Agnostic.com
You must be a member to visit this group

22 8

Even if all humans turned into peaceful, rational humanists like Steven Pinker or Hans Rosling, our greatest problems, those that threaten humanity's survival, like climate change, pollution, soil degradation, toxic waste, loss of biodiversity, etc... would not be solved.
All those really dangerous problems are less collateral damages of our tribal nature, but of our collective intelligence and its offspring: technology, science and -yes! - large-scale cooperation.
If we were still in a state of warring tribes, the future of homo sapiens would not be as black as it is now. Optimists like Pinker or Rosling still think that science and technology will solve the problems that science and technology caused in the first place.
I do not intend to denigrate or disparage science and technology, au contraire, they are the best humankind has ever achieved, but it is naive to believe that forces and features that caused a mess are able to clean up that mess.

Matias 8 Oct 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

A reasonable society would encourage scientific and technological solutions to the problems we face today: moving away from polluting energy sources and towards renewables, limiting population growth and providing health care for all, elimination religious and political movements that increase hatred and separation, and educating society based on reason and science, not superstition. 2500 years ago, the Buddha said the Three Poisons were greed, hatred, and ignorance and, unfortunately, that’s still the case.

5

As long as we strive to own more and don't care about pollution we are doomed. It will take a major catastrophe to change the way our society sees it's responsibility to our planet.

4

We need a good epidemic.

The current population continuing in the same manner is unsustainable. The current prediction is that humans have about 12 years left until the tipping point is reached and there is no return from our destroyed Earth.

I saw and predicted this 35+ years ago...and it was one of the many reasons I remained childfree by choice...and also why I adopted a plant-based diet.

The Water Wars are coming...in some places, they have already started.

[pressenza.com]

we may not be as durable as cockroaches but our species will be around for 1000s of yrs if not millions.

4

I agree. Our biggest cause of problems is simply human overpopulation, resulting in excessive consumption of resources and growing production of toxic wastes.

I agree human activity will eventually so fundamentally alter the biosphere of the planet that life as we know it may not be possible.

I agree wholeheartedly it goes right along w the tragedy of the commons.

4

There is dirty technology and clean technology. We need to replace the burning of dirty fossil fuels with clean electricity, such as wind and solar, and electric vehicles. This would go a long way toward reversing the climate change disaster. To accomplish this en masse, we must elect smart democrats to replace the moronic republicans.

3

There are too many people on the planet. Most are children. Most adults are engaged in non-stop support of these children, with no time to teach how to behave. Hence the constant wars: taking is easier than building.

Nothing will improve until population growth is slowed, and in many places reversed.

3

They have in the past, and if we pay attention to the scientists, they can in the future. Tribalism is part of the problem. Some religious folks believe God will take care of us, or if we destroy ourselves, it is part of God's plan, and they are a tribe. Too many rich folks care for nothing but money, and ignore the science because of greed. These people are also in a tribe.

Rather than merely blaming Tribalism as the main culprit I, personally, think that CONSUMERISM and the Rampant Greed of both Governments and Corporations ( Founders/Owners, Executives and Shareholders included) should shoulder their more than fair share of the blame.

@Triphid l clearly stated it is PART of the problem. Governments, corporations, shareholders are all just another example of tribes. Most folks are tribal by nature. ☺

@Sticks48 Yes and I stated that Tribalism is NOT the main culprit (part of the problem) but only one of the numerous parts of it.
I think that our tendency towards Nationalism and National Zealotry has replaced Tribalism thus creating an ' invisible' barrier that restricts us from becoming what we truly should have evolved to being by now.

@Triphid If you have ever lived in or spent much time in the South, you would know this has been here all my life. trump gave them permission to come out and show who they are and they have. They exist everywhere here, but in the South they don't try to disguise it. There is a level of ignorance in the South that is really scary. Reason means absolutely nothing with these folks. As Ron White said, "You can't fix stupid." He is absolutely right.

@Sticks48 Yes, sadly, that is very prevalent in the American South and Trump is prime example of what America has created by being so.
Stupidity exists everywhere there are humans, a sad point of fact, but here in Australia we seem to have learned to try to ignore stupidity, for the most part, and rely upon rationality, logic and reasoning, something that, in my opinion, America and Americans could do well in trying for themselves.
No, you ' can't fix stupid,' but you can go some very long ways towards mitigating it.

@Triphid Hopefully this election will help turn this around. ☺

@Sticks48 Perhaps it might but I kind of doubt it since President Cheeto Trump has been arse-licking with all the Evangelist Crazies of late and you Americans seem to falling head over heels for his " Make America Great Again" rhetoric.
Plus, in my opinion, the vast majority of Yanks adore anyone who exhibits the ' Custer Mentality' of ' ride in and shoot them up, take what you want.'
They seem to conveniently forget that the 'primitive' Sioux peoples gave Custer the arse kicking to beat all arse kickings.

@Triphid His hard core followers are probably about in the 25 to 30 percent range. Don't forget Clinton won by over three million votes. It is only the ridiculous system we have electing Presidents that put him in office. It will be about voter turnout.

@Sticks48 America has a ' voluntary' system of voting does it not?
IMO, that breeds APATHY amongst the Voters/Voting Public for starters and 25% of the ' Red-Neck' votes in favour of that Over-Inflated, Self-Righteous, Egomaniacal, Belligerent, Misogynistic, Sociopathic Dipshit are what got him in, now he'll have almost every 'Red-Neck' vote you can dream of on his payroll, so to speak.

@Triphid There is a tendency in the U.S. of pulling the country back when it has swung to far to the left or the right. We will see if that still holds true in a few days.

@Sticks48 The very best of luck on that one.

2

You misspelled large-scale corporation 🙂 Its not so much tech's fault as it is our inability/unwillingness to move past the fossil fuel stage of our tech, an obstacle thats mostly being held up by corporate interest and fossil fuel industry driving so much politicking in the US and middle east. That and our over usage of other natural resources. The strip mining, oil spills, fracking, overfishing and overpopulation, lack of effective waste management. Most of these things could be greatly reduced if not fixed by allowing tech to continue competing with status quo, if it werent so profitable to keep from acknowledging it. Theres an awful lot of mileage increasing patents that fossil fuel companies own to keep anyone from actin on em. Just sayin.

He didn't misspell cooperation. I believe your post speaks to exactly what he meant in that sentence. We are all cooperatively participating in our own demise by not resisting when we have knowledge and can do better.

2

I think the more simple factor to blame is our need (partially caused by the bible) to breed ourselves into extinction.

And yes. I am putting my money on science (with some changes in attitudes like consumerism).. what are you betting on? Or are you just thinking there is no hope?

And I should add in.. we also need to change our attitude [about] never ending growth..
I think science can save us, but not if we stay on our current path.

I agree. In the perfect world, very few people would breed. The quality of life is diminishing fast.

2

You are correct.
I despair for the future of humanity. We are depleting Earth's resources at a rate which is several times the possible renewal rate of those resources. We are polluting the biosphere at several times its recovery rate. Overpopulation by humans is driving other major species to extinction. Despite that, those in power continue to promote "growth"
The late Hans Rosling and Steven Pinker have consistently discounted the problems caused by growth. Growth is promoted by the elites, who are its major beneficiaries. Growth enriches the elites and plutocrats by increasing their inventory of "domesticated human livestock".

2

Sciences and Technologies MAY help give us methods to repair the vast amounts of environmental harm/damages we, the Human Species, have wrought upon this planet BUT, ultimately it WILL be up to ALL humans to mend their polluting/wasteful ways as ONE Species together to remedy the harm and damages we have caused both to ourselves and our environment in my honest opinion.

2

The technology to solve climate change already exists. What we lack political will. If cannot get it together then I think history will conclude that the "Greatest Generation" will have been followed by the most abjectly craven, civically retarded, piss poor generation. That is, if anybody is still around to write history.

solve climate change? so you think our technology can change solar flare activity? can prevent our planet from slightly changing it's axis of rotation over the millenia? how about preventing the planet from changing it's polarity?

@callmedubious
The phenomena you mention are not responsible for the current warming.

@callmedubious
The scientific community has long since reached consensus on this issue: the current warming anthropogenic, meaning human-caused. Our burning of fossil fuels is producing about 100 times more CO2 than the greatest natural carbon dioxide source, which is volcanoes. It is an amount far beyond what the natural carbon sinks can absorb. So the greenhouse gas accumulates in the atmosphere, and the more of it there is the less heat escapes into outer space.

@Flyingsaucesir-- not sure which planet you're currently on.

@callmedubious
Dude, your comments reveal a serious lack of science literacy. Where are you getting your information? The right wing propaganda echo chamber at Fox News is not providing you with good information. If you want the straight dope on climate science I suggest you start with NASA, then check out NOAA, and don't forget the EPA. The scientists there are just regular people who put on their pants one leg at a time, like you and me. They go to work and do their jobs and ideology plays no part of their final conclusions. They just try to get the science right. And they do a pretty good job.

@Flyingsaucesir you can callmedubious about the 100% veracity of all these reports from scientists which are dependent on govt grants.
there are 100s of scientists including climatologists & at least 1 Nobel Laureate who have expressed skepticism.
i could post opposing reports but i'm not getting into any of that. you're a 100% believer & i'm just callmedubious.
let's leave it at that.

@callmedubious
I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately what people think about the causes and effects of climate change has real consequences. We don't have a lot of time to make some radical changes in how we generate electricity and power our transportation. If we don't act soon, feedbacks in the natural system will kick in and effectively take away our ability to avoid the worst effects of a w warming atmosphere and oceans.

The fossil fuel industry been spending a considerable amount of money in their effort to cast doubt on climate science. They fund think tanks and private laboratories staffed by people with real science credentials. These few scientists (they comprise only a small fraction of the scientific community) have found for themselves a path of less resistance. They earn generous salaries and in return they cherry pick data and provide biased interpretations which get published in slick formats that to the lay person seem like legitimate science. Of course no scientist would be fooled by the propaganda, but it does not matter because they are not the target audience. The game is to sow doubt among the general public, and thereby achieve the overall goal of continuing to sell lots of fossil fuels to an energy-thirsty society. The people behind all this are the owners of large, multinational corporations with profits in the hundreds if billions if dollars annually. They are old farts, and they know they won't live to face the consequences of their actions. They are not interested in seeing their profits vanish. So they spend a fraction of their wealth on profit insurance by buying off a few scientists and media outlets and lobbyists on K Street. The latter outnumber the members if Congress by five-to-one, and often write the bills that are introduced on the floors if the House and Senate. Business friendly bills that relax environmental regulations and generally make it easier to make money. It all about money.

1

Conflict is caused by the coexistence of incompatibles. But conflict also serves as a unifier. Clans band into tribes, to protect themselves from other tribes. Tribes band into confederacies of tribes, to protect themselves from other confederacies.And so on. A hundred years ago, no one would have believed a 'European Union' possible.Out of conflict, comes accord.

1

People should read 'The Unsettling of America'. Technology will not save us, nor will'save the environment' movements or organizations. The only way we might save the planet is for everyone to live responsibly in one small part of it.

1

The major difference is we would not have the battle of convincing everyone that something needs to be done. Climate change, pollution, toxic waste, etc. are difficult problems to be certain, but they are made worse by the current denial that these issues are a problem to be dealt with at all. Whether science, technology, human ingenuity, or whatever can possibly solve the problems you mention is one matter to discuss, but we will never get to the point of addressing them if not enough human beings refuse to even acknowledge that they need to be.

1

Science can help as we learn more. The skies and water are cleaner now than they were 30 years ago due to action by the EPA. Science is just a method of learning, and we can learn how to minimize our impact, if religion quits fighting the facts on every front.

0

The earth will survive and recover, man on the other hand probably not. The planet would be better off since man would just start another vicious cycle of religion, greed, war, death and destruction.

0

I blame the wheel myself. If that bloke hadn’t been so lazy as to not carry the rocks home but invent a truck we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. All mass destructive behaviour can be traced back to that pesky wheel!

0

Hope this helps

0

I disagree. With a small fraction of what the word spends on conflict, a combination of already existing tech could help with many of the issues described. The only question I would have on the possibilities of further advancement simply has to do with humans having a knack for great feats in the pursuit of tactical superiority. Space was only a project when it was possible for other countries to nuke us first, hence why we haven't made much since the ussr collapsed.

0

Asteroid impact. That's the threat. Humanity would most likely survive itself if it's not nipped in the bud by an external event.

0

I don't know. I think rationalists would find a way to cooperate to solve the problems. For one, they will recognize that the problem exists and that they are dire.

It is more of a fantasy that we will all become like them, than that they wouldn't be able to solve the problems.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:209724
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.