I was thinking recently about how humans have such a reckless disregard for the situation of our planet. It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable. I was thinking that this may be because humans are subconciously killing themselves off through habitat destruction in order to reduce the population that threatens us all. Because human populations are so high, maybe we are actually purposefully killing ourselves off by destroying our vital resources in order to dwindel the numbr of people whose existance threatens those who do make the more sustainable choices. What do you think of this?
For much of the population there is a belief (in one form or another) of some sort of afterlife - therefore there isn't much value placed on this planet. Some of us who realize an afterlife is nothing but a fantasy do worry about such things - this planet and this life is all we have. That isn't to say that belief in an afterlife is the only factor but I wouldn't rule it out as a major contributor.
I think the first problem is sorting out the good sciece from the bad science.
Thats a hard fuckin problem too. Not so much in most 'genres' of science, but anything that relates to politics will get butt-raped to shit and then thrown up.
Indeed pseudoscience, bad science and others like it only perpetuate false information which the public usually and unfortunately eats up. I still have people asking me things like "You study the brain - why is it we only use 10% of it?". This is why I'm so big on scientific literacy.
Quote from: "brainshmain"I was thinking recently about how humans have such a reckless disregard for the situation of our planet. It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable. I was thinking that this may be because humans are subconciously killing themselves off through habitat destruction in order to reduce the population that threatens us all. Because human populations are so high, maybe we are actually purposefully killing ourselves off by destroying our vital resources in order to dwindel the numbr of people whose existance threatens those who do make the more sustainable choices. What do you think of this?
I don't know how many people are actually doing it on purpose (trying to destroy our own ability to survive), but we sure are doing it well.
The whole issue reminds me about "blame-storming". The Europeans blame the Americans, Chinese and Indians; the SUV owners blame the airlines; the airlines blame the power plants, etc. etc. In the meanwhile nothing seriously happens to stop the destruction of our planet, because the attitude of "It is everyone's fault but me, that the planet gets destroyed" stands in the way of actually doing something about it.
While the premise of brainshmaine's question/statement is interesting, I'm unclear why a proponent of evolution would entertain it at all.
If the order of the day in ones view is adapt or perish being the natural order, the point is moot.
Everything is going as it should.
Unless I'm missing something. (?)
Kestrel, it is because, as humans, we are able to override natural selection and the need for adaptation(sort of).
Example 1: Area A is overpopulated and cannot feed itself; Area B has a low pop. and produces a surplus of food; Area B then sells the surplus to Area A thus negating the population culling that should occur in Area A.
Example 2: We are destroying the environment, e.g. Brazilian Rainforest, at such a rate that NO species has a chance to adapt to the changing conditions.
I mentioned in another thread about the oil running out. This will be both good and bad. Bad for the general population, but good for the species, as a whole, and other species as well.
The decreased mobility of goods and people will lead to population collapses in hypothetical Area A's. The thinned out, but more sustainable population will then start building back up, hopefully in a better way than we have.
Of course, this is all dependent on staying the course we're on by not fully funding research in, or committing to, sustainable development and substitutes for our petroleum based society.
Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population. For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species. Think if it as humans are lemmings, jumping off a cliff, not only because others are doing it, but because the smarter ones will not follow and will eventually rebuild the environment they destroyed.
(and yes, I know the lemming thing is just a myth created by Disney... I'm just using it as a simile)
We're too busy worrying about the price of gas and the war on terrorism to worry about things that matter in the long term. Too many people trust the government to take care of them...
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Kestrel, it is because, as humans, we are able to override natural selection and the need for adaptation(sort of).
I think I understand what you're getting at.
Could you please elaborate on the "sort of" aspect of overriding natural selection and the need for adaptation?
I appreciate it.
Quote from: "brainshmain"Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population. For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species.
Could you please provide me with an example of a communal population that behaves in the manner you claim?
Thank you.
Quote from: "Kestrel"Quote from: "brainshmain"Here is the basis of my theory:
In high school in the various biology classes I took (mammology, animal behavior, etc) I learned how when a communal population of a species grows to high for their environment to sustain them, they often make drastic choices in order to lower the population. For example, a mass killing of the weaker or younger members of the herd or hoarding food to kill of major numbers of their own species.
Could you please provide me with an example of a communal population that behaves in the manner you claim?
Thank you.
Einum, S. & Fleming, I. A. Highly fecund mothers sacrifice offspring survival to maximize fitness. Nature 405, 565 - 567 (2000).
There's one. I don't specifically remember the species we learned about, but I remember it has been witnessed in multiple species when either eithere the quality of the environment is lowered, resources become limited, etc. (Such as earth today, the way it's going)
Quote from: "Kestrel"Could you please elaborate on the "sort of" aspect of overriding natural selection and the need for adaptation?
You mean, besides the ones I already gave.
Sunscreen: We have the ability to make stuff that allows us, as humans, live and do things other species can't or wouldn't be able to do. With sunscreen I, as a pale honky, can do stuff outside in the sun without covering up with little to no repurcussions. Other humans have already adapted to their environment with such things as darker skin color in climates with more sun and less pigment where it is not needed. Now, anyone can live anywhere without having to adapt to the environment.
This is where the "sort of" comes in. Our brains give us the ability to alter our environment where needed. Thus, evolution has brought us to a point where we can negate the need for our bodies or brains to change with environmental changes. (We alter the environment rather than the other way around on a level that no other organism is capable of. We're so special.)
Instead of getting skin cancer because of too much sun, we wear sunscreen. Instead of moving from an area with lots of flooding, we build levees and dams to control that flooding. We genetically engineer crops and foods to get higher yields. We design buildings to survive hurricanes and earthquakes. We have central heating and air conditioning to counteract the outside temperature. People can live anywhere on this planet; even though we probably shouldn't be living in lots of places, e.g. Venezia, Italia. It's very pretty there, but it's going to sink sooner rather than later.
In summation, our brains enable us to do all sorts of things, but it doesn't mean we're always acting in our own best interest. Final analogy: Eventually a damn has to release some of the water it's holding back, or it will overflow and burst. We can try to control nature and use technology to prop up the human race, but eventually there will be a collapse. (not necessarily a Malthusian collapse)
I am still of the opinion that we can end war in one generation, end most pollution in one generation, and possibly end hunger in a few generations. It's about the will of people. I remember reading that only 4% of the colonists in the 13 colonies of the Americas actually fought in the Revolutionary War. I'm not 100$ sure about that, but that suggests to me that if 240m people spread across the world decided something was going to happen, it would have a great chance of happening.
When I find myself worried about universal health care in the US, clean water in southeast Asia, or the plethora of other problems in the world, I think that most people do care, but they lack direction. I'm a member of several other forums that are even more political than this one and often we discuss what direction energy should take in order to bring about positive change. It's those conversations and debates that are important.
It's threads like this one that are important. I think we do have a desire for self preservation, but between the distractions of every day life and the million directions that we can move in to bring about change, we are overwhelmed. Imagine if you decided tomorrow to end the Iraq war. That situation is so complicated that it would take more energy than most have to give in order to bring about change. I, myself, have protested and written congressmen and senators about it, but I feel as if it has done little to nothing. I know that if I were to quit my job and leave my family that I might be able to do something myself, but who's willing to do that?
The answer lies in community. The answer lies in the collective energy of many. We're reckless when we operate along because we can do little alone.
Short answer: no, I don't think human beings are intentionally damaging the environment because at some subconscious evolutionary level we are trying to reduce our population. I think it would take some serious evidence to convince me of this concept. I'm a skeptic at heart.
Which brings me to my next point:
Quote from: "brainshmain"It's been predicted that our planet won't be able to support most forms of life in the next hundred years, however humans continue to purchase their SUVs and make convenient choices over ones that are notably more sustainable.
Yikes, this one is really rubbing me wrong. Since I'm a skeptic at heart, I find it very very hard to believe that "most forms of life" on planet earth will be gone in 100 years. Do you know who predicted that, and what the basis of their argument was?
I also think it's really weird to blame SUVs in particular for environmental damage. Actually, I think that borders on ridiculous. For instance, swap every SUV with what? Simply an average vehicle? What happens to the environment then? Bah. I view the enviromentalist culture's hatred of SUVs as moral superiority propaganda. Some of the people pushing it are flaming hypocrites (Babs).
Not trying to be a jerk, just my 2 cents. The whole environmental debate is fascinating to me --- the science is really interesting, and the policy decisions are hard. It's a topic I'd like to know more about - there's a lot of stuff available over at the National Academy of the Sciences website that I've been sort of picking through. (shrugs).
I don't think its the SUVs themselves that are the problem, but the idea that they sort of represent. That idea is twofold: 1) There is no problem(global warming). 2) And by the odd chance there is a problem, someone else'll fix it.
So, yes replacing all SUVs with an average vehicle would lessen environmental damage, but it wouldn't help that much. - All the oil is going to be used up anyway, better gas mileage will just make it last longer.
A more important shift in policy and attitude is needed in the areas of sustainable development and population control.
I don't know how many people the earth can hold - sustainably with an acceptable quality of life, whatever that may mean - but it certainly isn't much higher than 7 billion, and in my, eminently worthwhile, opinion it's less than that.
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I don't think its the SUVs themselves that are the problem, but the idea that they sort of represent. That idea is twofold: 1) There is no problem(global warming). 2) And by the odd chance there is a problem, someone else'll fix it.
It's not that I don't hear this argument, it's that I don't understand how SUVs in particular came to represent this idea. It just seems silly to me. What about people with very long commutes? Nobody decries them as being particular ravishers of the environment. Or heated swimming pools? Or large families? We all tread with due respect to people's liberties --- but when it comes to SUVs we feel they are making a choice of "convenience". Why judge the SUV owners so harshly? What about panel trucks, or cargo vans, or 18-wheelers? How about all the ones transporting entertainment electronics or designer clothes? Does anyone really need these things - aren't these choices of "convenience"? The Chicago winters can get nasty, and my trusty Jeep has gotten me through a lot of snow storms. I have a practical desire for a functional, utilitarian vehicle - specifically a 4x4. I hardly feel my choice is mere "convenience". It's not like I watched a rap video and then bought an Escalade 'cause I thought it was cool.
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"So, yes replacing all SUVs with an average vehicle would lessen environmental damage, but it wouldn't help that much. - All the oil is going to be used up anyway, better gas mileage will just make it last longer.
Agreed - I'm all for better gas mileage. It hurts le$$ at the pump. Honestly, moving away from fossil fuels seems to make sense on a number of levels, and I think we'll probably see things go that way, hopefully
before the oil runs out :wink:
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"A more important shift in policy and attitude is needed in the areas of sustainable development and population control.
I don't know how many people the earth can hold - sustainably with an acceptable quality of life, whatever that may mean - but it certainly isn't much higher than 7 billion, and in my, eminently worthwhile, opinion it's less than that.
Ah! Indeed - population is probably my chief gripe. We wanted two children so that they could grow up with a sibling. I think it helps you socially (personal pet theory). I enjoyed growing up with brothers, and my daughters play together all the time (learn to share, have a friend who's always there, etc.). But, we stopped at two. While my wife and I had different reasons, I liked the thought of not growing the population in my own small way. Two parents leave behind two children - break even. The last thing the world seems to need is more people living in it. But, I stop short of shaking a righteous fist at people with 3 (or more) kids.
I guess I'm just somewhat defensive about personal liberties. Seems to me people are more than happy to require others to limit their liberties if it aligns with a cause with which they agree. I don't want to trade priests, pastors, ministers and popes telling me how to live for politicians telling me how to live. What's the difference? It's getting even harder to tell what with the number of politicians openly embracing religion lately (in the US anyhow)....
Ah, population stop.... Now that is real big horror scenario for the good old european welfare and healthcare systems. In Germany the population is actually shrinking (1.3 babies per woman of childbearing age). The average population get older, which means that more and more people need to be supported in the near future by less and less people.
Basically what I see is a big conflict between the economical and environmental needs of a country. Some of the things we do makes me really wonder, whether it makes sense. Many articles are shipped from one place to another, based on the location of cheapest productioncycle.
Fo example: shrimps are caught the Netherlands, shipped to Marokko for pealing and then shipped back to the Netherlands were it is partially sold and exported elsewhere. Billions of dollars are pumped into agricultural subsidies, sothat famers in the western-world keep overproducing.
Actually, what all this really comes down to is a faulty feedback mechanism that has been over-ridden by the instant-gratification society in which we live. Think about it....we want what we want and we want it right now. Usually, we get this want satisfied. That is to say that in the absence of a clear and immediate sanction of behavior (over-consumption of long-term resources or latent environmental damage), we will continue to behave in the same way. A body in motion tends to stay in motion......and haven't we taught the rest of the world how great it is to be consumers? Thus they consume. Thus our environment will continue to degrade until such time as we no longer have trash pickup twice a week. Such is the fate of a parasite that unwantingly kills its host.
i dont really think so. even if people hear about the large scale repercussions of their actions, it doesnt affect them at present. it is a lot easier for most people to jsut ignore it, because the effects can be so abstract. the only solution is to just try to educate people.
Forgive me,
mrwynd, but this is exactly the weird sort of prejudice I see surrounding this "SUV" argument:
Quote from: "mrwynd"The purchase of an SUV can give the feeling of security to the owner and the thought of perpetuating the destruction of the planet is not taken into account.
Remarkable that one could gain such insight from a person just because they bought an SUV. I'm sure cargo capacity and inclement weather have nothing to do with people buying SUVs, right?
Look - just flip this around. Suppose we see somebody driving a small hybrid car with their whole family packed in there. Do we say, "What a terrible parent! They're totally preoccupied with climate change, and the safety of transporting their children wasn't even taken into account!". Of course not, but by this SUV reasoning, why on earth shouldn't we?
QuoteRemarkable that one could gain such insight from a person just because they bought an SUV. I'm sure cargo capacity and inclement weather have nothing to do with people buying SUVs, right?
Look - just flip this around. Suppose we see somebody driving a small hybrid car with their whole family packed in there. Do we say, "What a terrible parent! They're totally preoccupied with climate change, and the safety of transporting their children wasn't even taken into account!". Of course not, but by this SUV reasoning, why on earth shouldn't we?
I'm not saying their decision is necessarily the best one or the correct one. I am simply saying people can rationalize it and in their perception it's a good thing to them.