Sep 18, 2011 -- 1:38PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Just because evolution is a natural process doesn't mean we haven't already done stupid things that have damaged the planet, perhaps irreparably.   Maybe the New Agers are correct who believe that eventually a pole shift will result in many currently inhabited areas being flooded and wiping out most humans.   Something that massive may be what it takes as I'm uncertain that we have sense enough as a species to restrain our greed as much as will be necessary to keep ourselves from extinction.   I know one thing: I wouldn't want to live within a hundred miles of any coast.

Humanity has learned to live in every climate on earth - including the most inhospitable.  Humanity has the ability to direct choose to affect its own existance toward the goal of its choosing like no other species.  Why worry about any of it?  Humanity has the best chance of almost any species to survive - it really matters not the change, does it?  As far as 'irrepairable damage', if you believe in evolution, what we do as a species, is it not meant to be?

P.S. - When I step out of my box into what I consider non-spiritual, I am quite a bit stoic...no offence meant to anyone with these thoughts of mine...

Sep 18, 2011 -- 3:26PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Sep 18, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Lonesentinel wrote:

Humanity has learned to live in every climate on earth - including the most inhospitable.  Humanity has the ability to direct choose to affect its own existance toward the goal of its choosing like no other species.  Why worry about any of it?

Why worry? Well, for one thing, because we can make our own choices and can adapt doesn't by any means assure that we can overcome the effects of overpopulation and depletion of resources, both of which may already have exceeded our control. I'd certainly like to think that things aren't that bad, but I'm increasingly apprehensive that we've already assured our own extinction.  

Humanity has the best chance of almost any species to survive - it really matters not the change, does it?

Dependence upon nuclear reactors is one change people have made that the Japanese have dramatic reason to question the wisdom of. Indeed, nuclear waste storage is something else that may also result in our extinction since all we can do with it as yet is to stick it near reactors or somewhere uninhabitable and hope our efforts to maintain its stability or secure it work well enough. As a species, we have a documented history of developing chemicals and technologies that later prove more hazardous than first envisioned, largely because we went for the advantages more or less out of ignorance.  

As far as 'irrepairable damage', if you believe in evolution, what we do as a species, is it not meant to be?

Hardly. Predestination and evolution are not at all related.    No offence taken, and none meant when I suggest that you do some reading on how evolution operates. You don't appear to have much knowledge of it judging by what you say here. 

Wow.  You question our 'extinction'?  What do you think is going to exterminate us that we have set in motion?  How can you come anywhere near such a conclusion?

Secondly, you talk about control.  Do you truly believe we have or can control ANYTHING that could cause 'extinction'?  Would you give up on 'gene' research?...how about finding the cure for cancer?

In your last statement, you said predestination - how did you get that out of anything I said - particularly in this thread?  What preconceived notions do you have about my understanding of evolution?In a nutshell, evolution to me is 'survival of the fittest' at the most grand of scales in life...what is it to you?

Again, no offence is meant.  Your worry of such is probably akin to my worry of our nation 'exterminating' itself via internal strife - though most scoff at that idea as well.  But this is another topic not akin to extinction of our whole species...

Sep 18, 2011 -- 6:52PM, Lonesentinel wrote:

. What do you think is going to exterminate us that we have set in motion?  How can you come anywhere near such a conclusion?

What I said was that I think it quite possible we've set in motion processes that may render the planet incapable of sustaining human life. In short, we've already brought about our own extinction.

I certainly hope not, but I think that climate change and melting of the polar ice and glaciers are results of our dependence upon fossil fuels as Solfeggio alluded to. If so, we need to reduce our reliance upon them immediately in the hope that that might help reverse what scientists fear will soon become irreversible if it isn't already. 

Secondly, you talk about control.  Do you truly believe we have or can control ANYTHING that could cause 'extinction'?

 

Maybe we're not understanding each other at all, but I thought nuclear waste storage gone wrong a very good example of something that might easily bring about our extinction.

DDT was a pesticide once thought safe enough to spray it on PEOPLE. We learned to our dismay that it was far more toxic than we thought. My point is that we're not as smart or as invulnerable as we tend to think we are. 

Whether or not we can halt the ice melting by reducing fossil fuel emissions isn't a certainty but doing so beats doing nothing, I'd say. It's certainly worth a try. 

Would you give up on 'gene' research?...how about finding the cure for cancer?

Neither of which will do us any good to speak of if we damage our environment to the point that we can't fix it and can't survive. 

In your last statement, you said predestination - how did you get that out of anything I said - particularly in this thread?

When you asked, "As far as 'irrepairable damage', if you believe in evolution, what we do as a species, is it not meant to be?", I understood you to be saying that whatever we humans do is somehow part of a grand design that will work out just fine in the long run, a form of predestination. 

Your question was rather confusing. If that is not what you meant, then please say it another way.

In a nutshell, evolution to me is 'survival of the fittest' at the most grand of scales in life...what is it to you?

I have no idea what "the most grand of scales in life" means and thus cannot see what its relevance may be to the process of evolution. Please explain.

Survival of the fittest could easily mean microbes outlast humankind if we pollute or otherwise damage the planet sufficiently. Technically, that's not what the phrase means, but if we render the planet incapable of sustaining human life, there'll be no survival of the fittest as far as we're concerned.   

One of the more unfortunate Aspects of the unfolding General Ecological Catastrophe is that many well-intended but naive Folks seem to think that it's all about "Global Warming" and that all we have to do is get a Bunch of smarter Technology Fixes -- funny-looking Light Bulbs, more efficient Vehicles, eat less red Meat, and we'll scrape by okay ...

It's MUCH bigger and deeper than that ...

Sep 18, 2011 -- 8:41PM, Ebon wrote:

Sep 18, 2011 -- 12:07PM, Lonesentinel wrote:

So...if the arctic ice melts,  Humankind will not survive?

Under current estimates, humanity would survive but our society would be massively different. Firstly, we'd be a lot more cramped, our diet would have to change (which may not be a bad thing) and there would be huge pressure over space and resources. See Ben Elton's "Blind Faith" for a pretty good estimate (ignore the hopelessly naive religious and political stuff that kicks in about halfway through).

no disagreement...quality of the lives we in the western hemisphere may be drastically altered, but that is a far statement from saying the human race will become extinct.  Maybe ill check out this 'Ben Elton' sometime...