threatened, or even my way of life, I would probably fight to retain what I have. So I too am resistant to change - and it is this resistance that often leads to major conflict.

 

To be honest, I am not so concerned about our wars. I agree with Wilhuf that it will be very difficult for mankind to erase itself - although I will not say it is totally impossible.

 

I am more concerned about external influences - the things over which we have no control that can lead to extinction.

 

The effects of the comet that struck the earth 65 million years ago apparently wiped out over ninety percent of all life on the planet. Some pockets of life survived, notably on almost the other side of the planet. I understand that New Zealand escaped much of that catastrophe.

 

The Toba eruption in Sumatra apparently drove humankind to the edge of extinction - they think there were only a few thousand humans left, which is why there is so little biodiversity among the human species.

 

These are events that we would be unable to prevent today, even with all of our technology. And I feel that it is going to probably take another century of technological development before we can even hope to divert an asteroid from it's course, let alone a comet.

 

The delay may be for no other reason than politics, or the bane of all our lives, a lack of money.

 

I mean, let's face it, how many times has money been the single issue standing in the way of advancement? It seems absurd to me that we as a species have shackled our potential for development to pieces of paper and metal. If money were taken out of the equation, would we have a base on the Moon right now? Would we be making the first human steps on Mars?

 

I think in the near future we are going to have to make a serious choice between economies and survival of the species. How many other barriers have we torn down in order to advance? Money may become the biggest barrier of all - and I just hope that when the time comes, governments will see sense and put aside matters of finance to concentrate on ensuring that this spark of life on our planet is not snuffed out of the universe by some natural disaster.

 

As far as the Super-Volcano goes, someone suggested drilling in to relieve the pressure. All I can say is, have you ever tried lancing a blister on your own skin? The blister bursts. The same would happen in this scenario, because the magma chamber under the Earth's skin is under immense pressure. There would still be an eruption on a gigantic scale, potentially with 10,000 times the force of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

 

Although there may be some human survivors of such a catastrophic event, I think that much of the knowledge we have now would be last - the survivors would effectively be starting from day one yet again.

 

So how can we safeguard against the loss of knowledge, civilisation, in order to ensure that we can advance further as a species? We have seen the rediscovery of lost knowledge even over the last few thousand years - and we have rediscovered some of those things in the last century that were known many hundreds of years ago. We are always having to relearn - instead of having a solid foundation on which to build, and to continue our growth from the point at which it was interrupted.

 

Should we even try to be the guardians of knowledge and civilisation, perhaps of life itself - or should we simply accept the natural order of the universe and do nothing?

 

If we wish to continue on our course, then what must we do in order to ensure that happens? What timescale should we give ourselves to achieve some part of our master plan?

[Guest Kurgan]

I disagree.. I think difference isn't the reason we fight. I think it's that we want something that we can't have or are not entitled to (resources, power) and we use the difference as a JUSTIFICATION (since it's the easiest thing in the world to notice) for taking it no matter who we hurt.

 

For example, let's say you have two groups, and group A has something that group B wants. Group A isn't sharing, so Group B says "hmmm, how are these guys different from us." And they will use that difference as a reason to go to war and take what they want from A.

 

Note that there doesn't even have to be a difference to begin with, one can simply be invented. See propaganda materials from any war and you'll see what I mean. The only reason we do this is because people have consciences that feel guilty when they are just attacking somebody for no reason, someone who is just like them.

 

If you can fool yourself into thinking they aren't human, or are less than human, or are somehow less good than you, then it makes taking what you want easier.

 

So the solution would not be to erase all differences between people, but to train people to realize that differences are not necessarily bad and to accept them (tolerance). The other is to train people to be honest (that's a bit tougher) with themselves.

 

Kurgan

 

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]