Scientist looking forward to human extinction
by KrauzeWriting in Nature, professor of biology Chris D. Thomas bemoans the environmental damages caused by human activity. But not to worry, he says. In a few million years, humans will be extinct.
The geological perspective of Terra is bizarrely reassuring. Humans will presumably be gone within a few million years, perhaps sooner. If the past that Novacek describes is a guide to the future, global ecosystem processes will be restored some tens of thousands to a million years after our demise, and new forms of life over the ensuing millions of years will exploit the denuded planet we leave behind. Thirty million years on, things will be back to normal, albeit a very different 'normal' from before. It is good to be optimistic. The problem is living here in the meantime.
Robin Hanson wonders: "Yet if a plague, for example, were to produce this outcome within the next ten years, I'm pretty sure most everyone would see this as a catastrophe of the highest possible order. So how does this become a good thing if it happens in the next million years?"
More on scientists cheering for the death of humans here.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:16 am
Except for the Chris D. Thomas types.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 20, 2007 @ 4:16 am
November 20th, 2007 at 5:05 am
It's the Secular Rapture. What's wrong with that?
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2007 @ 5:05 am
November 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Raevmo,
You're having too much fun lately.
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 10:57 am
November 20th, 2007 at 11:12 am
For those who believe in such things (not me )the rapture is not the extinction of people from the earth it's the first step in a golden age of human habitation of the earth known as the millennium.
Honestly what they teaching folks in school these days.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 11:12 am
November 20th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Like punctuation, spelling and grammar?
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 11:36 am
November 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
The Matrix as valid theology, that's what.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 20, 2007 @ 11:38 am
November 20th, 2007 at 11:47 am
keiths:
You think? Even more fun would be if a catastrophe were to wipe out the male half (somewhat less than half actually) of humanity, except moi. I'm currently working on a virus that will destroy any human cell having a Y chromosome that doesn't match mine. Of course I am willing to make some more exceptions for the right price.
Hahahahahaaa!
[Note to eavesdropping law enforcement: just kidding]
Comment by Raevmo — November 20, 2007 @ 11:47 am
November 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
And Logan's Run as a valid societal model.
Variation on Frank Herbert's White Plague.
As mtraven said in the comment section over at Robin Hanson's site:
He was talking about his opponents. Ain't that funny, especially since he posted this too:
Asimov in 1956.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 20, 2007 @ 11:56 am
November 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Keiths
Apparently not where I went
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
LOL!!!!
Comment by Doug — November 20, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Bah. I don't like the new escapism any more than the old. Viva la new creation!
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — November 20, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Who is Rackne?
Comment by Doug — November 20, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Modern humans have only existed for about 50K years. If you look at the accelerating rate of change in human culture and technological abilities, it is almost impossible to imagine that we'd be around in our current form in a million years. Either we've killed ourselves off, or we've changed so radically that we would not be recognizably human.
The open question in that article is whether we're going to cause a mass extinction event in the next thousand years, a much shorter time frame and one where we can at least suppose we might be able to relate to our descendants, if we have any.
Comment by mtraven — November 20, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Not a surprise really, when you think about it. Having strong optimism for the future (Not 'the next 50 years', not 'after I die', but for the future, unending) is practically a hallmark of traditional religious thought, certainly western religious thought. If you emotionally reject religion that out of hand, you're left with apathy, a futurist angle (Which, despite the religious antagonism, looks religious and the believers know it), or actively expecting or even hoping for humanity's doom. And when option C is the only one your other mental commitments will permit, you have to look forward to it.
Gotta love a death cult.
Comment by nullasalus — November 20, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
That really is bizarre, even bizzonkerish.
From hooray for the black death:
That's really is the problem isn't it, the humans are just too unnatural. I got the impression back when the blogosphere was abuzz with what Pianka said about the Ebola virus, that these biologists/environmentalists are very uncomfortable with the fact that evolution has given rise to human beings, that is, to intelligent creatures. They seem to long for a nature that is purely "red in tooth and claw", and the existence of humans is a contradiction.
The nature that is supposedly red in tooth and claw is the same nature that produced a being that can transcend tooth and claw; a creature capable of altruism, charity, and even worship God. And so the pianka-types say to themselves: "Dammit if intelligence exists, we should use it to live as if nature really was red in tooth and claw, that is, as if intelligence didn't represent something that can transcend the Naturalists' "Nature", as if intelligence wasn't the refutation of that "Nature".
Because what would happen to the materialists' fantasy world when you actually have to include the person and personal reality — with everything that entails — into one's conception of reality. Wasn't it Schopenhouer that said "materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself"
Comment by Brian Killian — November 20, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
nullasus:
What in the world are you talking about? The Xian unending future is in heaven, the Earth they are more than happy to consign to an apocalyptic doom. There are whole bodies of though (eschatology) devoted to predicting (and hoping for) the End Times.
Comment by mtraven — November 20, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
1st, it's Christian.
2nd, in Augustine's "The City of God" he argued that the Christian is to exist in two realms: the earthly city and the heavenly city. The Christian has responsibilities in both of the realms; neither is to be neglected.
Comment by Doug — November 20, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Mtraven,
Feel free to read my link to have your misconceptions corrected.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — November 20, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Xian? It's Christian! Do you want keiths swaggering in here correcting your spelling, citizen?
(And yes, I know it's an accepted shorthand, just messing around.)
Anyway, this one always surprises me. There's baptists, lutherans, anglicans, catholics (coming in various rites, themselves another issue), quakers, mennonites, and far more divisions of thought in Christianity. Ideas of heaven and afterlife range from Emmanuel Swedenborg's view of a mental eternity to Peter Van Inwagen's physicalism. The apostles' creed speaks of the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Others talk about a renewed heaven and earth – as in a very physical existence.
Either way, that doesn't really do much against what I said. Humanity is not wiped out in Christian thought, and the people who look forward to an apocalypse don't do so with the hopes that humanity gets wiped out.
Comment by nullasalus — November 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
mtraven
The Christian hopes for a renewed earth not a mystic nirvana. That 's Buddhism. We pray "thy kingdom come" remember.
The end times are when evil is removed and the earth is purified and restored not destroyed. Sure the earth is radically transformed but there is a continuity with the present cosmos.
In the end heaven and earth will become the same place (Rev 22:3-5). That is the goal of all Christians we only argue about the details.
You have got a lot to learn about us Bible thumpers. I think you are confusing us with the straw men you meet in the movies.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I agree.
I was never taught that Christians should hope for the destruction of the earth and humanity. On the contrary, it was made plain to me that were it not for God and Christ, we would destroy ourselves and none would be saved.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 20, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
As a matter of fact and on topic, isn't our (humanity's) annihilation exactly what our "enlightened" brethren keep saying their goal is? They just want to do it in a slower and more controlled fashion than out-and-out war so they can preserve their own hides.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 20, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I'm kinda hoping this works out.
Comment by Guts — November 20, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Let's grant that there is a wide variety of religious thought within Christianity. That said, there is unquestionably a large fraction of it devoted to glorying in the idea of apocalyptic destruction of the earth and its resident sinners while the smug faithful get raptured off into their smarmy idea of heaven.
Comment by mtraven — November 20, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Indeed, mtavern – that faction does exist. However the faction that does this tends to be one not very anchored in historic Christianity.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — November 20, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
mtraven wrote:
Some of them not only glory in it; they want to hasten it.
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 6:23 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
mtraven
I can't believe I'm actually doing this on a science site.
The group of Christians you are referring to are dispensationalists they believe that the next event to happen in the story of redemption is a secret rapture when Christians will be temporarily removed from the earth. This event will be followed by seven years of "tribulation" in which the earth is prepared for their return and a golden age of Christ's rule. This golden age will happen on the same earth we live on now. There is no extinction of humanity and no destruction of the earth at the rapture.
Here is a old chart from one of the founders of the movement that illustrates this point.
http://members.citynet.net/morton/images/ldispen.gif
Let me know If there is any thing else I can help you with.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Leaving aside the scientists who talk happily about the hoped-for day when humanity is wiped out of existence, we still have interesting fellows like Christopher Hitchens talking about how happy they are that the communists marched off a good portion of the religious in eastern europe to their deaths, paving the way for the ascent of the proper believers.
But hey, all this is a nice distraction. Even with the most obnoxious apocalypse-obsessed division of christianity, the core difference remains – whatever 'apocalypse' is coming in their view is one that will result in humanity continuing to exist, thriving, and marching onward into eternity. It's a theme noticeably absent among prominent atheists. Funny how no one's denying that, but instead clinging to depictions of the extreme end of the rapture faction.
Comment by nullasalus — November 20, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
WfO said:
I can't imagine why I should care. They exist, they exert a huge influence, and they are screwing up the world. Whether their doctrine is anchored in historic Christianity or in stuff that was made up last week does not really matter to me.
The stuff nullasus keeps spouting is so senselessly counterfactual that I don't know how to respond. The Christian apocalypse is the basis for a series of bestselling books. It's not a fringe belief, although it should be. But I doubt you can produce one prominent atheist who wishes to bring about humanity's extinction.
Comment by mtraven — November 20, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
keiths:
That's nothing new. Christians have hoped for 2,000 years that they would be the generation that, unlike Jesus, gets to escape death. Yet death is still universal in all generations, just like it's always been.
But it wasn't priests or circuit riders who invented and continually perfects the means to accomplish our extinction, and it wasn't priests or circuit riders who deployed them. That those for whom such things are 'signs' from prophesy might believe such things are 'signs' from prophesy shouldn't surprise anybody.
The foolishness required to tempt such fate isn't exclusive to the religious, and it's not likely to be the religious who make it happen if it is to happen.
It probably won't be God either. It will be a paid professional liar (politician) using the power science gave to humanity.
Comment by Joy — November 20, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Mtraven
Allen Weisman has spent 14 weeks on the best seller list with a book entitled The World With Out Us does that count as prominent ?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
nullasalus wrote:
As I replied to John_A_Designer on another thread:
You really can't help yourself, can you, Null?
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
5mm:
Is he a "prominent atheist" Is he an atheist at all? And does his book actually advocate human extinction, or is it merely describing what it would be like? I haven't read it, but from what I've heard it is not advocating anything.
Comment by mtraven — November 20, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
mtraven wrote:
5mm replied:
No, because Weisman doesn't want to wipe humans off the planet. From an interview with NPR:
By the way, it's Alan, not Allen.
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Mtraven
I'm not sure Weisman is an atheist but he is a confirmed materialist. It comes out on every page.
For the most part the book is just a mediation on how wonderful it would be if we were gone but toward the end He does advocate only allowing one child per woman this will have the glorious effect of cutting the population in half each generation. It seems to me that this would eventually lead to our extinction but my math is sometimes as bad as my spelling.
By the way thanks again Keiths for the correction where were you when I was in grade school?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 20, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
And so keiths stumbles in, trying desperately to make at least one point that sticks.
Christopher Hitchens to the stand please.
So, keiths – what did Lenin 'do to' the Russian Orthodox Church? What actions did Lenin take to enable his great achievement?
Hitchens didn't couch what he said in exceptions. There he is, talking about Lenin's great achievement, and how the evil (Evil – So many atheists love that word as much as the most fire and brimstone preachers) church will never recover thanks to Lenin's great achievement.
In his defense, maybe he was just drunk off his ass at the time of this interview.
Comment by nullasalus — November 20, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Null,
Apparently my example went right over your head. Ask someone to explain it to you.
Comment by keiths — November 20, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
November 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
I'm asking you, keiths.
Christopher Hitchens, one more time.
Italics and bolding, naturally, by me.
So the question remains, keiths. Christopher Hitchens is here talking specifically about the actions Lenin took. And how Lenin confiscated church property, and 'dissolved, as far as possible, the influence of the church'. We all know how Lenin achieved that.
In the very next breath, Hitchens is calling the results of Lenin's work a great achievement (One of – apparently, he had more!), and he directly connects that to the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church not recovering to what Lenin did to it.
You're trying to spin this into 'no, no, Christopher Hitchens isn't condoning all the theft, torture, and murder Lenin inflicted on the Orthodox Church. No, he's just glad Russia is secular.' No wonder you're cutting and running. Hitch is a lot of things, but subtle he ain't.
Comment by nullasalus — November 20, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 12:22 am
But I doubt you can produce one prominent atheist who wishes to bring about humanity's extinction.
Name the prominent Christian.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — November 21, 2007 @ 12:22 am
November 21st, 2007 at 12:49 am
To be fair, that sort of dare is set up for bickering. People start debating what's prominent, or what counts as bringing about humanity's extinction, or if they personally want to do it or just hope it happens in a certain case. Have a look at keiths. He's pretending Hitchens is actually really upset at what Lenin had done to the christians in Russia. It's just the results of that he really likes! It gets nowhere.
Besides, this thread was started owing to someone cheerfully talking about the eventual (and to them, inevitable) wiping-out of humans. Apparently, 'looking forward to humanity being extinct, and no longer doing evil things like building roads or reproducing' is too low a bar.
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 12:49 am
November 21st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Null,
Is your own position so weak that it cannot stand unless you prop it up by pretending that your opponents support murder and torture?
Comment by keiths — November 21, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 1:10 pm
keiths wrote:
Did you really just make a comparative analogy between forced secularization and the defeat of the Axis? As if both were comparatively noble pursuits?
Comment by chunkdz — November 21, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 1:55 pm
No, Hitchens said it was Lenin's "greatest achievement". The word "achievement" includes the means taken to get there. There is no difference here between creating a secular Russia, and killing and persecuting believers. Since making Russia secular was inseparable from Lenin murdering people, one can't separate the admiration for the achievement from the means taken to accomplish it.
If Bush had become President by cheating, lying, fraud, bullying, and murder, and then I said "I think one of Bush's greatest achievements was becoming President, the Democrats will never recover from what he did to them." What does that imply? A great deal more than the sentiment "I think Bush makes great President."
Not that its objectively immoral to murder religious people, or lie, cheat, bully and murder your way to becoming President or anything.
Comment by Brian Killian — November 21, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Because no one supports bad things, right keiths? Who would ever advocate an action that would definitely result in death, just because it would bring about a greater good? Clearly everyone is against such things.
chunkdz,
Hey now, no one would ever advocate activity that would result in widespread theft, beatings, and murder on the grand scale! But, you know.. if those things were just to somehow occur and the result were a more secular state and a lot of dead and defeated people, well. A good is a good and we should celebrate it as a great achievement regardless of how it was gained.
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
For humans (that is, members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens) to go extinct does not necessarily require that we be "wiped out," any more than Homo erectus was "wiped out." What we are talking about here is the concept of chronospecies: that is, a species viewed as a snapshot in time of an evolving population of organisms. A million years ago there were no Homo sapiens sapiens, but no one necessarily "wiped out" the hominids that were here then. Rather, they evolved into us (and several other species of hominids, all of which apparently went extinct, cause(s) unspecified).
Is it likely that a representative of our descendants living a million years from now would be able to interbreed with one of us? Simply on the basis of random genetic drift over deep evolutionary time the idea is extremely unlikely. Will there be descendants of us living a million years from now? Quite likely. Do either of these assertions send me (a representative evolutionary biologist) into paroxysms of either joy or sadness? No, not any more than the knowledge that the sun (proper name Sol) will eventually expand into a red giant star and vaporize the Earth (proper name Terra). This is not something that keeps me awake at night.
And another thing: it is quite easy to cite examples like Pianka to "prove" that "evolutionists" are "nihilists." Any such attempt is pure, unadulterated character assassination, and says much more about the lack of logic and reasoning ability of the people making such an assertion than anything that it might say about evolutionary biologists as a group.
And one more thing: what does any of this (including speculations about the course of hominid macroevolution) have to do with science, which is entirely based on empirical induction based on observations of nature that necessarily happened in the past? Are we discussing science here, or science fiction?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 21, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
P.S. Looks like this thread's a new contender for "Shortest Reification of Godwin's Law" (look it up).
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 21, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
And check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 21, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Na, par for the course for certain contributers. Short version of "argument": Scientist/Atheist Bad, Fantasy God Good, Therefore Me Right.
Comment by Raevmo — November 21, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Allen MacNeill,
Greetings! Don't believe we've met.
Also, I'm sorry but.. who has been talking about evolutionists here? There was no mention of evolution in the original post. Sure, other scientists (like Pianka) have been discussed, and I've personally said why I think death cult style displays occur. But what you're talking disdainfully of here just hasn't happened in the thread.
One of these days, I'd love to see someone post the following comment:
"I was under the impression that this site was supposed to be dedicated to scientific debate and the exploration of supposed "intelligent design" at work in the world. MikeGene, this is a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head. Relevance?"
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Allen MacNeill,
Your post is sensible, but I think it misses the boat. That is, what should we say about those who would take delight in the extinction of the human race?
If they are atheists, I think we must find them supremely inconsistent. Human domination, viewed apart from God, cannot be viewed as good or bad. It just is. It is what deterministic nature "intended." Thus it makes no sense to delight in the death of the human race so as to allow nature to restore the earth to its natural state"”the state it is in at the moment, including all man-made effects on the environment, must necessarily be viewed as natural as any other. Man is either an animal, or he isn't. Which shall it be?
At least that's how I viewed the intent of this thread. It was related to a contradiction among many atheists: man is not special, he's just an animal, vs. man is special, his struggle to survive, and his alone, is an abomination or an aberration rather than natural.
Comment by David Heddle — November 21, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Hi Allen,
Sure, human extinction could come in the shape of us evolving into a different species. There just isn't anything to suggest that this is what the biology professor is talking about.
Comment by Krauze — November 21, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
In response to David Heddle:
The title of this thread is "Scientist looking forward to human extinction". However, when I read the actual article (it's a book review at the journal Nature), it seemed to me that the author of the review (Chris Thomas) was simply asserting that eventual human extinction is inevitable (as it is for virtually all species). Furthermore, there isn't the slightest hint in the paragraph quoted that this would come about by the human species being "wiped out." As I pointed out in my previous post, it is just as likely to assume that Homo sapiens sapiens will go "extinct" by evolving into a genetically different species. Indeed, with the advent of genomic engineering, this may happen in the surprisingly near term.
Furthermore, given that all species eventually go extinct, it seems to me that Thomas is being optimistic to think that "things" (i.e. species diversity, ecosystem integrity, etc.) will return to a condition similar to that preceding the current mass extinction at a future (unspecified) date. He says nothing about whether this might be accomplished because humans have gone extinct versus the possibility that human behavior might have changed in the interim in such a way as to avoid further damage to the biosphere.
And while it is true that one could interpret the phrase "looks forward to" as being equivalent to "predicts" (as in "looking forward in time"), it is clear to me (as it should be to any native English speaker) that the semantic content of the title for this thread strongly implies that Thomas (and, by implication, the author of the book he reviewed) thinks that the eventual inevitable extinction of humans would not only be inevitable, it would be a "good" thing (as in the other links in the opening post).
This is character assassination, pure and simple. Indeed, it is pandering by the author of the thread, as witnessed by the fact that many of the commentators took the poster's meaning in the latter sense, and agreed that "evolutionists" as a group agree with that interpretation of the last paragraph in the review cited. And who is being pandered to? The commentators themselves, whose prejudices against scientists in general and evolutionary biologists in particular are reinforced by such pandering.
This kind of character assassination, like that recently indulged in by BarryA at Uncommon Descent (in a series of posts in which he asserted that the Columbine and Finland school shooters were motivated by "Darwinism"), says much more about the attitudes and values of the people doing the character assassination than it does about their intended targets.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 21, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
MacNeill:
Yes indeed. I know Chris Thomas personally (I studied butterflies once upon a time, and Thomas is a leading butterfly biologist). He is an extremely humorous and kind human being and I would be hugely surprised if he longs for the demise of humankind. It takes a rather cynical and nasty attitude to read Thomas' Nature piece that way.
Comment by Raevmo — November 21, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Allen_MacNeill,
Since when do hypothetical results of genomic engineering qualify as 'evolution'? Once we've reached that point, we no longer need biological evolution to get us anywhere – indeed, it seems humans stopped requiring that to adapt and advance awhile ago. The definition of what it is to be 'human' would be up in the air as well – though that question's rather pertinent as it is.
No, quite a number of species have gone extinct. Sure, thinking that humanity (what is it to be human, again?) will be an exception is optimistic. Then again, we're already exceptional in quite a number of ways.
Again with the "evolutionists". But you're the first one to whip out that word in this thread. Evolution has hardly been mentioned at all, in fact. Are you sure you're addressing what's being said, or are you just going up against a convenient phantom? Or is this just an example of a kind of character assassination?
I believe in evolution. Common descent, old earth, the works – and I've gone on record as being hesitant, to say the least, about claims of identifiable ID at work. What's more likely – that this thread was about how people like me crave humanity's extinction, or that you seem to have either an unintentionally fragile or purposefully deceived grasp of what people here are saying?
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 7:53 pm
In response to nullasalus:
Once again, why was the post that initiated this thread entitled "Scientist looking forward to human extinction" Are you seriously suggesting that this specific phraseology was intended to convey the concept
"Individual who uses empirical hypothetico-deductive method to study nature predicts that human species will eventually go extinct"
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — November 21, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Allen_Macneill,
So, even though no one's been talking about evolution or "evolutionists" or darwinism throughout a thread that had been going along strongly before you arrived, you divined "evolutionist" because.. when someone says the word "scientist", clearly they mean 'evolutionist, who is a rat and should be condemned'? You're coming in here, criticizing the OP for what you think is a false reading of an author's words, while telling us what we REALLY mean but didn't say? Pot, kettle, and all that.
Oddly enough, I think "scientist" was used because it was an article by a scientist, in a popular science-oriented publication. Another recent thread on TT had the OP mentioning that Joan Roughgarden was an evolutionary biologist who reviewed an ID book. Was the OP slipping in 'evolutionary biologist' as a silent cue for us all to regard her as a villain?
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 8:29 pm
C'mon, let's get real. It doesn't matter that Thomas is a scientist. What's important to remember is that everyone should be entitled to their hopes and dreams. BTW, Ravemo, "Secular Rapture" was stellar. I'm going to have to use that from time to time. Very apt. Good on ya!
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 21, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 9:23 pm
nullasalus:
It looks like an attempt to play the victim card.
Logical enough.
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 9:53 pm
me:
WfO:
Pat Robertson. Tim LaHaye. They may not think they are calling for extinction, but they do crave a violent overturning of civilization by an immensely destructive war which they call Armageddon. Maybe they think it will all be dancing ponies and ice cream (for them, not me) afterwards, I don't care. Their hearts crave destruction, because they hate reality and want it violently destroyed so it can be replaced with their ridiculous delusions.
These people are in scarily close proximity to nuclear weapons, in both the Christain and Islamic world, which shares the apocalyptic worldview. These weapons were designed largely by secular Jewish physicists, but now are the means by which these frankly insane people can realize their visions of destruction.
If there are non-insane versions of Christian theology, where the incarnation of God in the flesh is somehow supposed to make us respect the material world, well, good. Those views sure don't get much press or political clout. Obviously Christian theology has a very fucked-up relationship with the real world. How does it go? God created it, is separate from it, but incarnates into it, then gets killed by it, but gets reborn and so redeems it, except not until he comes back again and oversees the slaughter of billions — what an immense confusion.
The apocalyptic mode is deeply ingrained in Western throught and so has its secular varieties as well — Marxism has it's own vision of apocalyptic conflict followed by paradise. The transhumanists/singulatarians are also driven by their "rapture of the nerds" visions. But it's the Christian one that has the most traction and the capacity to do the most damage.
Comment by mtraven — November 21, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
mtraven,
I am not a fan of Pat Robertson, and especially not of Tim LeHaye. But their eschatology–dispensational premillennialism–unsound as it may be, is not a wish for humanity's extinction. It is an incorrect version of something that, generically speaking, all Christians believe: namely that Christ will someday return, and his return will herald the end of human history on earth.
Comment by David Heddle — November 21, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Yeah, why don't these crazy religious people respect the material world? If they did, maybe they'd do some charitable acts, work towards peace, or even – God forbid – show concern for the environment.
mtraven, where do you get most of your information on Christianity? Forums and Morel Orel episodes?
Also, I like how 'Name the prominent Christian who wants to bring about humanity's extinction' yields two names and 'Okay, so they don't want to bring about humanity's extinction, but..'
Bradford,
Seems likely. That or it's some kind of odd distraction. Ah well.
Comment by nullasalus — November 21, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 10:42 pm
This is an hysterical overreaction to imagined effects of apocolyptic beliefs. Tragically some of the same people that want to extrapolate terrible things as likely to result from beliefs want to play down real and present dangers. If you really want a legitimate reason to get worked up pay attention to an actual violent theocracy that engages in state sponsored terrorism, attempts to rewrite the history of the holocaust, calls for the annihilation of another mid-east nation and flaunts international consensus by trying to develop nuclear weapons. Apocolytic views are not unknown in Persian culture either. But this nation is intent on making circumstances conducive to its arisal
Comment by Bradford — November 21, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
First of all, I never made the claim that Xians wish for humanity's extinction.
Second, an unbeliever like me cares very little about the fine details of Christian eschatology. As I said, maybe they believe that unbelievable war and horror will be followed by ponies and ice cream. That doesn't mean I have to. Just because they don't wish for humanity's extinction doesn't mean they might just bring it about in their psychotic efforts to realize the book of Revelations. "The end of history" reads to me like the end of humanity, whatever you might mean by it.
Comment by mtraven — November 21, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Chris Thomas says,
Thomas is not "cheering for the death of humans" and the original post of this thread is overwrought.
Comment by Zachriel — November 21, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
November 21st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
lol, how in the hell was anyone supposed to know that comment was from the perspective of a squid? Perhaps from this phrase "The problem is living here in the meantime" I guess sentient squids will just have to wait.
Comment by Guts — November 21, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 am
And so, Zachriel has the quote that sets the record straight. It's not that Chris Thomas is saying we should be optimistic because he believes humans will inevitably be gone and life will continue without us around to cause harm. It's just that Chris Thomas thinks we should be optimistic because he believes humans will inevitably be gone and life will continue without us around to cause harm.
Glad we, uh.. cleared that up.
Comment by nullasalus — November 22, 2007 @ 12:21 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 am
Thanks for posting that, Zachriel. It's clear that people here (and Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias, who replied to Thomas there) have some sort of humor impairment. Meanwhile the same silliness has surfaced at yet another blog, your friend might want to defend himself there. Or maybe not.
Comment by mtraven — November 22, 2007 @ 12:28 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 am
mtraven:
What's the point of the X?
Why should any plausibility be accorded to the imaginative fearmongering exhibited in the above statement? The fine details were mentioned not because anyone thinks you care about their intrinsic meaning. They were mentioned to point out actual motives which contrast with your imagined ones.
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2007 @ 12:30 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 am
That's funny coming from someone who castigates others based on what you imagine they might do because of their apocolyptic beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2007 @ 12:34 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Guts:
What's the matter with you Guts? Can't you read between the lines?:grin:
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2007 @ 12:36 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 am
Must I explain everything nullasalus? Your failure to perceive optimism is caused by your inability to realize that Thomas was merely pointing out an evolutionary inference. Heed Allen MacNeill and refrain from insulting evolution.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — November 22, 2007 @ 12:42 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 am
The excerpt quoted by Krauze, with emphasis and annotation added by me:
Yeah Krauze, I don't know how you got the impression this fellow was wishing for human extinction.
It's not like he's repeating anything said by Pianka and other scientists.
Oh, and one more thing. It's an absolute lie that these guys want to annihilate the human race. They only want to do away with 90% of it. The godlike supergenius scientists, of course, would presumably be the remaining 10%, which is why they're so "optimistic".
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 22, 2007 @ 1:00 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
Perhaps a quote from a somewhat different context will shed some light.
Change is an inexorable process. Death is an inevitability. But life goes on. These are not only common ideas, but trite. "Humans will presumably be gone within a few million years, perhaps sooner" is an uncontroversial and qualified statement. The current affairs question is the "problem of living here in the meantime". The article reads from Keynes' long run, a geological point of view whereby Homo sapiens are just a distant memory.
A poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more.
Comment by Zachriel — November 22, 2007 @ 9:07 am
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Uncontroversial, only among the like-minded.
While some people choose to remark about the inevitability of humanity's disappearance and how little humans matter (indeed, how better off the earth may be without us), they shouldn't be surprised and overly defensive when many others regard them as.. let's be nice, and call it "deluded."
Nice try going for the poetic musing about a guy who cited 'sentient squid' as his out, though.
Comment by nullasalus — November 22, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I think its important to have a truly humanistic view, why should we think such a thing is inevitable? If we can do something about it, if it's even remotely possible, we should try.
Comment by Guts — November 22, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Guts:
What do you suggest? What sort of actions can you take in regards to anything that will have a predictable effect a mere thousand years from now? Now consider that a million years is a thousand times longer than that. Consider that modern humans have only been around for about 50,000 years, that's 1/20th of the span we are considering.
You have to do at least a minimal amount of quantitative thinking if you want to make any sense at all.
I suppose you could promote space colonization, which will not do anything to make humans in current form around in a million years but might increase the chances that some of our evolved descendants survive that long.
Comment by mtraven — November 22, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 pm
And yet, in the case of the OP, we're talking about a person (and people like him) speaking with certainty. You're talking about the impossibility of making predictions a million years or more out, yet this whole thread has been about bizarre optimism about a supposed 'certainty' of human disappearance that is anything but certain.
Guts has a great point. It certainly seems to go against a humanistic spirit and attitude to regard us as – hey, hyperbole time – inconvenient trash that's marring the planet, and when we inevitably disappear, good riddance, we won't be around to cause problems for the sentient squid. This is that 'concern for the material world' the religious types are supposedly lacking?
Comment by nullasalus — November 22, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Mtraven
Will our "evolved descendants" be unhuman? It depends on what it is that makes us human. If it is only a certain set of genes then I suppose you have a point. We theists on the other hand think there is much more to us than our genes.
Just what makes us human? Are we in some important way different from other animals? Are we special?
If you say no you will not see anything especially tragic about our demise. If you say yes you will do what you can to insure we hang around.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 22, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
0:
Oh, it's hyperbole time. OK. Well then, I'm not too worried about the future of humanity. Religion will eventually self-destruct, but the question is whether they will take the rest of us with them. I don't think so because luckily religion is mostly confined to the stupid who are too incompetent to destroy the world, even if they wanted to.
Comment by Raevmo — November 22, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
consider the fact that some in the field of the biology of aging are estimating lifetimes in the millenial range, if such athing can be achieved the possibilities are endless. And/or we can just try to find the intelligent designer,if such even exists, many would call that religion
Comment by Guts — November 22, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Raevmo,
The best part of that adorable rant is, the "hyperbole" thing is beyond you. You're a friggin delight.
fmm,
Exactly. At the very least, it's a deeper question that goes beyond where some professional council classifying us by species.
Comment by nullasalus — November 22, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
0:
Always glad to entertain. You're most welcome.
No. I am a member of the council and you have been classified as belonging to the wrong species. Please line up to the left. You will receive a healthy shower.
Comment by Raevmo — November 22, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
ravemo:
You don't have to be very smart to use advanced weaponry developed by smart people. The proximity of Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists to nuclear weapons (here and in Pakistan, respectively) is too close for comfort.
5mm:
Well, let's project a million years in the other direction. One million years ago there were no homo sapiens around, but there were bands of homo erectus and other hominids. They used tools, had some form of society, and had a brain size around 75% of modern humans. Were they human by your definition? And more importantly, do you think that the next million years will see less change than the previous million?
Comment by mtraven — November 22, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Mtraven
No
Yes
I think that a case can be made that the origin of human consciousness is the single most important event to occur in the history of at least our solar system if not the entire universe. Science seems to point to the fact it happened not gradually over billions of years but suddenly about 50 thousand years ago.
I find it very interesting that it only happened once out of all the species that have inhabited this planet over the billions of years that life has existed here. Therefore I don't expect a million years of genetic drift in one species to produce any comparable event.
I question whether evolution will continue at all in humans once we have reached a technological threshold in which we get to chose what will happen with our genes.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 22, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
5mm wrote:
5mm,
You mean "at which" and "choose".
Get real. You think that when humans have the ability to freely manipulate their genes, they will choose to maintain the status quo?
Comment by keiths — November 22, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
David Heddle wrote:
David,
I'm surprised at you. You usually think more clearly than this.
Why should man's animal status have any bearing on whether he'd like to alter the world? What is inconsistent about not believing in God, yet wanting to cure cancer?
Comment by keiths — November 22, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
keiths,
I don't understand your comment. Why do you think I implied that being an atheist would mean you wouldn't want to cure cancer? I certainly did not intend to send that message.
My comment was that there is some dissonance in simultaneously holding the views that (a) man is just an animal and (b) what man does is unnatural, and the planet would be better off without him. The former implies that man is not special. The latter implies that he is.
Comment by David Heddle — November 22, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Perhaps guts realizes that when we're at the stage of free gene manipulation, calling the results "evolution" means that any change over time whatsoever is now "evolution", and the word is meaningless.
Oh, by the way, you missed some more Raevmo comedy – I know you're a fan.
Holocaust humor. Comedy Central material, eh?
Comment by nullasalus — November 22, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:52 am
David,
You wrote that
Yet it seems obvious to me that an atheist can see human domination as good or bad, without believing in God, just as she can see cancer as a bad thing without believing in God. Where's the inconsistency?
Regarding the natural/artificial distinction — I agree that the word 'natural' has two senses, and that as animals, anything we humans do can be construed as natural in the broader sense. However, the word 'artificial' becomes meaningless if we restrict 'natural' to the broader meaning, and indeed, 'natural' is usually used in the narrower sense — particularly when people are speaking of restoring the earth to its natural state.
Comment by keiths — November 23, 2007 @ 12:52 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:56 am
keiths
Thanks again you're so smart. Put me and you together and we are almost coherent.
No I expect genetic changes just no major changes. Would you voluntarily produce offspring that would not accept you as being the same species? Even if you did could you get society to allow your offspring to multiply ? Haven't you ever read Xmen comics? Get past all those hurdles and you still haven't evolved anything you've designed it.
I think it's much more likely that genetic manipulation will be used to prevent evolution. Suppose two human populations became isolated and drift apart genetically for a half a million years or so,every Star Trek episode tells us that when they are reunited they will find a way to interbreed
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 23, 2007 @ 12:56 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 am
nullasalus wrote:
Null,
It was 5mm, not Guts.
Change over time is one of the meanings of the word 'evolution', and it is the appropriate meaning to use when the topic of discussion is whether our descendants one million years hence will be recognizably human.
Comment by keiths — November 23, 2007 @ 1:00 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 am
5mm wrote:
5mm,
Don't take it so hard. You've got to admit that it's pretty funny, given that you wrote:
Comment by keiths — November 23, 2007 @ 1:08 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
Raevmo:
Judaism and Christianity have been around for thousands of years. During that time period some "smart" ideologies, philosophies and political powers have arisen only to become extinct and largely forgotten. A surprising turn of events for the "competent."
mtraven:
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Hitler- none either Christian or Islamic Fundamentalists and all collectively responsible for most of the murders committed in the course of human history. But why let facts interfere with one's favorite paranoia?
Comment by Bradford — November 23, 2007 @ 2:08 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 am
Yeah, just leave out that 'due to intentional genetic modification' part. I guess intelligent design is utterly compatible with evolution – thanks for backing up the ID crowd on that one.
Besides, if 'change over time is evolution' then the most radical, extreme creationist believes in evolution, because man was formed out of pre-existing matter within an amount of time, in their view. And you were too busy correcting mistakes to pick up on what fmm has now confirmed – of course he expects humanity to engage in some genetic modification. We're more than our genes.
By the way, still waiting for you to clear Christopher Hitchens' name. Or at least a sign that, yes, actually Hitchens is capable of accepting some shocking things for the "secularist" cause.
Comment by nullasalus — November 23, 2007 @ 3:07 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 am
nullasalus wrote:
Do I really need to explain to you that like most words, 'evolution' has multiple meanings?
And you were apparently too busy being obstreperous to notice that 5mm truly does expects genetic changes to slow down once we have the ability to modify our genes:
And:
Null:
As if your trumped-up charges were sticking.
But to correct your own grotesque misunderstanding of Hitchens, you might want to ponder these quotes:
And:
You should also listen to this speech, which is a passionate defense of freedom of speech for everyone, including the religious.
Comment by keiths — November 23, 2007 @ 4:19 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:39 am
keiths,
That's a shellgame, keiths. You were talking specifically about "whether our descendants one million years hence will be recognizably human". So now that I'm calling you on it, you're backing off – of course you didn't mean biological evolution! You just were tying it to evolution of our genetically modified descendants because it, er, uh.. sounded good, and you didn't think it through.
Another shell game. Funny how whenever you get called on being wrong, you fall back to a weaker claim – now, oh sure, 5mm was expecting us to genetically modify ourselves. He just expects us to stay within a certain framing. I'm sure 5mm can defend himself, but considering he was asking what makes humans human, it points more to you being – what's that word – obstreperous?
Oh boy – Hitchens says that nowadays no one's advocating a ban on religious observance. Aside from that placing him in conflict with Dawkins as per "child abuse", that's amusingly beside the point.
The best you're able to come up with is a throwaway line from the man saying 'Not to explain or excuse the killing of priests and nuns or the desecration of churches, but all things considered, anticlerical phases are par for the course.'? Oh boy, you are reaching.
Tell you what. I'll see your quote, and raise you some of mine.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mister PZ Myers of Pharyngula.
Well, keiths, you have your work cut out for you: Is Christopher Hitchens an "us versus them" type who advocates genocide, or "at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again." So far I've had my money on, yes, the record clearly shows Hitchens is a hothead who'll back brutality if the ends are to his liking. Or is PZ Myers completely off his damned rocker, totally maligning this fine upstanding man. Is Myers' argument so weak that it cannot stand unless he props it up by pretending that his opponents support murder?
One more for the road, from PZ.
C'mon, keiths. Rip PZ a new one.
Comment by nullasalus — November 23, 2007 @ 5:39 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Keiths:
History seems to show that if humanity develops a capacity to do something that thing will be done. Nevertheless in one important sense there may be some truth in what 5mm says. If we develop the capacity to enhance the efficiency of genes whose function is to code for proteins with error detecting and correcting functions then changes having negative consequences will be minimized.
Comment by Bradford — November 23, 2007 @ 10:25 am
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Keiths,
Sigh. I am not talking about morality, or the argument that atheists have no basis for their morality"”as most will know I have in fact argued many times that atheists do have a basis for morality"”and that Christians who claim atheists do not are making a profound theological error. No, I am talking about the oft-heard sentiment expressed by this part of the Thomas quote:
That is, if man is just an animal, how is it that our alteration of the environment is "worse" than that of any other animals? Are beavers immoral when they alter the environment, no doubt at the expense of other species? Would the world be better off without beavers? And why is the present state of the earth less natural than any other? (For the Christian this is easy: we all are free moral agents, so on that basis we can attribute moral culpability to environmental destruction.)
Suppose man is wiped out and the environment is returned to normal, justifying Thomas's optimism. Next, imagine all the trees suddenly disappeared. We would immediately see (neglecting the fact that we have already become extinct) that the trees have been altering the environment drastically. Would the environment before the planet-altering trees were wiped out be more or less natural than the one with no trees? Why are the trees more or less evil than man"”if man has no special place in the family of life?
To me this dissonance is exacerbated when I read on places like Pharyngula discussions of free will, where I would say the overwhelming majority view is that free will is some sort of illusion. 1) Man is an animal, 2) man is a harmful virus destroying the earth and 3) choices are, at some level, deterministic "“ this are views that people hold simultaneously"”in some manner that I cannot fathom.
Comment by David Heddle — November 23, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
{…puts on her Madam Joi veil to foretell the future…} I predict that when humanity does something incredibly stupid to control the breeding of 'lesser' humans and design 'better' humans, humanity will have less than a century left to enjoy their existence. Genetic conformity will fall prey to one of the tiniest not-quite life forms (who have inhabited this planet since the beginning without ever managing to get any farther down the evolutionary road), and having long before engineered sterility into the food supply, there will be no healthy variation to ensure survival.
But in truth, I doubt we'll get that far before scientists render us – and all other life forms – extinct. One way or another. If it's not WMDs nuclear or biological, they'll convince some politician someday that they can cure global warming (or global cooling, or whatever the dire nature catastrophe of the moment happens to be) by using some of their WMDS nuclear or biological on the planet rather than on ourselves. This has already been floated more than a few times by the Chicken Little scientific community. All we have to do is blow up enough forests and cities with nukes to burn off the rest of the earth's forests and global warming will go away.
That nature could do this easily with a single large volcano doesn't seem to occur to them. Heck, nature could wipe us off the solar system map with a single well-aimed cosmic billiard ball, and that could happen any time. One way or the other, we will commit evolutionary suicide or nature will commit evolutionary genocide. Either way we'll be dead, but we're all going to die anyway. Does it really matter how or when? Is killing ourselves worse than waiting for nature to do it for us? Is there a relative 'good' or 'evil' in this question in the first place?
Sorry. Just don't get what the excitement's all about. Though I did notice (with a slight giggle) that it got mtraven all the way to his usual Nazi talk in no time flat. I'm beginning to suspect there's a reason he's always got Nazis on the mind… §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 23, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Joy:
Joy, what the fuck are you talking about? Where did I mention Nazis? Are you talking about where I suggested that fundamentalists might actually act to bring about the apocalypse? In that case, you are the one identifying fundamentalists with Nazis, not me. Or are you calling me a Nazi for pointing this out?
And since you say this is "usual" for me, perhaps you can provide some pointers to past examples of my alleged "Nazi talk". If not, maybe you give me the courtesy of an apology.
You seem to be spouting whatever nonsense enters your brain without taking even a moment to think about whether what you are saying is true or makes sense. Such as this:
Since global warming is caused in part by atmospheric carbon dioxide, and forests are carbon sinks, I can't imagine why anyone would think that burning up forests is a cure for global warming. Perhaps you can provide a link, or perhaps you are just making shit up.
Comment by mtraven — November 23, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The historical record is clear. Species do not last forever. They either evolve or go extinct.
It's no more deluded than to make a Last Will and Testament. Change is an inexorable process. Death is an inevitability. As to what "matters", it depends on to whom.
But life goes on. Either the descendents of the bipedal apes will inherit, or perhaps one of their bilaterate relatives such as the squids.
In any case, the slur in the original post was misdirected.
Comment by Zachriel — November 23, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Species tend not to develop literacy, germ theory, and ways to escape the atmosphere and explore the moon. The historical record doesn't show what you think it shows.
On the one hand, you cite the historical record as a reason to be certain that everything will follow a predictable pattern. On the other, you talk about change being an inexorable process. Put your hands together, and voila! Delusion.
Or perhaps the descendants of humans will be around for one hell of a long time – and perhaps there's far more to being "human" than a particular species classification. Guesses are guesses. But when your guess is 'humans are going to be wiped out' and you view it as a net positive change, there's plenty of reason to regard the person in question as a bit of a creep.
Speaking of large-scale death though, I wonder if keiths has it in him to step in here again. I'd love to see him trash PZ Myers as a small-minded slanderer.
Comment by nullasalus — November 23, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Agent Smithism "It is inevitable"
The Sentient Squid
Hey that would either be a great name for a book or a band "Agent Smith and the Sentient Squids".
Comment by Guts — November 23, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Just because biological history is chaotic doesn't mean there are no discernable patterns.
Do you bother reading what other people post before responding?
Comment by Zachriel — November 23, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I heart Joy and Guts.
(had to edit, comment parser interprets "less than" as an HTML bracket)
Edit: And all my comments should be interpreted as coming from a sentient badger.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 23, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Zach:
I really think this all boils down to definitions. Again if we are only bipedal apes I guess you have a point but I don't accept that definition. Being bipedieal or hairless or intelligent is not what makes us human.
I'm not sure how you would define us with out reference to God but something like conscious self aware organic being seems to be close to right and if you define it like that I see no reason that we should ever go extinct.
I don't even have a problem with sharing humanness with squid as long as they are created in the image of God
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 23, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Oh, no doubt, just not the God you are familiar with.
Comment by mtraven — November 23, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Sure I do – did you notice I used "human" where you used "bipedal apes" Or that I differentiated between descendants of humans, noting that what counts as 'human' is not necessarily a purely genetic question, whereas you were referring to descendants as in 'humans are gone'?
Don't get snippy, Zach. Keiths tried that, and now he's hiding from this thread on account of swallowing his own foot.
5mm,
That's similar to my thoughts. Or at the very least, I can see humans perhaps tinkering with a variety of their genetics, but I can't see them deciding 'Alright, the rational mind is just a hassle, tiem for it to go'. If the future is genetic alteration coupled with human control of the ecosystem, the age of unguided evolution – if it ever existed to begin with – will then be certainly gone.
Comment by nullasalus — November 24, 2007 @ 3:48 am
November 24th, 2007 at 4:36 am
There is much evidence that evolution has direction, and that intelligence is a an evolutionary inevitability. If we are the pinnacle of evolution, lets stop talking about humans being gone, and lets start being true humanists. The squid can go fuck itself (and apparently it already does, occasionally
).
Comment by Guts — November 24, 2007 @ 4:36 am
November 24th, 2007 at 10:22 am
This thread concerns the reasonable interpretation of an essay by Chris Thomas.
Yes, and the thread topic concerned a biologist's opinion, hence we would reasonably assume he was using the term "human" to mean Homo sapiens. Evolution is an inexorable process, and Homo sapiens are not exempt. Indeed, the environment is rapidly changing and the biosphere may be entering a major extinction period.
People have a very poor comprehension of geological timescales. Until a few thousand years ago, and the development of agriculture, humans had a tenuous grasp on life. Just another in a long line of hominid species who went extinct in their turn. (As Thomas specified the period of a "few million years", this confirms that he is discussing the average lifespan of species over historical periods.)
humans, a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens: man; broadly : hominid).When you add the word "only" it significantly changes the meaning.
The claim was that Thomas was one of a group of "scientists cheering for the death of humans".
The essayist discussed what would happen when grandpa dies. Life will go on. The estate may or may not remain in the immediate family, but might instead be inherited by a distant relation. If you leave no progeny, then your cousin may inherit.
Yes, humans are extant bipedal apes. As we are discussing the biological view, we have every reason to believe he was referring to the species Homo sapiens.
Again, the thread concerns the intent of an essay written by a biologist. Genetics is the study of heredity. And we are certainly discussing heredity.
genetics, a branch of biology that deals with the heredity and variation of organisms.Homo erectus is gone, but left descendents. But those descendents are not Homo erectus. If you want to use the broad definition of "human" to refer to the entire genus Homo, it doesn't change the fact that Homo is a descendent of other organisms that have since gone extinct. Species come and go. Extinction, like death, is a part of life.
It is perfectly reasonable to presume that one day Homo sapiens will go extinct, and the consequences of that presumption is exactly what Chris Thomas was considering. His optimistic view? Life will go on. If your descendents don't inherit the Earth, your cousins will.
Comment by Zachriel — November 24, 2007 @ 10:22 am
November 24th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Sorry, David, but I can't make sense of this statement of yours unless you think that belief in God is somehow a prerequisite for judging human domination of nature as good or bad:
What did you mean by that?
No.
Thomas didn't say that man was evil.
Apart from that, I don't think that most people who lament the damage that humans have done to nature are saying that any world without humans is automatically better. For example, do you hear anyone speaking wistfully about an Earth where all multicellular life has vanished?
I'm not sure why you think #3 is incompatible with #1 and #2.
Comment by keiths — November 24, 2007 @ 10:56 am
November 24th, 2007 at 11:35 am
David Heddle:
#2 infers an ought. The depiction of man and his actions calls for corrective measures. Yet if determinism underlies behavior, ought concepts, invoking choice between options, conflict with the notion of deterministic outcomes.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2007 @ 11:35 am
November 24th, 2007 at 11:52 am
mtraven:
My apologies, mtraven. It was Raevmo, not you. I was rushed for time (attributed Raevmo's comment to your response to him, immediately following. Bizzonkerists all look alike to me. §;o)
No, I'm not making shit up, scientists who don't know what the hell they're doing are making shit up. They've been at it for more than 110 years too, always with some 'definitive' answer to the global catastrophies they can't manage to make up their minds about. Here are some goodies…
Geoengineering Earth's climate could stop global warming but carries big risks
WWF condemns iron fertilization scheme to fight global warming
Niuclear war could cause global cooling
Pollution could be used to fight global warming
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 11:52 am
November 24th, 2007 at 11:58 am
nullasalus wrote:
And:
Null,
I'm almost sorry to burst your bubble, since you seem so giddy at the prospect of having vanquished me. Alas, the fantasy must come to an end.
I've already shown that what you wrote is a gross distortion of Hitchens' position:
In fact, as I have shown, Hitchens has clearly stated his opposition to religious persecution.
Having failed there, you changed the subject to whether Hitchens was genocidal:
Interestingly, you support your position not by quoting Hitchens, but by quoting P.Z. Myers:
And:
So not only were you too lazy to come up with quotes from Hitchens himself, you presented P.Z. Myers' description of the speech as if it were the final word.
If you're going to accuse someone of advocating genocide, Null, at least have the integrity to present his own words as evidence, not some third-party opinion — even if you think the third party is "on the same side" as the person you are accusing.
Here's a video stream. Hitchens' speech starts at 15:00.
If you prefer audio, it's here. As in the video stream, the speech starts at 15:00.
Comment by keiths — November 24, 2007 @ 11:58 am
November 24th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Joy, none of those articles you point to advocate burning forests or nuking cities to control global warming. You are making shit up, or more accurately, you are just an incredibly sloppy reader, thinker, and writer.
Comment by mtraven — November 24, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
mtraven:
LOL!!! Of course they don't advocate the not-so great ideas of the terminal idiots they're warning against. These links are all from the same source (I clicked on the first return, and went to it's "related stories"). There were thousands more.
I notice you chose to descend into ad hom instead of simply reading the links, which I got from a single search on keywords "nuclear," "global warming," and "geoengineering." You could do the same search if you cared, and find out exactly who is proposing such idiotic solutions to global warming or global cooling or whatever they're on about this decade.
My prediction? …It will snow in Buffalo before New Year's Eve. And half the cable news networks will hype it for at least one 24-hour news cycle, every 5 minutes, as "The Storm Of The Century," confirming global warming or global cooling or whatever they're on about this decade.
I think it's all rather humorous. Just another excuse to grab funding for worthless "research" projects at the same time we're spending $2 billion of China's money every month practicing genocide in Iraq so we can have their oil – which won't pay the interest to China (and won't solve the "energy crisis"), but will make GWB seem like the cowboy good ol' boy he's not when he retires to his 'ranch' in Paraguay so as to avoid prosecution for crimes against humanity.
What you do or don't know about anything is of precisely zero interest to me, mtraven. But keep up the crap. Someone else might eventually care enough to revoke your privileges.
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Chewbacca defense.
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi, David
Blame it on their psychiatrists. Here is a quote from one of their forerunners, Jung, regarding his word-association testing, which he was very involved with early in his career. Check out the part that I italicized, and the last phrase in the last sentence in particular. This quote was part of his inaugural lecture, given on 21 October, 1905, upon his appointment as lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Zurich.
Interestingly, when Jung wised up, he began to involve himself in the transcendental idea of a universal unconsciousness. [Edit: but by then he had already infected a horde of followers. For anyone interested in reading up on Jung's word-association testing, refer to Volume 2 of the 20 Volume set published by Bollingen/Princeton, "Experimental Researches Including the Studies in Word Association"]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I did read the links. None of the articles, or the people they were talking about, advocate burning forests or nuking cities to control global warming. You just made that up.
It's pretty funny to be accused of "descending into ad hominem" by someone who just got through calling me a Nazi. Earlier you accused me of not giving much to charity on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. If I criticize your thinking it's based on the evidence right here on this blog.
"Someone" would be doing me a favor.
Comment by mtraven — November 24, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Ah, our live-in bad-mannered crank doesn't believe that particulate soot could possibly be a solution to global warming. Of course, soot isn't the first, only, or even most radical of the many geoengineering solutions being proposed or discussed for mitigating global warming.
In addition to various global sociopolitical solutions (including serious reduction of human population so the rest of us don't have to limit our consumption), there's oceanographer John Martin's "Geritol Solution." This one proposed dumping tons of iron into the Atlantic Ocean to promote plankton growth so they'd absorb CO2 and sequester it in ocean sediments when they die.
Then there's geologist Wallace Broecker's idea of dumping massive amounts of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, creating the human equivalent of Pinatubo. Astronomer Roger P. Angel would orbit small lenses to bend sunlight away from the planet. Trillions of them. Another Nobel laureate, Paul Crutzen, supports the stratospheric sulphur solution. NAS's president Ralph Cicerone advocates taking all such approaches seriously, and Michael Apple, president of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents is excited about "…research funding with enough zeroes on it so we can make a dent."
Proposals have included spraying saltwater mists into low ocean clouds to increase reflectivity, covering deserts in reflective films (why not solar panels instead?), and covering oceans with white plastic islands. Edward Teller (of nuclear weapons fame) was fond of a fleet of aircraft flying 365 days a year dumping toxic metals into the air. He wrote about this in The Wall Street Journal in the late '90s.
Allen Robock, a professor in the department of environmental sciences at Rutgers got together with teams from CU-Boulder and UCLA to look at how a small-scale nuclear war would cause a "Nuclear Winter" that could diminish global warming. They examined the climatic effects of smoke produced in a regional nuclear conflict (each side using 30 Hiroshima size bombs on the other side's populated urban areas), and say it would cool much of the planetary breadbasket regions by several degrees. Of course, if 100 cities were nuked, they say we'd be in trouble from too much cooling. The study was published on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions online journal, and predicts fatalities in the tens of millions, far fewer than the projected 2-4 billion who would die of effects from Teller's metallic spraying over 6 decades. Assuming that such attempts don't make things exponentially worse, which they could.
I don't buy any of it, but it is out there.
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Speaking as a sentient badger, I must announce that I've changed my postion on this, and now agree wholeheartedly with Chris Thomas. I did this because after more research and thought, I saw a terrible irony that would work in my favor.
The irony: those of you two-legged monkeys who (rightfully) consider your kind to be a blight upon our planet have been relinquishing your right to procreate, and thus subjecting yourselves to Darwinian forces.
Should this little Gaia-worship mind-virus keep spreading, the only remaining upright apes are going to be the not-so-"bright" ones (i.e., the fecund ones), who won't be smart enough to head off the Ascent of the Badgers.
So please, do continue. The Day of the Badger is coming! Look upon us and tremble!
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 24, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
keiths,
Vanquished? Giddy? Keiths, we're having a discussion on the internet – and frankly, you're kind of inept at arguing. I'm sure you know the saying about arguing on the internet being like running in the special olympics. I'm here to have fun. If I want to win at something, I'll go play Team Fortress 2.
This is about psychology – something atheists on this forum love to talk about.
You quoted Hitchens briefly declining to justify religious purges, while explaining how they were to be expected, all things considered. Then you quoted Hitchens defending free speech. You're playing Hitchens quotes against Hitchens quotes, and arguing one set trumps the other, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot, a liar, and a slandered. Speaking of all three, on to what you apparently think of PZ Myers.
No, keiths, I explicitly said…
Hey, I left it open – I asked you if PZ's right. After all, PZ Myers heard Hitchens speak firsthand. He was right in the audience, and I posted his reactions. You've been so busy screaming insults at me for daring to call one of the Great Atheist Representatives ethically confused (to put it mildly), that you didn't do your homework. If you did, you would have noticed PZ ripping into the man with accusations and language that go far beyond what I said. Because..
..I never accused Hitchens of advocating genocide. I was asking you if PZ's accusations stood. And if they don't.. well, if merely suggesting Hitchens condoned Lenin's actions earns me every label you've thrown, what does it mean when PZ accuses him of everything I've quoted?
Of course, that wouldn't matter if you were just presenting your point of view. But that's not what this is about, is it? This is about you trying to be a good little True Believer, running public defense for a popular atheist figure. You can't condemn Hitchens, because he represents something important. But so does PZ Myers. And the two of them having a serious disagreement on a subject like this turns your world upside down.
Now, you can prove me wrong. PZ laid into Hitchens with disgust, and threw some heavy accusations on his lap. You can always tear into PZ – say he totally misunderstood what Hitchens was saying, that his characterizations (which include a bullet in the head for every theist) were way off, uncalled for, maybe even repulsive. But you know I'd be cheering you on, and it's not like you clear Hitch in the process. You can keep doing what you're doing, and keep trying to twist my words while ignoring everything else – but everyone can see you're going out of your way to not touch on PZ's accusations. Which makes you look (what a surprise) biased beyond belief, Hitch still looks dirty, and you look too ashamed of what PZ said to engage it.
There's a lesson in here for you, keiths. Something about not relying on insults and spin when you argue with people. Or maybe even being open minded. I'm gonna go TF2 in a bit, but perhaps you've learned a lesson.
No. Probably not.
Comment by nullasalus — November 24, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
November 25th, 2007 at 12:29 am
It all depends on how you look at it
Preemptive Extinction On A Personal Level
Just another free radical doing her part for the planet.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 25, 2007 @ 12:29 am
November 25th, 2007 at 1:08 am
AnaxagorasRules:
Oh, I dunno. It's not like there's a shortage of humans on this planet or anything. Why would it matter that anyone decides not to contribute more? Or why they'd make that decision?
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2007 @ 1:08 am
November 25th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Hi, Joy,
Whatever reason a woman gives to sterilize herself is her business. Many women (and men) have it done after achieving the desired family size. What makes the article appropriate for this topic is the reason the woman gives for having it done. I've never heard of the non-eco friendly reason before. The link text was just a little tongue-in-cheek-humor, given angryoldfatman's post.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 25, 2007 @ 1:51 am
November 25th, 2007 at 1:56 am
See, Joy? With just a little more effort you are perfectly capable of giving a reasonably accurate summary of all those geoengineering proposals, rather than grossly mischaracterizing them.
FWIW, I share most of your skepticism towards these ideas, although I think there's little harm in study and design, so that we'll have some options available should things really get out of control.
Comment by mtraven — November 25, 2007 @ 1:56 am
November 25th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Anaxagoras:
And I think sentient badgers are quite humorous, too. But the ecological reason not to have children is valid even if I would tend to think it's a rationalization for a simple lack of desire for children. Who complicate lives, always get the short end of convenience coupling, and are expensive as hell. Besides, the job's never done. I think it might be more honest to just say you don't like or want kids.
That's as good a reason as any. Possibly less destructive in the end than designer children that rich people order a la carte to go with the decor of their yachts. It's a sure bet such wunderkinder will never take over the world by numbers. The notorious breeding insufficiencies of the rich and spoiled are ever the rationalization for simple racism and class inequalities under the euphemism of "eugenics," new or old. Badgers won't be the only ones who aren't likely to miss them when they're gone.
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2007 @ 11:35 am
November 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
mtraven:
They've been pronouncing ecological doomsday for a century and a half, going back and forth by decades over whether it's a new ice age or death by overheating. And there really isn't all that much we could do to change any of it even if we wanted to, other than to mindfully limit our ecological footprints on the earth for the time we're here (and as far into the future as we can plan). Nature can always defeat our best laid plans, and almost inevitably will. For every expensive, grandiose scheme to create a "human Pinatubo" there's a real Pinatubo nature can launch any time it wants.
It's been pretty much during those many decades of doom-saying that we have so seriously polluted our air, our land, and our water. Killing ourselves slowly, rather than the 60+ years we could have killed ourselves quickly. Maybe slow is better by some measure, but that's debatable. We could have done different things along the way. Gone with Tesla's wireless grid, followed Diesel's plan to run farm and transportation machinery on peanut oil. Designed our homes and cities to take advantage of climate and earth and sun, practiced sustainable agriculture.
We the People never made those decisions, we were just expected to live (and die) by decisions other people made FOR us. We won't get to decide what gets done about rectifying those mistakes either, save to do for ourselves in the end without reliance on others to decide FOR us. Whether we die quickly or slowly, we will all die.
It's how you live that counts. IMO. The poor, unwashed masses are not a problem for the planet, never were. It's the rich who over-consume and don't like being reminded of it by their many brothers who live fine lives without. When the water rises people will head uphill. As the water shrinks back they'll move into the fertile plains.
There are excellent reasons to clean up our act, work WITH nature for our keep instead of trying (uselessly) to dominate it into doing our will. I'd be more willing to invest in technologies to counter orbital peculiarities, explore space, and protect ourselves from billiard balls than what I am forced to invest in – WMDs, space-based WMDs aimed at me instead of incoming billiard balls, engineering the weather so that we can keep on fouling our nest without a care, and other such stupid pipe dreams (colored with delusions of grandeur).
Nature can beat us at any game. Any game we can invent, any game we think we could master. It will not be dominated in the long run, though we'll be dead either way. Again, if we were to stop bickering and murdering long enough to objectify what really matters, we might live lives we wouldn't be deeply ashamed of living, no matter how we die in the end.
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2007 @ 5:18 pm