Zooming out - will humans go extinct or what?

[johnny]

In the very long term, human extinction is possible when the sun blows up or goes out, but that is not expected for billions of years. We might have developed interstellar travel by then, but some believe this to be impossible.

I read this today, really liked the perspective:
There's no planet B
https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be ... -heres-why

They didn't dig into the statistics enough. Not even the obvious ones. The odds of occurrence of the same or similar outcomes across a system even as complex as star/planet/galaxy creation near absolute certainty. The odds of not being able to get there from here, that is entirely another topic.

But it was a reasonable article, and falls right in line with the concept that biologic scum on the surface of any planet aren't particularly significant under any circumstances, and probably can't escape their locale to infect any other locale.

[UndercoverElephant]

They didn't dig into the statistics enough. Not even the obvious ones. The odds of occurrence of the same or similar outcomes across a system even as complex as star/planet/galaxy creation near absolute certainty.

That's not statistics. That is pulling assertions out of thin air. The truth is that nobody has sufficient information to even sensibly guess how many life-supporting planets there are in entire cosmos. Just saying "it is unimaginably large, therefore there must be countless Earth-twins out their somewhere" has got nothing to do with statistics and everything to do with the unsafe assumption that the Earth is "not special". It is related to metaphysical materialism and naturalism. Put simply, if Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the cosmos then the narrative currently provided by naturalistic science must change. So naturalists/materialists always claims life "must be" out there somewhere. That "must" is driven by their metaphysics, not scientific statistics.

And it is changing.

https://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Ma ... 0199919755

The basic idea of the article Chris posted is the only reasonably one: at this point, given the best information available, the probability that humans can escape the ecological confines of this planet is tending to zero.

[Catweazle]

It's funny how certain people, when asked about the immediate and locally visible effects of deliberately ruining our planet for profit, launch into straw-dog arguments involving the whole universe as if to say that nothing we can do will change these natural events so it's really not worth trying. Deja-vu. Again.

[johnny]

The truth is that nobody has sufficient information to even sensibly guess how many life-supporting planets there are in entire cosmos.

Normally I would launch into a lecture on stochastic modeling and end somewhere near the value of statistics and how even Einstein was flumoxed by the basics of quantum mechanics in his time and the seemingly uncertainty of...not really knowing for sure...but it worked anyway. For someone who claims they know with certainty something they can't know with certainty, to also venture that no one has sufficient information to venture making a calculation of probability of other life supporting worlds with all the known information on planet formation, is so opposite day that I'll just restrain myself. Sir...know thyself.

Then I'll give a lecture on stochastic modeling as it applies to...well....most everything that you can't know with certainty. Which is...surprise! almost everything.

[johnny]

It's funny how certain people, when asked about the immediate and locally visible effects of deliberately ruining our planet for profit, launch into straw-dog arguments involving the whole universe as if to say that nothing we can do will change these natural events so it's really not worth trying. Deja-vu. Again.

I don't think that is what Undercover was saying. Or myself. I simply begin discussions on broadband topics using broadband perspectives. The extinction, or not, of an inconsequential species with the hubris of its intelligience and inability to use it to save themselves (while important to the given species) is just...a sad comedy.

We need more philosophers around here. Preppers just take the now so seriously and all focused on them-them-them in such a short time frame that they can barely reach beyond their liftime with an idea, let alone the other species on the planet down through time to the heat death of the planet. I didn't say "their" planet, if anyone noticed. Speciesism really is a thing, but a broadband perspective can get you around it. I recommend wider perspectives for everyone!

[UndercoverElephant]

For someone who claims they know with certainty something they can't know with certainty,

What's that then?

[UndercoverElephant]

It's funny how certain people, when asked about the immediate and locally visible effects of deliberately ruining our planet for profit, launch into straw-dog arguments involving the whole universe as if to say that nothing we can do will change these natural events so it's really not worth trying. Deja-vu. Again.

You mean me? if so, then I'm not saying that all. Well...there are things we can change and things we can't. We can't stop the coming die-off, but we can have some effect on which of a wide range of possible futures actually manifests, some of which are far worse than others (by whatever definition of "worse" you like to choose).

The reason I am interested in arguments involving the whole universe, or the whole history and future of life on Earth, is because Western Civilisation has got a broken cosmology/epistemology and I think that as we have to build a completely new narrative anyway then we really ought to fix that at the same time. Reinvent the whole narrative, not just the economics and the politics. The political-economic model we've created - the one that treats everything as a commodity, including human beings and the natural world - is directly related to the metaphysical model associated with western science. Both are forms of materialism. If humans are going to rebuild/transform civilisation into something saner and sustainable, I think both these manifestations of materialism have to be rejected and replaced with something else.

[UndercoverElephant]

We need more philosophers around here. Preppers just take the now so seriously and all focused on them-them-them in such a short time frame that they can barely reach beyond their liftime with an idea, let alone the other species on the planet down through time to the heat death of the planet. I didn't say "their" planet, if anyone noticed. Speciesism really is a thing, but a broadband perspective can get you around it. I recommend wider perspectives for everyone!

I have a degree in philosophy. I just don't happen to like Peter Singer. My ethics are very different to his. I don't think the invention of "speciesism" is necessary. It is enough to acknowledge that animals are conscious beings and we should always aim to minimise their suffering. We should probably also try to avoid their extinction, though that is as much for the wellbeing of humans as the species going extinct. The more species go extinct, the harder life is likely to be for humans.

[Catweazle]

It's funny how certain people, when asked about the immediate and locally visible effects of deliberately ruining our planet for profit, launch into straw-dog arguments involving the whole universe as if to say that nothing we can do will change these natural events so it's really not worth trying. Deja-vu. Again.

You mean me?

No. I referred to Exxon apologist Johnny.

[BritDownUnder]

Going back to about 10 posts ago, before the Exxon Company got invoked, I quite like the idea of Mad Max on canal boats. It kind of overturns the serene series on canal boating I have been watching recently on Australian free-to-air TV featuring Timothy West and Prunella Scales.

I have been thinking of collapse scenarios for the UK and I just can't think of any scenario that involves a sustained, steady and slow collapse. It will just resort of anarchy once the food begins to go short and the money to pay for security and police forces runs out. People and in particular the bottom 50% will suddenly snap after reaching breaking point. At the moment they have enough to eat and have Netflix and SkyTV. Once that stops there will be trouble.

Cuba seems to have managed collapse quite well going to a time of food scarcity but still availability and managing on much low oil consumption levels. However they are basically a dictatorship. Perhaps the UK should go down that road to manage collapse?

[Catweazle]

Mad Max on canal boats ! Brilliant

Much more appropriate to the English lifestyle than all that frantic tearing around in the desert.

I fear you're right about the masses mood when the food stops, which is why every scrap of food in the country will be collected by the government for strictly controlled distribution to the most populated areas until there is none left. Being sat in our country smallholdings will be scant protection unless we're smart enough to stash stuff away, even then they'll probably assume that's what we've done and issue us nothing unless we're obviously starving.

For us preppers it's probably better if government collapses early on, before they get to rob us, even if it means we'll have to avoid the mobs for longer and they'll be better able to travel.

[johnny]

We need more philosophers around here.

I have a degree in philosophy. I just don't happen to like Peter Singer. My ethics are very different to his. I don't think the invention of "speciesism" is necessary.

I don't think of it as an invention, just the definition of thing. We humans take ourselves pretty seriously, to the exclusion of most other species. I'll grant you we seem to like the whales and dolphins.

It is enough to acknowledge that animals are conscious beings and we should always aim to minimise their suffering.

I think it is enough when we ACT like animals are conscious beings and we should alwayas aim to minimize their suffering.

Small change in wording and look at that....in one case we care, and the other it is okay to pretend we care.

We should probably also try to avoid their extinction, though that is as much for the wellbeing of humans as the species going extinct. The more species go extinct, the harder life is likely to be for humans.

We "should", sure, and "probably" and "try" and I imagine we'd all feel better because should, probably and trying has no requirement to succeed in the least. Sort of like the sleight of hand that the COP conferences pull, COP21 being my favorite.

According to the doom yesterday, doom now, doom tomorrow types, life has been harder ever since Luther left the church, the Luddites lost their battle, one of the past peak oils maybe/sorta/didn't happen, neoliberalism got out of control and infected the world, globalization was accepted by all sorts of countries and political parties, man went to the moon instead of feeding the poor, war is still a moneymaker, and so on and so forth.

So life has been getting harder for awhile now. Probably shouldn't be confused with doom, as some are wont to do. Is it even a reasonable expectation to think that isn't the natural order of things, or is this some vestige of a leftover dream we inherited from our parents and grandparents coming out of WWII?

Atlas Shrugged...and welcome to the consequences of humans doing human. And most of us suffering from speciesism, as we think we matter, and those other species? Well..some of them taste good at a barbeque....is about as far as that goes.

[johnny]

No. I referred to Exxon apologist Johnny.

There is no need to apologize for them, for the crimes they were accused of, they were found not guilty of. And pointing out court results certainly has nothing to do with being an apoligist. More like, a Tracker of Truth!! (wasn't that the tagline of that peak oilers dolt Mike Ruppert?) Let them without sin throw the first stone....you don't use hydrocarbon based products, do you Cat? No harming of hydrogen and carbon molecules required for your lifestyle? Or, knowing the answer to that question, are you more of a nuanced user of hydrocarbons? You use less than others, perhaps, but haven't managed to leave the First World habits of fossil fuel use? A little or alot, puts you in the same group as the rest of us though.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think it is enough when we ACT like animals are conscious beings and we should alwayas aim to minimize their suffering.

And personally, I always do. Those who do not aren't going to take any notice of a philosopher going on about "speciesism".

Small change in wording and look at that....in one case we care, and the other it is okay to pretend we care.

You do not need the word "speciesism" to care about non-human animals.

We should probably also try to avoid their extinction, though that is as much for the wellbeing of humans as the species going extinct. The more species go extinct, the harder life is likely to be for humans.

We "should", sure, and "probably" and "try" and I imagine we'd all feel better because should, probably and trying has no requirement to succeed in the least. Sort of like the sleight of hand that the COP conferences pull, COP21 being my favorite.

There is no point in imposing an ethical requirement on humans to prevent a mass extinction which can no longer be prevented. I don't personally even believe there is an ethical requirement to save 8 billion humans, and for exactly the same reason: it's impossible.

The only way we can make the world a sustainably better place is to re-invent/re-design civilisation such that it is ecologically sustainable. And the only species which can do that is humans. This isn't "speciesism", even by Singer's standards. I am not discriminating against non-humans. I am acknowledging that is is humans who are causing the problem and humans are the only species that can fix it.

So life has been getting harder for awhile now. Probably shouldn't be confused with doom, as some are wont to do. Is it even a reasonable expectation to think that isn't the natural order of things, or is this some vestige of a leftover dream we inherited from our parents and grandparents coming out of WWII?

I don't understand your question, because it has too many negatives in it.

As for natural/unnatural, I think that category is broken. We can have that conversation if you like, but it will become very complicated very quickly.

Atlas Shrugged...and welcome to the consequences of humans doing human. And most of us suffering from speciesism, as we think we matter, and those other species? Well..some of them taste good at a barbeque....is about as far as that goes.

Humans are a product of natural selection, and currently behaving pretty much how natural selection programmed us to. We either have to invent a sustainable form of civilisation, or natural selection will have another go at us and change us, or we will go extinct. Everybody here seems to agree we won't go extinct, so the choice is between figuring out how to live on this planet in balance with everything else, or allowing natural selection to re-program us. Looks to me like we will choose the latter, which is bad news for most of the other animals on this planet.

[UndercoverElephant]

At the moment they have enough to eat

Well, they would if they could it afford it. Not much use there being food in the shops if you cannot afford to buy it.

The poorest 10-20% of the UK population is already skipping meals to save money.