[Ibon]

Not quite sure how watching billions of your fellow human beings die horrible deaths without lifting a finger to help will result in some marvelously more compassionate humans...but it's your fantasy...

I am only giving myself license to explore a theme that honestly I don't embrace or really believe. But there is probability here so why not explore eh?

You use nature's strategy which is to be quite merciful to the species by being merciless to the individuals. Remember, it is a flawed design that will extinguish itself, just like you see in any habitat. The elite will be able to rationalize the death of billions because they are making an improved version.

If you think that elites are not capable of this type of moral and ethical drift then it is you who are in fantasy land! All of this is probable.

I don't embrace it. I am just taking KJ's CRISPR lead in and taking it to its logical consequence.

As I said, why should we be exempt of that which we do to Sheep, cows, rice and soy?

My Mennonite ancestors are turning in their graves right about now!

[onlooker]

Wow, guys thanks you really got me into thinking about our future and with a bit more optimism. I submit to you that the genome tweaking will not create a more compassionate human. What I think will is the mutual harrowing ordeals to come. I do not think any region will escape this and the need to join and the mutual experiences felt will sear a bond among the survivors. We just are too numerous and are and have affected the "normal" environmental processes too much. What I am saying is that if one peers back into history one sees great compassion and empathy among one's group ie. tribe. So, the adage is we are a tribal species. The more so in times of emergency and warfare.

Well, my assertion is that one of the things that make this era so fascinating is how intertwined we are now as a species throughout the planet. The young now seem to see themselves as world citizens. Under this regime, I can envision and am seeing a totally new panorama of humanity seeking communion with each other as One Family. I am catching strong indications already of this. Are not any of you? So, I truly feel that if somehow the viability of the planetary support systems can hold, we could after the unfortunate die off of many, reconstitute under a much more benign ethos that is all inclusive and life affirming to attain harmony among and between each person and towards the sacredness of life and the planet and universe.

[dohboi]

Soooo, can we all just sing Kumbaya, then, and call it a day?!

ol wrote: "...more so in times of emergency ..."

Have read or heard of: ‘Paradise Built in Hell:’ How Disaster Brings Out the Best in People

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/22/a ... in-people/

[onlooker]

Well just read this :
In her 2009 book, A Paradise Built in Hell, author Rebecca Solnit describes how in the aftermath of natural and man-made disasters — such as the one unfolding in Japan — human beings tend to respond by banding together, not tearing apart.----
She is an optimist like me haha

[Ibon]

Soooo, can we all just sing Kumbaya, then, and call it a day?!

ol wrote: "...more so in times of emergency ..."

Have read or heard of: ‘Paradise Built in Hell:’ How Disaster Brings Out the Best in People

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/22/a ... in-people/

I second that motion but I sense there is a long post from KJ on the short term horizon.

[dohboi]

[KaiserJeep]

Not a long post, but one upon which you can hang either hope or dispair, as it suits you.

I am an admitted technocrat. I believe that technology is really what distinguishes us from all other terrestrial species. You can talk about bees/ants, mole rats, bower birds and coral reefs - but all pale in comparison to NYC.

We are going to save ourselves with technology. With CRISPR tech, I'm no longer so certain that it will be off the surface of this planet, but I am certain that we will exploit space for power and minerals and even organic gases (Jupiter being loaded with them). CRISPR will allow us to adapt humans to zero G environments, lower atmospheric pressures, and perhaps to manipulate controls with four appendages. Meanwhile, it would be equally possible to adapt humans to live on an Earth too polluted for original form humans to survive.

Perhaps the future of humanity is a multitude of human species, some who can interbreed, some who cannot - except with CRISPR assistance. Perhaps we will have killer cyborg soldiers, and nebbishes designed to live in human hives without access to nature, because natural landscapes no longer exist - or are already occupied with humans from the 1%.

Many future paths exist when one has power over your own species evolution.

[onlooker]

I have to say the fast paced advances in the field of genetics certainly offers hope to overcome some of the obstacles humanity will face to persevere including the part of reaching out to the cosmos. I have to agree that technology could be our "savior". Though it will always bee a double edged sword depending on how it is used. Nevertheless, we must all acknowledge the tragedy to unfold for millions and even billions. This is something difficult to appreciate in its dimensions and yes horror.

[dohboi]

The best two hopes for the living planet frankly are either the prompt extinction of its main parasite, us, or some kind of universal enlightenment that Ibon is thinking of where whatever humans survive at least have learned to live within our ecological limits, with or without advanced technology. In the mean time, we can all try to minimize our own contributions to the damage and fight those powers most responsible for perpetuation the major mayhem.

[KaiserJeep]

The best two hopes for the living planet frankly are either the prompt extinction of its main parasite, us, or some kind of universal enlightenment that Ibon is thinking of where whatever humans survive at least have learned to live within our ecological limits, with or without advanced technology. In the mean time, we can all try to minimize our own contributions to the damage and fight those powers most responsible for perpetuation the major mayhem.

I suppose that is the main distinction between us. I regard humans as the purpose the planet exists, and the planet itself is a ball of rock and magma with a thin skin of water and land supporting life. If I were to believe in a diety (I have no definate opinion) it would be a being not a rock. The Earth is the creche of humanity, and that is sufficient purpose and reason for it to exist.

To hearken back to the thread topic, if the human overshoot and everything resulting from it drives humans into space, or changes our nature and form in ways not imagined, then we don't need it anymore. We could choose whether to heal the ecosystem or to allow a long amount of time to pass so the ecosystem recovers naturally.

As for the incredible potential of CRISPR DNA edits of the human race, reflect upon the very first thing that it is being used for: editing out and replacing those DNA sequences that cause genetic disease. This will make humans more healthy and longer-lived, and in the end, seems likely to cause human populations to explode to new and higher numbers than would have been possible before some of the natural checks to reproduction were eliminated. The basic problem of overshoot remains, however powerful, there is no answer in CRISPR that I can see.

[Ibon]

I regard humans as the purpose the planet exists, and the planet itself is a ball of rock and magma with a thin skin of water and land supporting life. If I were to believe in a diety (I have no definate opinion) it would be a being not a rock. The Earth is the creche of humanity, and that is sufficient purpose and reason for it to exist.

You will not find an evolutionary biologist on the planet who has this view looking at the evidence. Which leaves this in the realm of belief and religion. And yet you are ambiguous or agnostic around the existence of a creator.

[KaiserJeep]

Ibon, if you have actual evidence of a diety I'd like to see it. I thought the prevailing opinion among scientists was that there was no diety. I also thought that by definition symbiotic organisms were combinations of two species, not millions of diverse species.

By default I am a Secular Humanist until I see some evidence of a diety.

[Ibon]

Ibon, if you have actual evidence of a diety I'd like to see it. I thought the prevailing opinion among scientists was that there was no diety. I also thought that by definition symbiotic organisms were combinations of two species, not millions of diverse species.

By default I am a Secular Humanist until I see some evidence of a diety.

KJ, you misread my post or I wasn't clear. I am an atheist and believe in evolutionary biology. That excludes considering the planet is here for humans. That belief is in the realm of theology. I was actually trying to point out to you that it is inconsistent with science to believe that our planet is here because of humans as you stated. I was trying to understand your "belief system" since your view in inconsistent with astronomy , geology, and evolutionary biology. Can you elaborate?

[KaiserJeep]

We are confusing each other, I think. I meant to express the opinion that the Earth is not a living organism, it is a base to which clings a thin film of assorted life forms. Humans are the dominant species and are subjugating and displacing and consuming other species.

Humans are the penultimate extreme of planetary evolution, and the first species that has a decent chance of leaving this ball of dirt and going elsewhere. I regard that as the next step forward. I don't have any regard for remaining in place or attempting to bring about a steady state in the ecology of the planet. All living things grow - when they stop growing, we call it death.

Humans have just about peaked on this planet. But we could add billions of humans to the Earth/Moon neighborhood and Trillions to the "Goldilocks Zone" at this distance from the Sun.

To believe that we must remain on the planet of our birth is to abandon growth. That is the beginning of the death of our species.

[dohboi]

"Humans are the penultimate extreme of planetary evolution..."

Yup, that's religious ideology for ya!

[Ibon]

Humans are the penultimate extreme of planetary evolution, and the first species that has a decent chance of leaving this ball of dirt and going elsewhere. I regard that as the next step forward. I don't have any regard for remaining in place or attempting to bring about a steady state in the ecology of the planet. All living things grow - when they stop growing, we call it death.

Humans have just about peaked on this planet. But we could add billions of humans to the Earth/Moon neighborhood and Trillions to the "Goldilocks Zone" at this distance from the Sun.

To believe that we must remain on the planet of our birth is to abandon growth. That is the beginning of the death of our species.

History shows the rise and fall of civilizations, sometimes due to resource constraints. Why should it be different this time? Why do you see that we have peaked as a species? I see absolutely no evidence of that in spite of the environmental imbalances we are causing.

We are not the first sentient species that has inhabited the planet and we are most likely not the last.

population overshoot is also cyclical in many species. In the case of humans technology and fossil fuels put the current cyclical overshoot on steroids. Nothing else than that. Certainly not anywhere close to an end point for our species that I can see. You see this current exponential growth cycle as requiring us to bust out of the orbit of our planet in order to avoid a correction which you equate with demise and extinction. That is very linear and strange. Why can't you just accept the ebb and flow of cyclical correction? And why is adding trillions to our solar system more tenable for you than learning how to self regulate our population and consumption on our mother earth? Which of these two options is more rational?

No need to leave this ball. It is remarkably resilient as is our species. No exit strategy required.

In many ways KJ you resemble the AGW fanboys you so often target as being irrational. Like Cid who sees extinction in the short term you do as well if we don't leave our orbit.

[KaiserJeep]

OK, now I'm getting confused. I know of no other sentient species in Earth's history. Enlighten me, please.

Are you not anthromorphizing a lifeless ball of dirt, a mere substrate that supports life, with the term "Mother Earth"?

Lastly, the reason I see humans as nearing the end of existence on Earth is because we will not go quietly into the night. Apes do not do that. When ape tribes are in conflict over limited food, they fight with every weapon they have, then consume the bodies of the dead. We have these:

...if only a fraction get detonated, you will see a few thousand degrees of global warming in a short period.

I'm hoping we have viable off-Earth habitats before then. I don't think the Earth will be sterile afterwards, only that thousands of years must pass before larger lifeforms again exist. The oceans must be restored, then the topsoil that heated up a few hundred degrees.

[onlooker]

I think you guys are getting a bit confused with definitions, sentient simply means to be able to sense and perceive. Consciousness is self awareness. Perhaps for the purpose of distinguishing humans from other animals we should classify humans as uniquely capable of abstract cognitive thinking by virtue of our mastery of language. Though a few other species seem also to possess those capabilities

[KaiserJeep]

I think you guys are getting a bit confused with definitions, sentient simply means to be able to sense and perceive. Consciousness is self awareness. Perhaps for the purpose of distinguishing humans from other animals we should classify humans as uniquely capable of abstract cognitive thinking by virtue of our mastery of language. Though a few other species seem also to possess those capabilities

Without disagreeing with that, the presence of other "sentients" by that definition doesn't seem to matter. Mankind is the great ape with all of the ape instincts intact, and nuclear weapons.

Just as our species is unprecedented on this planet, the ability of a single species to more or less destroy most individuals in most other species is also unprecedented. The degree of human overshoot is also unprecedented. I don't see any possibility of a peaceful, survivable solution, if you limit the places we inhabit to the surface of this planet.

[onlooker]

I also, feel that our destiny SHOULD be to venture into Space. Heck, I grew up watching Star Trek and loving it. But, I hope that it will be less out of necessity and more out of convenience to relieve population pressures, attain additional resources and prevent further damage to the Biosphere. Oh and to fire our imagination and zest for life by "boldly going where no man has gone before"