Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Ashley Cox | October 2nd 2008 04:00 AM | 31 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Variety Tap articles

All

About Ashley Cox

I'm an undergrad in chemistry on my way to getting a PhD before any of you did. Just kidding.

I have many different interests including genetics, fire fighting, rock climbing, marine


... Full Bio

"We are the most dangerous species of life on the planet, and every other species, even the earth itself, has cause to fear our power to exterminate."


*******

At least that's how Wallace Stegner, American novelist and environmentalist, puts it. And it certainly seems to be the word on the street in a lot of other places these days. Humans are at fault for everything under the sun - figuratively and maybe literally.  I don't disagree we can do better but, for the sake of humanity, someone needs to stick up for us.

Humans are the only species in 4.8 Billion years of planetary existence that has completely gone against the basic theory of evolution. Instead of adapting to our surroundings, we've made the environment adapt to us.

We like to think of ourselves as simple beings, living day by day doing what we believe is right, but when we finally take a moment to reflect, we still pursue higher issues like why are we here?

Of course, I can't answer that question, but it gives us a way to think about the real impact we've come to have. We are leaving a significant imprint by our behavior in the present and, I don't know about you, but I personally don't want the entire human race of the early 21st century to be looked down upon for the few mistakes we have made.

Let's begin at the beginning; wayyy back to the age of the Dinosaur.



Not an actual dinosaur. Do not be alarmed.

Sure, they were enormous and likely downright frightening, but were there any substantial negatives to their very existence? Did their behavior cause an effect on nearly every species of their time? Of course not!

Humans on the other hand, are blamed for the extinction of numerous species of animals as well as for the possible extinction of the planet.

Since we're in the 21st century, I did a quick search. Just with a quick search of one science site I can find 50 articles that list the year 2100 as a magical point-of-no-return date.

Why did they pick it? I don't know, probably because it is a round number, like 2000 was. On one hand, you can say the Y2K issue was a problem everyone talked about that never happened - so it was hype - but on the other hand you can say Y2K never happened because we planned far enough in advance. So it is with climate issues.

Relying on spacemen from the future to solve Y2K problems didn't make a lot of sense and waiting on future science to suddenly solve climate issues doesn't make sense either. But first ...

What are we doing and how did we get here?


Here are just a few examples of how humans have so-far impacted the planet:

Depletion of resources, deforestation, urbanization, pollution, rampant waste, burning fossil fuels, wars, global warming, etc. 


(photo credit: green peace)

 

Humans have inhabited this planet for ... well, we don't know exactly how long but it gets longer every year and, if latest studies are correct, we have been intentionally modifying the planet anthopogenically for 20,000 years of that time. As soon as humans were able, we began seeking ways to tame nature, never knowing (or caring) what effects that might have in the future.

As a more "advanced" species today (and I use quotations cynically, you'll see why in a minute), we are not merely gardening for the sake of food, but are instead tearing at the pits of the planet as a means to sustain what we call current 'needs'. We are completely aware of the impacts our actions may have, but continue to follow the same path regardless.  No one competent in business would intentionally self-destruct their livelihood in such a way but some out there think we should do just that. Or they think we'll somehow have the science to go to another planet by the time it matters.

Enough about the bad. Why not focus on some good for once, shall we?

Everyone has already been briefed on the current global issues, but what relatively few people talk about is the good we've caused. Plenty of people today are changing how we impact our planet in the hope that we will not be hated in the future. 

As more and more people learn the truth (and not just what their politics tells them they should believe), the more that gets done done to halt the damage and, soon, to reverse it. Current science is helping to reuse energy, conserve wildlife, lessen dependancy on fossil fuels, and educate others.


Not everyone, of course, Oil companies make money on fossil fuels and environmental groups make money telling people to hate oil companies, but that is at the high level. On the ground level, hard-working scientists who care are working for both sides. They work for Exxon, they work for The Nature Conservancy and some even write on this site.

*******

"We are the most dangerous species of life on the planet, and every other species, even the earth itself, has cause to fear our power to exterminate. But we are also the only species which, when it chooses to do so, will go to great effort to save what it might destroy."


Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture

As more and more people learn the truth (and not just what their politics tells them they should believe), the more that gets done done to halt the damage and, soon, to reverse it. Current science is helping to reuse energy, conserve wildlife, lessen dependancy on fossil fuels, and educate others.

While all this is true, it begs the question. Humans are not doing anything wrong, per se. The problem is that there are simply too many of them. There can be no realistic solutions if our population overruns the entire planet. At present there are about 116 people per square mile for the entire land surface of the earth. When uninhabitable portions of land are removed from this the number nearly doubles. This is simply untenable and no amount of scientific progress will change these numbers nor lessen their impact.
Wallace Stegner is an idiot, ever heard about the time when Bacteria Nearly Destroyed All Life on earth??

QUOTE
"Humans are the only species in 4.8 Billion years of planetary existence that has completely gone against the basic theory of evolution. Instead of adapting to our surroundings, we've made the environment adapt to us."

This is just ignorant. A period in history is known as the Paleoproterozoic era, and prior to that time the Earth's ecology and environment were significantly different. The iron-rich waters of the oceans lent them a green tint, and the atmosphere was comprised of gasses other than oxygen. A blue-green algae known as cyanobacteria were the first to use water and sunlight for photosynthesis, producing oxygen as a by-product of their metabolism. This environmental shift triggered a massive die-off which threatened to extinguish all life on Earth. After this apocalypse our earth became adapted and life evolved further in this oxygen rich atmosphere we know today.

Now you see why Wallace Stegner is talking gibberish. We are not destroying the earth but we are destroying our habitat. Life on earth will continue after the human race even after Wallace Stegner. We simply do not have the power to destroy earth not even when we would simultaneously ignite all atom bombs that exist on the planet. We can destroy our life, our human habitat or habitats from the mineral, plant and animal kingdom but we got to keep a little perspective and humility. When we die, some bacteria located deep under the face of the earth will once again start an evolution cycle of life.

Besides, man is on perfect track with nature. Nature has cycles of evolution and devolution. We as human beings are now in a state of DEVOLUTION. Our evolution period has already ended. That's why we go back, nature is recycling us, couples are getting more and more impotent, homosexuality is broadly accepted, modern music has lost all value, this is devolution. Nature is recycling us for her next generation of life.

Wallace Stegner fails to realize this. He thinks we are evolving, look around you. Humans are a part of nature. We and everything we create comes from nature, is nature, nature created us. A cow farts, man builds a factory. The author gives himself way too much credit as a human being, he does it with good intentions but fails to see the picture here.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

Steve Davis's picture
I hadn't thought of it that way Gerhard, and you're probably right. If we do overcome the emissions problem then the sheer weight of our numbers may bring another pollutant into prominence.
Hank's picture
People have been saying that forever. When ancient tribes started to run out of game to hunt, they said they had too many people to feed - but scientists invented domestic agriculture instead and populations grew. The steel plow practically made Europe great singlehandedly 800 years ago.

We have an energy issue and that's all. 2% of water is potable but with energy 100% of it is potable. Likewise with the atmospheric problems.

It was predicted people would be eating each other by 1970 because of food but we have a lot of it and can grow much more.

Obviously it's not good to wait on environmental issues, problems need to be tackled now, but there are no insurmountable problems - and they can all be solved by energy.

Steve Davis's picture
You're right to a degree Hank, if the global population remains at its present level we could possibly overcome all problems. But we live in a world of finite resources. If the population grows unchecked we must reach a breaking point. That point might become a reality prior to resources being exhausted, if resources are perceived to be allocated in a manner less than fair.
ashley's picture
There is no objection to what the current population is doing to resources around the world, but how exactly do we fix this? Exterminate half the population? What I propose is implementing a law such like China has, restricting the number of kids a couple could have. Even better, we should restrict "who" can bear children. If you think about it, a million Einstein's here would not be such a bad idea, but what we have currently is millions of people who can't even take care of themselves reproducing. Yeah yeah, I know, due to the "American Freedoms" this could never happen... Its the only permanent solution I can think of right now though.

Steve Davis's picture
Actually, there are objections to what the current population is doing to resources, in that we in the West are wasting them while others go without. But you're right Ashley about the need for population control, and right to point out that this will clash with perceived cultural values. With most population growth taking place in the poorer nations, a fairer allocation of resources would reduce their population growth. If a fairer allocation is rejected, our cultural propensity for waste will eventually clash with our cultural propensity for individual liberty.
Population control won't work. Either you forcibly sterilize people, or you just kill them off. Neither option will ever garner any support amongst even moderately intelligent people.

The solution is not to try to control population, but rather control the particulars that determine our population growth ... mainly, food supply.

If for the next 50 years we don't increase food production, but keep it at exactly the level we have today, we will see the human population cease to grow. I'm not talking about starvation or anything (at least no worse than we have now), but the number of individuals in a population is directly proportional to their food supply in any given year. If we keep growing more and more food, we will only end up with more and more people. Grow the same amount of food, and you will end up with the same amount of people. Grow less food, and you end up with less people. Pretty simple stuff. Doesn't require intrusion into people's private lives. Simply a fact of nature that if you don't increase food production, your population cannot increase.

Anyone involved in the global warming fraud wants people to hate themselves for what sunspots are doing to the planet to get across a political agenda. Either you know and are going to hell, or you don't and you've been duped. Sorry you've spent your whole life hating yourself and all humans when in reality its the opposite, you should love everyone and yourself... but think about it

if everybody hates each other and themselves, then they won't defend freedom.. what just passed the house today?

I rest my case, world.

Gerhard Adam's picture
There is no mechanism for population control. Any proposed solution becomes a political issue and will not have much support or be met with fairly significant resistance. Despite the fact that many people want to treat population and the environment as if it were only a political issue, it is a real issue and it doesn't involve getting people to "hate themselves". That latter notion is just absurd. It does provide an interesting insight into how a species behaves and introduces the question of whether a species can do anything to curb its natural proclivities even with the intellect to see what is occurring. The basic problem with population control is that in the absence of an obvious problem, people will tend to presume that things aren't that bad and behave accordingly to their personal inclinations. If a problem becomes apparent, they will look for help, or die in the attempt. In neither case will there ever be a conscious control to determine the destiny of the species itself. What strikes me about the whole situation, is that we live on a resource rich planet, where we could all live like kings if we didn't insist on populating it to the point of strain. In any case, the ultimate irony is that despite our intellectual achievements .. our success or failure on this planet will be governed just as any biological species would be... and it appears that there is nothing we can or will do about it.
The environment is a real issue yes, but it has been turned into our fault... once the politicians did that we don't want to all do something about it... if it was turned into.. we didn't do it, but we gotta fix it... IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED ALREADY. Global warming is a fact, but humans arent' responsible for it and it has been used to make people hate themselves so much they don't want to do anything... they created the perfect 40 year paradox, a genius way to bring down the global financial system... nice job.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Humans are the only species in 4.8 Billion years of planetary existence that has completely gone against the basic theory of evolution. Instead of adapting to our surroundings, we've made the environment adapt to us.

That isn't actually true. Humans are still very much subject to evolution, although with technology they have certainly altered some of the parameters. In the end, this is no different that many adaptations to try and garner advantage for any given species. Many species have bursts of tremendous population and growth and then they die off. Many species have gone extinct during the Earth's long existence. I think the biggest risk that human beings have is in believing their own hype. Whether our intellect matters, or whether we have "beaten" evolution will ultimately depend on whether we succeed (i.e. survive). If we don't avoid extinction, then it will all have been academic, and the development of intelligence may simply be another one of Mother Nature's non-starters.
I'll tell you why you are wrong Gerhard...

Because you refer to humans as if you aren't one, people that do that are removed from the situation and feel they can solve the problem by thinking, which is evident by how you vocabulate your posts...

And that makes you dangerous because your heart isn't in it.. and is the equivalent to insanity when applied to reality and not just the present.

You are an idiot.

Gerhard Adam's picture
You shouldn't use words that you don't understand the meaning of.
Just think, if people didn't hate themselves because of the global warming farce, this article wouldn't have been written... you are focusing on the wrong problem, but i'll take that as a concession of the points i've made.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Just think, if people didn't hate themselves because of the global warming farce, this article wouldn't have been written

I'm sorry, but your conclusion is totally unwarranted. When an individual is wrong it doesn't mean that such a conclusion is the result of "self-hate". More specifically, my point about population , is that there is no "right" way to behave when the numbers are simply overwhelming. One cannot be conscientious to a degree that offsets the overcommitment of resources. While there are certainly "green movements" that behave in a way that suggests blaming humans, such a position trivializes the real problem. We all have enough evidence of people that are greedy or irresponsible, but that isn't the point with humans in the world. Once again, my point is that we've simply become too "good" at our technology, and that many of the problems we're facing is at the cost of having solved older problems. This will never end until we reach the ultimate problem of saturation.
i think you underestimate humanity, we'll agree to disagree.

People can think and not act or act and not think have no business talking about dangerous issues. Figure that out, World.

Steve Davis's picture
I thought we were here to learn. To descend into name calling, and without giving your identity, well it's obvious that some of us come here to push notions or ideologies, not ideas.
@ Gerhard : I also think that this person an ny mous isn't laying out his ideas in a respectful manner

@ Steve Davis : I agree with you on the part about we are here to learn without name calling. Besides this fact I don't believe anonymity on the internet is a bad thing, I don't know for sure but are you by any change +30 years of age? One should consider to use an anonymous name as a means of safety on the internet, most people from age 10 to 29 are aware of this.

Lucferris's picture
Wow, I'm glad I chose to read this article. It's like an episode of Jerry Springer, only about something that I truly care about. Anyways. Man, you can't start denying humanity, not now. This is the time when the need is to celebrate what makes humans survive. This whole video game called "Survival of the Fittest" ain't over until we have conquered ourselves. Humans are the ultimate survivors. As we kill off anything else that stands in our way, we do what we can to save as much as we can. But at the end of the day, we have to keep going. Surviving is in our DNA. Why do you think that Survivor show was so popular when it started? That belief that someone is out there is surviving is intoxicating to us. We all want to survive and we will continue to fight. Population control is ridiculous ridiculousness and everyone knows it. To tell people not to have kids is to tell bears to not shit in woods. Sure, the bear could learn to use the toilet, but Jesus save the guy who interrupts him when he's playing with himself. We cannot stop procreating. Think about it: our job as a species is to survive, the first step of that is to procreate. A woman gets pregnant and either she or society decides that she must have and keep the baby despite the fact that its a bad idea for her, her family, and maybe even society. I tell ya, it's in our DNA. Humans will take from this planet all that we need to get by, then we'll move on. I'm serious about this. Go and check the space section of this website. We will move on. We're the hypothetical race from that awful movie, Independence Day. Only we're the invaders. Don't count us out. We have the potential to correct our ills to this planet if we just focus on it. Humans are that unique animal that can learn from its mistakes on a cultural level. We usually don't. But we can. Education and parenting is the key. Humans need to be informed. If only there were a medium that has most of the world's information and is instantly available. Oh, there is something. Reportedly, it has changed the way humans think. Plus, humans made it. -LucFerris
ashley's picture
Humans will take from this planet all that we need to get by, then we'll move on...

The trouble is just that... Why should we spend billions of dollars creating a liveable place to live on other planets just because we don't feel like cleaning up the one we live on now (not saying thats not totally awesome in the advancement of our species). Its irresponsible for humans to litter up the Earth and somehow expect what, the ants to clean it up for us?

Feel free to argue with me on that.

I have strong opinions when it comes to not Global Warming, but any issue that humans *may or may not* have contributed to. We have the ability, the technology, and the need to clean up our act and we can do so with minimal changes, so it upsets me when people choose to be ignorant of humanity and their laziness to help for the betterment of the planet.
That was a total run-on sentance haha. oh well.

Whatever your opinion on this issue, please admit to yourselves that there are small things you can do to dramatically improve this situation.

It may not be our fault ("our" as in United States) but the fact that it is impacted by HUMAN behavior should hold some type of meaning to you.

ashley's picture
**** And by "you" I'm not meaning LucFerris, who I replied to, just people in general.
:)

Lucferris's picture
Ashley, you are 100% correct in your point that humanity must do what it can to protect our birth planet. Shortly after reading my comment, my wife and I had a discussion about how the little things make a difference. We recycle and practice energy conservation, and we choose to spread the word. All it takes is for everyone to do a little bit to change things. But that's where we run into problems. Humans will do what humans will do and there is no stopping that. Many a conqueror and an activist has found out that fact the hard way. To say 'if only everyone would' do anything is the curse of the idealist. That is why I put this comment on a website read by the scientific community. John Q. will not stand up and demand change, it will take those who choose to think rather than be thought for to make any kind of difference on the planet. There is no fix-all for this problem. We must, as a species, attack all avenues of this cultural turnaround. It's gonna take a worldwide educational initiative of the masses, as well as comprehensively responsible business practices of those in power. In the end, humans are capable of accomplishing great things, and we will, but it will take an entire re-evolution of the way humans think in order for humanity to reach its potential. -LucFerris
It is still disturbing to see people who say: "come on, we must save our birth planet!"

Not because it's a noble idea but because the idea is a logical failure. People thinking they must save planet earth are not at all humble beings. Humility in our present time is of great value people. Like I stated above, we must not save planet earth because we are not as powerful as planet earth, we are to weak as human beings in order to save or destroy this planet. One should consider the facts, it is indeed OUR HUMAN HABITAT on earth that we should save, this is the difference. Earth can do without us, we can't do without earth. It's a simple story.

This might look like an unimportant detail but it holds vast both practical as psychological consequences and even more important, it is reality.

ashley's picture
One should consider the facts, it is indeed OUR HUMAN HABITAT on earth that we should save, this is the difference. Earth can do without us, we can't do without earth. It's a simple story.

I do believe this, and I'm not a total hippie myself, I just feel that cleaning up a bit (like recycling, and reusing materials, and so on) can snowball into great changes. Like what is it, installing that new fluorescent light bulb is equivalent to removing a million cars from the road? That’s cool to me, and why not just spend a buck to help out? I dislike those who purposely avoid those bulbs to "prove a point" if you will. There are some great people in the world today, then there are those with other motives who choose to stray away from any type of truth.

Of course Ashley, I'm sorry to have sacrificed your story in order to make a logical point. I think it's an important point but I respect you efforts and kind nature towards progress in our environment. Saving planet earth sounds a bit like hippie stuff indeed but even if you were a hippie, the main thing is the good intention you carry and the active steps towards a better health of our human habitat you seem to be taking.

The Western world has reduced it's pollution drastically in the latest years, the pollution is now coming from the developing countries, most of them containing the latest save havens for some important parts of nature. The last standing stones carrying the sustainability of the human habitat. The reason for this pollution reduction in the West are new technologies and stricter laws but also the fact that there simply isn't any nature left in many countries to be polluted in the first place.

Individual actions can contribute to the sustainability of our habitat. But let's not be mistaken, it is the entire structure of human society that needs to contribute. The skeleton of the human race is our economy, politics, social contacts, etc... This is in fact our global DNA, the human DNA on the macro cosmos scale. It's here where the change could matter, not particular some individual actions that only affect a micro cosmos. If you want to battle a sickness you want to heal the origin of the sickness, you do not want to keep battling the resulting complaints.

Hank's picture
Actually, I won't install the CFL bulbs. The same environmentalists who worry about very small slippery slope things in the natural ecology dismiss the mercury hazard should you break one of these with statements like "It's only a tiny amount of ... mercury."

Well, it isn't, if you love your kids or your pets. Should you break one, you'd better call in a Haz-Mat team. And if they sell a million CFL bulbs, how many will end up in a landfill even though, since they are hazardous toxic materials, you aren't supposed to throw them in the garbage. People are used to throwing bulbs away, not putting them in a bag (where they can break) and driving them to a toxic waste site. How many people even know where one is?

40 years ago asbestos was the big lifesaver and those filaments were too small to be a problem.

If you care about the environment you're better off waiting for LEDs. Like ethanol, CFL bulbs are endorsed by activists who have no idea at all about science. And marketing people at power companies are suddenly friends to the environment??? "Equivalent to a million cars" they say ... sheesh. :)

rholley's picture
Bring on the LED !

...........The mercury problem is well described HERE. Alas, in the UK our government is trying coercion, using the long arm of the EU. Since we are ruled by a bunch of 1960s student revolutionary leftovers, maybe they are inspired by the fact that

Cuba exchanged all incandescent light bulbs to CFLs in 2007 and banned import and sales of incandescent light bulbs.

Also, I understand that CFLs don't like to be turned on and off, and so are unsuitable for toilet lights which would only be on for a minute an hour.

Robert H. Olley
Physics Department
University of Reading
England

Steve Davis's picture
Hank is right, we do need a healthy dose of realism in dealing with these issues. But Ashley and Anon Mouse are also right, we do have moral obligations in this matter, and fulfilling those obligations would have a negligible effect on our lifestyles. While the emerging economic powerhouses are contributing to the problem, we must keep in mind that they are only following our example. It would be the height of hypocrisy for us to lecture the world on environmental issues from a position of comfortable wealth that was to a large extent derived from exploiting those very peoples that now seek to emulate us.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.