Earth's sixth mass extinction ‘already here' as scientists warn of dismal future (prophets, atheism)

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

There is an old saying, that is not too creditable to those supposed to say it.

"The war? while others were talking about it, I was fighting in it." It might be adapted to 'Global survival? While we were doing something about it, others were looking up applicable Bible -verses".

Indeed it is not hard to see what we have toi do, but it is apparently harder to accept what we have to do (and it doesn't help in the least that it flies in the face of religious dogma and requires a few sacrifices in business -profits), and almost impossible to start doing it.

It requires a change in worldview at the top all across the globe, and that will have to come from a voting condition from below, and a surge against right -wing religious denial in the US (especially if the realize what a horrible mistake Trump was and throw him out AND Pence as well) and just possible seeing avowed rationalist humanism as the worldview of the US might give a lead to Europe, and perhaps Latin America, Asia and even the middle east and Africa. We might just put the will behind the voluntary control of population which is the present shrilling alarm bell, and alternatives to oil, which is the other one, not least because it puts billions into the hands of those who ought either to be snaring groiundhogs for lunch or trying to make a living selling dates.

From what I understand a great many (or is it most?) first world nations don't have overpopulation problems. In fact, many are at risk of becoming inverted pyramid societies where a small number of working class support an enormous retired percentage.

I'm optimistic about that. Evidently, once contraception gets widespread and easily available, once cultural trends of having many children fade away, once people get the resources for more sources of entertainment than sex, once feminism spreads throughout a nation and women working becomes more the norm, once retirement homes and in home care and reliable medical resources become common so parents don't necessarily have to rely on their children to support them in old age, once improved medical resources make it so most to all children can be expected to outlive their parents so parents don't need to have 15 kids so that a few will survive to old age to care for their parents, once industry spreads so that your farm work is less about having the kids plow the field and more about having machines do it, once banks become reliable so that saving massive funds for retirement becomes practical, once college becomes feasible for most families, but nonetheless expensive enough that it's difficult to afford if parents pay for a large part of it and would do so for many children, our population growth unsurprisingly naturally lowers.

Birthrate is a 3rd world problem, from what I understand, but it is a big one in those environments. We in the first world have to reduce our consumption of nonrenewable resources. That's our problem. It doesn't matter that much if we don't have an overpopulation problem but each do as much harm as 15 third worlders.

The thing about global warming, evolution pretty much isn't denied or really questioned by anyone except anti-science people and religious fundamentalists. At least here in the U.S., that's not the case with global warming. Intelligent, science-respecting people don't think it's cause for concern all the time. I have an uncle with a degree in psychology who has an extremely high I.Q. He's a Tea Party member, and probably close enough to being an atheist to be called one. Maybe he's agnostic or a deist or something. He and his wife bought guns the day Obama was elected because they assumed there would be a communist takeover.

He's not dumb at all. He's just extremely pessimistic about human nature. His father was a wealthy, but extremely cheap man (which probably had something to do with growing up in the Great Deppresion). One time when my uncle, or maybe it was one of his siblings, broke something his father lifted him up by his neck and looked like he was going to throw them or something. I believe his father was some kind of electrician and he'd use old, cheap wiring to save on costs. His father would do things like steal salt from restaurants, take the towels from hotels, etc.

Someone like Bill Nye insisting "global warming is obviously being caused by humans" over and over again is not going to convince a person like that, particularly when there are many people on his side, the conservative side, who say different. He'll eventually change his mind about things, but not in our prevailing atmosphere of "Human beings are causing a large percentage of global warming, probably, but we don't really know what it's long term affects will be and we also happen to be coming out of a natural cold period in history." and he's a clever man, in his way. For the average person, it'll be worse. A good example is this article:

A new study of methane emissions finds that the U.S. is spewing 50 percent more methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times better at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere than the Environmental Protection Agency previously assumed. Several factors contribute to the accumulation of methane gas in Earth’s atmosphere, such as the burning of fossil fuels and leaks from oil and gas refining and drilling, but one contender stands out above the rest as particularly repugnant: cow farts.
Cow Farts Have

People are going to look at that article and think "Well, I guess global warming isn't something to worry about at all, and it's just the liberal moonbats who do worry about it, because weren't there just about the same number of animals on Earth farting away before we even domesticated cows?"

The article doesn't mention, and I've never seen an article that expresses concern about livestock-produced methane specifically mention, whether or not cows and other livestock produce more methane than other organisms.

I have to do a fair amount of research to learn much about global warming. I've probably listened to several hours of videos about it, and I still don't understand it well. I know the obvious stuff about CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gasses insulating the Earth's atmosphere and keeping more heat inside, and I've also heard of factors such as our carbon sinks eventually (or have they already) being saturated which would lead to increased global heating, and risks like the Gulf steam being pushed southward (which might cause you folks up in the U.K. to have a climate more like Russia's). I've heard about frozen methane held under the ice caps, and those caps cracking, and therefore possibly eventually releasing outrageous amounts of methane into the air. I've heard about plankton being very temperature-sensitive, and not only being a vital foundation of food for the ocean but a carbon sink, but producing most of Earth's oxygen.

But then I see things like this:

It is crucial to know how these tiny organisms – which are not visible to the naked eye – react to climate change in the long-term. Experts had made predictions that that climate change would have negative effects on phytoplankton. But a new study shows green algae can adjust to warmer water temperatures. They become more competitive and increase the amount they are able to photosynthesise.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/...lobal-warming/

and I read that there is no evidence that the Gulf Stream is being pushed downwards, (I don't know if that's true or not, I just read it somewhere), and I hear the argument that we don't need to get rid of coal, we need to keep it around so that we can work to make our coal energy cleaner, which would actually be a better solution than switching to wind and air power which isn't practical anyway....

and the side that wants to emphasize the controversy is very, very skilled. They're winning, here in the U.S., and I'm not educated enough to know what is oil company propaganda and what is not.

I actually see it like, in a sense it is hard to see what we have to do. My Tea Party uncle complains about blowing hand dryers in restrooms because he worked as a Macy's inspector most of his life and he hates those things because apparently blowing hand driers can push germs into your skin and make you sick if they blow skin hard enough that you can see the skin ripple.

We need more information. I don't think this is a test of will, so much as a lack of knowledge. I don't think Americans are getting the knowledge they need. I think they need dumbed down, yet factual knowledge, ideally shoved in their faces by the government.

I barely trust my knowledge enough to talk about global warming. I plan on reading a, I think it was, 1,500 or so page climate report, eventually, and then hopefully I'll feel enough like an expert to discuss this, but most people are not going to want to read a 1,500 page climate report.

I sometimes wonder if the reason why Europe is so much more invested in Climate change than the U.S. is because if the Gulf Stream gets pushed southward through melting ice caps, that could wreak havoc on your agriculture and climate in general. It won't hurt the U.S. as much. Also, we'd probably have to make more changes than just about everyone else. We're big, slow, and lumbering, and we don't like change because we're big, slow, and lumbering. If makes zero sense whatsoever for us to not have the metric system, but that would be a change, and we don't want to change, particularly not for any damn foreigners.

[Clintone]

Originally Posted by Matadora

*You missed something as I never once compared humans as being a worse species. What I compared is humans to other animal species, and pointed out that humans alone are responsible for the demise of planet earth. Humans don't live in a symbiotic relationship with Earth...in fact they do the opposite. No other animal species has even come close to doing what humans have done to Earth.

In a prior post you made the below comment:

Originally Posted by Matadora

If I were god I would have never allowed modern humans to evolve. This planet would not be in the situation it's in today nor would we have the horrific stories of what modern humans did throughout history to other humans as well as other species, had the modern human not evolved.

You referred to humans as a parasitic cancer of the earth. You mentioned that our nonhuman ancestors lived in harmony with the Earth, which was an irrational statement. They ate and were eaten. They struggled. That is not harmony. I see saying they lived in harmony with nature as an insult to their struggles, and that bothers me, just like it bothers me when you say humanity is a cancer of the Earth. We are more than cancers. Given that the word "better" is a very abstract concept and I would say it has no real definite consistent meaning but is instead use to refer to something having a general sense of superiority over other things, I would say that it would be entirely reasonable for an intelligent person to describe you as seeming to believe nonhumans are better than humans. Now, that description does carry a negative stigma. I'm not saying you're a bad person, but at bare minimum, you sound exactly like someone that it would make sense to describe as seeing nonhumans as better than humans.

Also, your statements of obvious information, like how ancient humans made tools and created fires, would give me the impression if I lacked knowledge of your career choice, that you are ignorant of the sciences and happened to gleam some intriguing information from a PETA website after a 30 second Google search, and that is the extent of your scientific knowledge.

Why would you have to exist as another animal to understand the damage humans are doing to Earth? Show me any other animal species that is contributing to the 6th Mass Extinction? You can't.
It's the exact reason why humans have spread like a parasitic cancer. Overpopulation does not happen without having babies.

I never said that I'd need to exist as another animal to understand the damage humans are doing to the Earth. I said that I'd have to exist as a nonhuman animal to know what it feels like to be one. I was thinking about your comment where you mentioned that if you were a god you would never allow humans to evolve. I'd have to exist as a nonhuman organism to know what it feels like to live their lives. I'd have to exist as a nonhuman organism, as well as a human, to compare their lives against ours. For all I know humans live happy enough of lives, and most nonhuman species in the wild exist in miserable enough states that it would be for the best if humans left Earth, taking only their pets, and blew up Earth, putting everything out of their misery except for our pets. It could be the other way too though. Perhaps the harm humans cause to other organisms makes the cumulative happiness loss not worth the happiness we humans feel, and our existence was not worth it, or perhaps our sheer intelligence makes us more miserable than nonhuman organisms. I don't know. I'm saying you probably don't know either, but knowing is pretty much the only way I could see determining whether or not humans should or should not have existed.

I'm wondering why you emphasize that humans are causing extinctions. That is a bad thing, but I don't see it as necessarily worth the gains we've achieved through technology, through smallpox vaccines, toilet paper, clean water, etc.

Yes they did. We have no data to support that our ancestors harmed other ecosystems and contributed to the demise of Earth during their 6 Million years living here. Humans on the other hand have only been around for 200,000 years and look at how quickly they have ruined Earth.
They would not have survived for 6 Million years or evolved into modern humans if they did not learn how to survive during those 6 Million years. Ancient humans made fires and also used tools. I suggest you read up on ancient humans.

I already probably know more about ancient humans than most laypersons. That topic has long been an area of interest for me. The fact that ancient humans made fires and used tools is not particularly uncommon knowledge either. I'm well aware of the many, many extinctions we've caused. I suspect that's probably pretty common knowledge too. We haven't ruined Earth. We've changed it.

No we WILL go extinct...we are not immune to it. Every living species that has ever walked this earth has gone extinct...we are no special snowflake that's going to escape extinction. In fact we are causing this to happen to us at a very rapid pace. Natural background extinction is not the same as the rapid mass extinction caused by humans. What modern humans have done has never been seen on this Earth before. You bet the Earth would be much better off without humans and in fact that's were it's heading.
I think you are rather foolish to not understand how long this Earth was doing just fine until the modern human evolved 200,000 years ago.
Existing without the possibility of extinction dangling in front of your face is far different than a species undergoing the process of extinction. Perhaps you would have a better perspective if you were a species on the brink of extinction.

If I were a species on the brink of extinction I would have to not be a human...at least so far. Give it another ten years and maybe we'll have a nuclear war or something. If I were not a human my interests would be self-preservation or perhaps an interest in the preservation of my pack and cubs and mate in some sense. I would not be able to think about it in the same way I can now though. I have no doubt we will go extinct, in a sense, but our species' unique skill is our ability for rapid change. We could, literally, end up leaving earth and living in space, spreading out forever. Then we will go extinct, but only in the sense that our bodies and minds will change. There could very well be no definite end of us so much as a gradual evolution.

I suggest you read up on the effects of overpopulation on Earth.

I've learned a fair amount about that sort of thing, probably as much as anyone else. Again, you're telling me to research information that probably most of the halfway intelligent people probably already know. It's bad. It wreaks havoc. Water shortages. Rainforests chopped down, etc.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Matadora

You lack the ability to hold an intelligent productive discussion and you demonstrate a lack knowledge about most things I post. You have nothing to stack against me, you only have an ego and antagonistic rants that make no sense to anyone but you. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Laymen always get it wrong.

Lmao, yeah.
you have to watch that woo woo lucid dreaming and feeling the force woo of yours.

the point that I clearly made, and you attacked me, is that 'yes, humans seem to be causing this mass extinction". I pointed out your "harmony" is more correctly stated, they are in equilibrium. Actually the best word is homeostasis. There are limiting factors that control populations. we adapted past our limiting factors. factoid.

I pointed out that your precious jaguar, that you implied is special, would pollute (poop) and eat itself into extinction if the system around it didn't stop it. In human terms, violently stop it. Hey, how about that, just what we are doing.

You also fell in love with a gorilla. Again, I am not the one that would judge that, I understand loving animals. but a gorilla is less complex than a 3 yeard old child. Just a fact again little girl.

I also asked you if you are "human" enough to take the steps to control human population.

But you avoided your mistakes again ... you rather attack the messenger, I get t.

we are stressing the system and the system will change. Thats a fact little girl. Get over it. Maybe for the better.

we are not that much different than most other animals. All animals exploit their environment until something stops them, they eat, or they pollute themselves into extinction. again, that's a simple observation that you will have to get straight.

I pointed out that you were wrong when you claimed I said humans are the only complex life on this planet, I actually said the biosphere is the most complicated set of interactions we know. But you ignored that and went with the insults and running away. typical.

Your 'harmony" is a self projection of self hatred to me. I mean, really? humans are evil and a parasite? Gorilla's and jaguars "live in harmony". I would expect that out of some dopey theist fundy. oh wait, milli-mentalist-think is abound too.

All you do is say how wrong I am and all it shows is that you are not trained in the sciences. I doubt you even have a degree in biology at this point. I mean its ok to rant and rave about things, but at some point you have to address the facts. Its even ok to hate me. Galileo, newton, and others were not the nicest people. I am ok with that. If you are ok with deciding what the facts are based on your emotional state at any given time that's on you. not me. all you did was insult. that's how you perceive things, bring them down to your level.

all in all, just like the last time I pointed out where you are wrong, you flipped out instead of making some minor adjustments to make you statements align with what most scientist do think. See: religion and psychology.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Clintone

In a prior post you made the below comment:



You referred to humans as a parasitic cancer of the earth. You mentioned that our nonhuman ancestors lived in harmony with the Earth, which was an irrational statement. They ate and were eaten. They struggled. That is not harmony. I see saying they lived in harmony with nature as an insult to their struggles, and that bothers me, just like it bothers me when you say humanity is a cancer of the Earth. We are more than cancers. Given that the word "better" is a very abstract concept and I would say it has no real definite consistent meaning but is instead use to refer to something having a general sense of superiority over other things, I would say that it would be entirely reasonable for an intelligent person to describe you as seeming to believe nonhumans are better than humans. Now, that description does carry a negative stigma. I'm not saying you're a bad person, but at bare minimum, you sound exactly like someone that it would make sense to describe as seeing nonhumans as better than humans.

Also, your statements of obvious information, like how ancient humans made tools and created fires, would give me the impression if I lacked knowledge of your career choice, that you are ignorant of the sciences and happened to gleam some intriguing information from a PETA website after a 30 second Google search, and that is the extent of your scientific knowledge.



I never said that I'd need to exist as another animal to understand the damage humans are doing to the Earth. I said that I'd have to exist as a nonhuman animal to know what it feels like to be one. I was thinking about your comment where you mentioned that if you were a god you would never allow humans to evolve. I'd have to exist as a nonhuman organism to know what it feels like to live their lives. I'd have to exist as a nonhuman organism, as well as a human, to compare their lives against ours. For all I know humans live happy enough of lives, and most nonhuman species in the wild exist in miserable enough states that it would be for the best if humans left Earth, taking only their pets, and blew up Earth, putting everything out of their misery except for our pets. It could be the other way too though. Perhaps the harm humans cause to other organisms makes the cumulative happiness loss not worth the happiness we humans feel, and our existence was not worth it, or perhaps our sheer intelligence makes us more miserable than nonhuman organisms. I don't know. I'm saying you probably don't know either, but knowing is pretty much the only way I could see determining whether or not humans should or should not have existed.

I'm wondering why you emphasize that humans are causing extinctions. That is a bad thing, but I don't see it as necessarily worth the gains we've achieved through technology, through smallpox vaccines, toilet paper, clean water, etc.



I already probably know more about ancient humans than most laypersons. That topic has long been an area of interest for me. The fact that ancient humans made fires and used tools is not particularly uncommon knowledge either. I'm well aware of the many, many extinctions we've caused. I suspect that's probably pretty common knowledge too. We haven't ruined Earth. We've changed it.



If I were a species on the brink of extinction I would have to not be a human...at least so far. Give it another ten years and maybe we'll have a nuclear war or something. If I were not a human my interests would be self-preservation or perhaps an interest in the preservation of my pack and cubs and mate in some sense. I would not be able to think about it in the same way I can now though. I have no doubt we will go extinct, in a sense, but our species' unique skill is our ability for rapid change. We could, literally, end up leaving earth and living in space, spreading out forever. Then we will go extinct, but only in the sense that our bodies and minds will change. There could very well be no definite end of us so much as a gradual evolution.



I've learned a fair amount about that sort of thing, probably as much as anyone else. Again, you're telling me to research information that probably most of the halfway intelligent people probably already know. It's bad. It wreaks havoc. Water shortages. Rainforests chopped down, etc.

I don't think its about being objective at this point.
But an excellent post nonetheless.

I think we make the next life form. Like all proteins did before us did. I think we (humans) are just an awkward evolutionary middle step from asleep to awake.

I am kind happy we get to see that. I am kind glad that i got to see a mass extinction event after all this time studying them. Yes, they are "bad", but they brought forth a more complex life form.

I think we leave concentrated resources and data. They don't/won't have to take as long as we did "learning". Thats pretty cool.

[mensaguy]

Please!

Stop with the personal remarks! If you don't want to discuss the topic in a civil manner, feel free to go post somewhere else.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Clintone

From what I understand a great many (or is it most?) first world nations don't have overpopulation problems.

Birthrate is a 3rd world problem, from what I understand, but it is a big one in those environments. We in the first world have to reduce our consumption of nonrenewable resources. That's our problem. It doesn't matter that much if we don't have an overpopulation problem but each do as much harm as 15 third worlders.

Quite often in the general community there is a notion that overpopulation is a problem largely caused by the third world and to an extent non-white nations. I would like to put forward a slightly different definition of overpopulation.

People tend to oversimplify, and state that the problem is 'too many people', and because most of the births come from the third world, then the third world is the primary cause of the problem. Though this is true, it completely avoids the issue which isn't the number of people that exist, but the number of people the planet can support.

The lifestyle of the people the planet is supporting cannot be overlooked. To say that a family of 10 Africans living in a shanty town is equivalent of 3 average white families living in the US, and just as much a contributing factor is just absurd. Considering that the use of resources per capita in the US and other first world countries is magnitudes greater and that even calorie intake is disproportionately higher, we see that the carrying capacity depends greatly, almost exclusively on the lifestyle and rate of consumption of the people inhabiting the planet. This is the primary problem.

The world may be able to support 6 billion people living in poverty, but NOT 6 billion living in the type of society we are used to. The real problem, as I see it, is that there is not enough for everyone in the world to develop to first world levels. I would argue that even in the first world, there are still more people than there should be for long term survival. I would argue than most first world nations, are already overpopulated.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by Clintone

You referred to humans as a parasitic cancer of the earth.

Yes I did. Anything that sucks the life out of it's host at the hosts expense is a parasite and when it spreads death like a cancer then it becomes a parasitic cancer.

Originally Posted by Clintone

You mentioned that our nonhuman ancestors lived in harmony with the Earth, which was an irrational statement. They ate and were eaten. They struggled. That is not harmony

You and I holf a different view of what living in harmony with the earth means. Living in harmony with the earth involves creating global sustainable developments. Ancient humans did just that. Modern humans have done just the opposite.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I see saying they lived in harmony with nature as an insult to their struggles, and that bothers me, just like it bothers me when you say humanity is a cancer of the Earth.

Well then I guess you are going to have to do some work on your wrong thinking about what I mean by "living in harmony with nature". Humans are the parasitic cancer of this Earth regardless if you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Clintone

We are more than cancers. Given that the word "better" is a very abstract concept and I would say it has no real definite consistent meaning but is instead use to refer to something having a general sense of superiority over other things, I would say that it would be entirely reasonable for an intelligent person to describe you as seeming to believe nonhumans are better than humans.

I agree, the word "better" is a very abstract concept and I would say it has no real definite consistent meaning. You and I don't use terms in the same manner. I don't find chocolate ice cream to be superior to strawberry ice cream simply because I think chocolate ice cream is better.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Now, that description does carry a negative stigma. I'm not saying you're a bad person, but at bare minimum, you sound exactly like someone that it would make sense to describe as seeing nonhumans as better than humans.

I am not concerned in the least with what I sound like to you. Your perceptions are all about you and have nothing to do with who I am.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Also, your statements of obvious information, like how ancient humans made tools and created fires, would give me the impression if I lacked knowledge of your career choice, that you are ignorant of the sciences and happened to gleam some intriguing information from a PETA website after a 30 second Google search, and that is the extent of your scientific knowledge.

That's a mighty laughable comment. LOL! You mean as obvious as you declaring that ancient people did not live in harmony with Earth and that WE invented tools implying they did not but WE did.

Originally Posted by Clintone

Our ancestors did not live in harmony with nature. They probably lived often cold, hot, or hungry. We invented tools so as to be less cold, hot and hungry.

Do learn to keep up with your own posts before going off on me with snarky ad hominem attacks.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I never said that I'd need to exist as another animal to understand the damage humans are doing to the Earth.

I never implied you did. You went off on that tangent because you completely missed my point.

Originally Posted by Clintone

For all I know humans live happy enough of lives, and most nonhuman species in the wild exist in miserable enough states that it would be for the best if humans left Earth, taking only their pets, and blew up Earth, putting everything out of their misery except for our pets.

I think you really meant, for all you don't know. You don't speak for all humans and their state of happiness nor do you speak for other animal species and their state of misery. You appear to have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Clintone

It could be the other way too though. Perhaps the harm humans cause to other organisms makes the cumulative happiness loss not worth the happiness we humans feel, and our existence was not worth it, or perhaps our sheer intelligence makes us more miserable than nonhuman organisms. I don't know. I'm saying you probably don't know either, but knowing is pretty much the only way I could see determining whether or not humans should or should not have existed.

It's easy to see that the enormous trade off of suffering that other animals and the Earth has endured from human activity alone...is a lousy trade-off that can't be justified.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I'm wondering why you emphasize that humans are causing extinctions.

See the title of this Thread. The 6th Mass Extinction has everything to do with humans.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I already probably know more about ancient humans than most laypersons. That topic has long been an area of interest for me. The fact that ancient humans made fires and used tools is not particularly uncommon knowledge either. I'm well aware of the many, many extinctions we've caused. I suspect that's probably pretty common knowledge too. We haven't ruined Earth. We've changed it.

See above...you are the one who implied that WE are the ones who made tools not them.

A little more than one hundred years ago, Native American Indians were taken away from their families in Indian Territory to a government run boarding school where the policy was to wipe away every trace of the indigenous worldview from those people and replace it with the western settler mindset.

How can you not acknowledge the damage humans alone have caused to Earth? Yes we have ruined it not only for ourselves but for many species which are now going extinct, we have polluted even the most pristine lands and oceans with our human actives. I guess you are also blind the current climate change, global pollution and the plethora of extinctions all caused by human activity.

Originally Posted by Clintone

If I were a species on the brink of extinction I would have to not be a human...at least so far.

No doubt our species will face the brink of extinction. Yes the human species will face it as did all the other 99.9% of species that walked on this Earth.

Originally Posted by Clintone

If I were not a human my interests would be self-preservation or perhaps an interest in the preservation of my pack and cubs and mate in some sense.

Self-preservation is the protection of oneself from harm or death, and is especially regarded as a basic instinct in human beings and animals.

Originally Posted by Clintone

I have no doubt we will go extinct, in a sense, but our species' unique skill is our ability for rapid change.

We have a unique skill for rapid change? No we don't...bacteria and viruses do but not big ole humans. Evolution is not a rapid change in humans...it's a long slow process.

When you hear that 99.9999% of all species that have ever existed on Earth has gone extinct. This means two things. Firstly, most 'types' of organism (animal, plant, fungi, whatever) only last a few million years at most before their way of life becomes outmoded as environments shift or competitors appear. However, 'extinction' can also mean evolution into a totally new form. As the old form (species) disappears this is still an extinction as a particular way of life is lost, although there is still a carry over of genetic material.

Originally Posted by Clintone

We could, literally, end up leaving earth and living in space, spreading out forever. Then we will go extinct, but only in the sense that our bodies and minds will change. There could very well be no definite end of us so much as a gradual evolution.

So much wrong thinking here that I don't want to waste my time on it.

I believe that transformation of our relationship to the Earth is among the greatest challenges and responsibilities of our time.

[TRANSPONDER]

While this is an interesting discussion and some thoughtfull posts all round (mostly ) I wonder whether this is really one for 'spirituality'. I see little relevance to religion except in relation to Deniers that say it is either not happening or that it's all part of god's plan.

This more of a science or political or social problem. The relevance even to spirituality is doubtful.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

While this is an interesting discussion and some thoughtfull posts all round (mostly ) I wonder whether this is really one for 'spirituality'. I see little relevance to religion except in relation to Deniers that say it is either not happening or that it's all part of god's plan.

This more of a science or political or social problem. The relevance even to spirituality is doubtful.

This would be true (and the relevance is not always stated), if it were not for the fact that SO much of the resistance to acknowledgement of the situation did not come from a percieved basis in religion.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

While this is an interesting discussion and some thoughtfull posts all round (mostly ) I wonder whether this is really one for 'spirituality'. I see little relevance to religion except in relation to Deniers that say it is either not happening or that it's all part of god's plan.

This more of a science or political or social problem. The relevance even to spirituality is doubtful.

I agree in part with you here. Our friends say good stuff and our non friends say bad stuff. it doesn't matter what we say. so in a way religion is just like politics and fandom.

I think the spiritual relevance is that people need an emotional connection to the problem before we will act with enough resources to fix it. Some people, like me, see numbers and say "hey, we might have a bing problem here." we get ignored. Others need an emotional connection to the problem to get moving. The most emotional, for good or bad, tend to be the first noisemakers to get the rest going.

look at the statements of 'save the children". People have such an emotional connection to the children that they would expend an enormous amount of time, money, and resources to save a populations children. To the point of self destruction in some cases.

The younger generation of science people are starting to push the notion that the biosphere as an organism(I tried telling you that the biosphere of life is accepted by most scientist and you just cover that up) and we should treat that organism like we would treat a sick person or animal or a plant. Us older generation thought it when giai first come out, although he went to far i think. We thought it because of the number of feedback loops per unit volume. But as you know I think the biosphere is life. it explains the woo woo choo choo-ers perfectly. (even if you deny it).

so in a way, like your milli anti-religion, it may be time to be milli anti-no climate change.

even worse, and I teach this all the time, we have to separate global warming claims from economic claims about dealing with climate change. I would not have removed the USA's restrictions to make the price of goods more equal. I would have placed higher tariffs on countries that are not following the guidelines to make prices equal.