The Future of Humanity

Re: The Future of Humanity

Builder wrote:

This is from an Amerindian in the Amazon, watching a logging crew in action.

"They are taking Her skin. How will She breathe?"

Great quote.

I, ever the pessimist, also voted drink and be merry.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I guess it depends on what is meant by "the moment." I'm not ready to sign up for 20 credit cards and max them out with no intention of paying them back yet.

Let me know when you change your mind and what financial institutions you plan to default on, if you do it en mass with enough others I could go short on the decline of the financial institution's securities Razz

stuh505 wrote:

Science and technology is the cause of the problem, not the solution. Moreover, we've started a natural process which is also exponential but with a much higher factor than the rate of technology.

Given that the same results can and have been be achieved with low-tech (witness Ireland's lack of trees and consumption of peat, witness examples of low-tech India's desertification and wide spread environ desecration) I question that science and technology per se is the cause of the problem unless you want to exempt all science and all technology from primitive destructive farming, open-pit smelting, the list is immense.

Whether we have started a "natural process which is also exponential but with a much higher factor than the rate of technology" is something you have not demonstrated given your up-to-now lack of definitive predictive ability as per a technooglcial exponential extrapolation. Remember however I am not referring to the earth surviving nor is that the topic of this thread per se.

However I will make it clear I assert it's the insanely burgeoning population itself that is the root cause, and not science and technology, for the simple reason that a modest population could maintain a "bad" science and technology lifestyle, and be of no consequential effect on the earth as a whole, and thus our survivability on the earth would be rather more secure.

0 Replies

Well I'm not going to squash ticks over what the true "root" cause is. My point is that greater technology allows fewer people to do more damage. A few people can operate a nuclear reactor and do more damage than that many peat farmers.

Technology is not an exponentially growing process, it only appears exponential during the first half of the sigmoid. Face it, those days are over...there is still advancement to be made but the observable conclusions in science have mostly all been made now, the fundamentals of most fields determined.

We can continue to increase efficiency percentages but I think the fact is that we've adopted cultural lifestyles that simply aren't sustainable in the long term. Cities, factories, cars, and lumber...

Quote:

Whether we have started a "natural process which is also exponential but with a much higher factor than the rate of technology" is something you have not demonstrated given your up-to-now lack of definitive predictive ability as per a technooglcial exponential extrapolation.

Well that's why I said "I think/I guess/I predict" and not "I know." What I do know is that every degree hotter the avg surface temperature gets, that puts more water vapor in the atmosphere. I also know that water vapor absorbs UV radiation and that heats things up more. I know that this fits the definition of an exponential process. I know that this process is truly exponential, in that it will never slow down until all the oceans are gone. I don't know the ammortized rate but since technology isnt really exponential I know it is, or will be, growing faster. I know this system can become unstable and I know it has happened on other inner planets. I know that CO2 also absorbs UV radiation and I know that its about to be hotter than anytime in the last million years because of this. What I do not know is exactly how hot it will get and if it will be enough to leave the stable cycle we've been in. I only guess that it is, and I am not really interested enough to bother deeply researching it or doing the math...because its out of my control, and whatever happens, happens.

0 Replies

Not "peat farmers" Zeek, peat burners! And absolutely yes it can change environs. This kind of burning can radically change the world environ, if in combination with all the other low tech contributors as discussed.

The fact of the matter remains that most of the species that have ever existed are extinct, and not because of technology or science. Further the cat, the rat, the rabbit and the cane toad are prime examples that low / no tech can have dire consequences vis-a-vis Australia.

Are you going claim that if there was a consistent 10 million people in the world, there would be consequential survvivialbity problems in the foreseeable future even if each drove a Hummer H1, had their own private jet, 200 foot yacht and lived on 50 acres each?

I'll be you dollars to donuts you won't be able to, hence my perspectives that it's the insanely burgeoning population itself that is the root cause, and not science and technology.

I wholly disagree that you or anyone else can possibly know what part of the exponential curve technology stands at, but it's absurd to think there won't be a time when there is star travel, and cybernetics, and dramatic life extension, and artificial intelligence just to name a very-very few.

That you claim "those days are over" is the height of myopic hubris!

0 Replies

When I said that technology was the problem not the solution, I did not mean to imply that technology was the only problem. I only meant that our technology contributes more harm than good.

0 Replies

A claim you have yet to substantiate my peat burning friend Smile

0 Replies

Why don't you disprove me and then I'll find a flaw in your proof. That sounds easier.

0 Replies

Come now Peat, you don't want to wander down the path of logical fallacies do you?

To wit: you want me to disprove an argument you have neither well established in terms of its parameters, nor provided substantive rationale for, in combination with being dismissive of the obvious correlation between population and negative global effects (notably lacking a logical counter to said correlation) and then you want to "find flaw in" my "proof" of your poorly established claim?

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning

You say "technology contributes more harm than good"
And naturally enough I say "A claim you have yet to substantiate my peat burning friend"

I hope you don't mind the teasing about peat moss.

0 Replies

Quote:

Come now Peat, you don't want to wander down the path of logical fallacies do you?

I'm well aware that it is the claimant's job to substantiate their own claims.

Quote:

To wit: you want me to disprove an argument you have neither well established in terms of its parameters, nor provided substantive rationale for,

No, that was a joke

Quote:

... in combination with being dismissive of the obvious correlation between population and negative global effects (notably lacking a logical counter to said correlation)

I was not dismissive of that at all. I stated my agreement on that.

Quote:

and then you want to "find flaw in" my "proof" of your poorly established claim?

That technology is harmful to the environment is poorly established? I think not...you don't even need to look for evidence to prove my claim. You need only look to the definition of words involved. Technology is man-made. Natural is not man-made. Therefore technology changes(eg, harms) nature(eg, environment). Moreover nearly every technological invention contributes to some form of pollution, and every single technology that is an environmental boon is just a means of reducing the damage caused by technology in the first place.

Quote:

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning

I'll sit this one out, I don't like to dance

Quote:

You say "technology contributes more harm than good"
And naturally enough I say "A claim you have yet to substantiate my peat burning friend"

I'd say that the more outrageous claim is yours, that "technology does more good for the environment than bad." You haven't come out and spoken that as your claim, but since it is the only thing that contradicts my claim, I infer it.

Quote:

I hope you don't mind the teasing about peat moss.

Not at all

0 Replies

When you say "technology is man-made" then you will need to explain what a chimp does when he makes a "fishing rod" for termites. The "fishing rod" is a tool and as such qualifies as technology. Many animals, including birds, make and use tools thus humans are not the only animals to make tools in nature.
http://www.units.muohio.edu/dragonfly/tools/chimptools.shtml

When you say "natural is not man-made" you will need to explain how the product of Man's natural intelligence is not natural. And you will then need to explain how the product of a Chimpanzee's natural intelligence is natural. Good luck Mosrite. http://www.mosriteguitars.com/

Your conclusion that "technology changes (eg, harms) nature" is not definitive by default, as you have yet to substantiate your claim my peat burning friend.

When you say "nearly every technological invention contributes to some form of pollution" should I assume you mean pollution by default is harmful to the environment? If so, do you also claim volcanism harmful to the environment? No, I don't mean wearing a Spock mask! For edification:

Quote:

Atmospheric pollution from major volcanic eruptions can influence the global climate over one to two years. Explosive volcanic eruptions can inject large quantities of dust and sulphur dioxide, in gaseous form, to an altitude of over 10 miles into the atmosphere (the stratosphere), where the sulphur dioxide is rapidly converted into secondary sulphuric acid aerosols. Whereas volcanic pollution from smaller eruptions, ejected only a few miles into the atmosphere, is removed within days by rain, the volcanic dust and aerosols in the stratosphere may remain for up to two years, gradually spreading over much of the globe by winds.

Volcanic pollution results in a 5 to 10% reduction in direct sunlight, largely through scattering as a result of the highly reflective sulphuric acid aerosols. Large eruptions, such as the Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines which occurred in 1991, can bring about a short but noticeable global cooling of up to 0.3°C.

It is possible the longer term changes in the amount of volcanic activity on the Earth may explain incidences of longer term climate change during Earth History. 66 million years ago, at about the same time as the extinction of the dinosaurs, massive amounts of lava were being erupted on the Indian sub-continent, at that time drifting North towards Asia, having separated from Australia and Antarctica. These immense lava flows, now known as the Deccan Traps, released huge quantities of gases, including sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. Theories concerning the climatic impact of such emissions vary. Some suggest that an initial severe global cooling may have occurred as result of a reduction in the amount of incoming sunlight, scattered and reflected by the secondary sulphuric acid aerosols. Others suggest that the extra volumes of carbon dioxide enhanced the Earth's greenhouse effect, causing a longer term global warming. Whatever the climatic effects were due to, it is likely that they were responsible for the mass extinction of living species that occurred at this time, including not just the death of the dinosaurs, but many other living organisms on land and in the oceans.

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Climate_Change/Older/Volcanoes.html

You say "and every single technology that is an environmental boon is just a means of reducing the damage caused by technology in the first place." If you are correct, are you claiming this ongoing reduction in damage as a bad thing? Am I to assume that your use of the word "just" is intended to play down the potential importance of successively less damaging technologies?

Sir Stirling Moss, you say I imply that "technology does more good for the environment than bad." Sorry but that's a straw man, I said no such thing, but you're welcome to draw whatever inferences you please, incorrect though they are in this case.

'Ol peat burner I still await substantiation of your claim that "technology contributes more harm than good". Understand that it's explicitly given in your claim that technology is the causation of more harm than good.

In any case, inventing different names for you with references to moss is amusing and I share your concern (if not necessarily your logic) about our future.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

When you say "technology is man-made" then you will need to explain what a chimp does when he makes a "fishing rod" for termites. The "fishing rod" is a tool and as such qualifies as technology. Many animals, including birds, make and use tools thus humans are not the only animals to make tools in nature.

Primitive tool use by animals is a real stretch to be considered technology.

technology

noun
1. the practical application of science to commerce or industry

Quote:

When you say "natural is not man-made" you will need to explain how the product of Man's natural intelligence is not natural. And you will then need to explain how the product of a Chimpanzee's natural intelligence is natural. Good luck Mosrite.

No I don't, because its just a definition.

ar·ti·fi·cial /ˌɑrtəˈfɪʃəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-tuh-fish-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural):

One definition for natural (above) simply means not man-made. The other definition means essentially the normal thing to occur in the absence of man. But since we know that man's occurence itself is natural then that also implies that all of man's actions are natural...an apparent contradiction.

Quote:

Your conclusion that "technology changes (eg, harms) nature" is not definitive by default, as you have yet to substantiate your claim my peat burning friend.

Although the word "harm" does not equal "change" in the general sense, I would argue that in the context of the environment they are equivalent because our opinion of what is natural is simply that which exists without man's influence. Therefore any change we make to the environment is destroying the natural and creating the artificial.

Quote:

When you say "nearly every technological invention contributes to some form of pollution" should I assume you mean pollution by default is harmful to the environment?

Yes, once again by definition:

pollution

noun
1. undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities

Quote:

If so, do you also claim volcanism harmful to the environment?

No by the definition I use only human acitivites can be considered pollution

Quote:

You say "and every single technology that is an environmental boon is just a means of reducing the damage caused by technology in the first place." If you are correct, are you claiming this ongoing reduction in damage as a bad thing?

No, I didn't say that...environmentally friendly technology is designed to reduce the changes that other technologies make on the environment, and since environmental harm is the change of the environment, then this reduction in the change of the environment would be considered good if environmental harm was considered bad

Quote:

In any case, inventing different names for you with references to moss is amusing and I share your concern (if not necessarily your logic) about our future.

Ah, but I'm not concerned...evolution has made us in a way that our self destruction is inevitable and I'm not going to pine over it. No matter how bad conditions get, humans can always normalize to the situation..and if we go extinct, maybe someday there will be a new intelligent race that will get a kick out of worshiping our bones.

0 Replies

Way

0 Replies

I see. Well then apparently you should be arguing with the writers of all the dictionaries I have been citing, and not me...

0 Replies

If you believe that a few partial quotes from dictionaries can support logical fallacies and specious reasoning then you have homework to do. You actually have to support your perspectives with realistic reasoning and congruent logic and examples of scientific methodologies etc.

I'm off, nice chatting with you.

0 Replies

Chum-

While you're on.

Why is the Canadian cricket team mainly composed of persons who obviously did not descend from the first settlers. And the most useful part too.

Have traditional Canadians got slow hand/eye co-ordination or what?

0 Replies

Alas, my rapier wit is as dull as an aging beaver pelt when it comes to repartee on Canadian history and sports.

However, given that Ethiopia was likely the cradle for Homo sapiens, and the loss of cutaneous melanin was a direct consequence of lower levels of sunlight and the need for higher vitamin D production efficacy; are we not all "first settlers" in some romantic if not real sense?

0 Replies

Some interesting concepts there, Chumly and Stuh. (or is that Peat? :wink: )

Looking at our history to determine our possible future is one way to make a prediction. But how about what is actually happening right about now in our first-world nations?

Warlike, and almost savage ourselves, we are pointing the finger at other nations for doing what our nations are doing ourselves. That being invasion, political overthrow and regime change, endless negative propaganda, and often outright blackmail through trade sanctions. Not to mention sanctioning torture of a medieval kind.

Are these the kind of examples we want to set for emerging nations?

I thought we were supposed to be the "civilised" ones?

0 Replies

The Future of Humanity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know