Book rec for the "sky is falling" crowd.

[FSogol]

"Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction" by Annalee Newitz.

I particularity enjoyed this quote: "The world has been almost completely destroyed at least a half dozen times already in Earth's 4.5-billion-year history, and every single time there have been survivors."

Review here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scatter-adapt-and-remember-how-humans-will-survive-a-mass-extinction-by-annalee-newitz/2013/07/25/77f19520-9300-11e2-a31e-14700e2724e4_story.html

[cali]

1. lol. that may be the funniest glass half full reference ever

[NuclearDem]

2. "But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world."

"Instead, the apocalypse was simply the prologue to another bloody chapter of human history."

Relevant quote is relevant.

[FSogol]

4. Everything old is new again!

[HappyMe]

3. Mass extinction?

Really?

Not next week, I hope. I have a wedding to attend, and other good times.

[LWolf]

5. There have been survivors,

but...human survivors?

The long view is about the planet, and maybe about some species.

It's not about individual suffering or loss, or even mass suffering and loss.

Mass extinction is one solution to human overpopulation, but I can wish the species would have evolved sooner in order to solve that problem BEFORE extinction.

"Techno-optimist." Newitz may be one. I'm not. Why? Because technology is a tool for destruction as well as creation, and the destruction too often comes first.

Evolution...if humans can't evolve beyond the compulsion to destroy first, and then try to "fix" what they've broken, then perhaps humans SHOULD be extinct.

[Fuddnik]

6. The cockroaches will rule!

[dipsydoodle]

9. So be it.

Maybe next time round things won't get fucked up quite so much.

[longship]

28. Woops, not everywhere.

Cockroaches don't do well when there's no central heating. If civilization collapses and we're back to living off the land, the cockroaches will likely die off except in the warm climates. They can only survive cold winter by living in a centrally heated abode.

Buggirl said that, and she's an etymologist, so she ought to know. (You don't want to hear what she says about bedbugs -- they're fucked up.)

[RebelOne]

33. Not if the human survivors have a good supply of Raid. n/t

[MineralMan]

7. Present company excepted, of course...

When I realized that population growth was a big deal, way back in the 1960s, I made the decision not to reproduce. That was one thing I could do, and about the only thing I could do, short of removing myself from the planet.

Lots of people claim that the planet would be better off without humans. Some of those people, however, have created new humans to add to that situation. There is a disconnect there, you see.

[LWolf]

11. I'd take a more moderate approach.

I'd like to see the planet with FEWER humans, rather than "without" humans.

And I'd like the humans alive now to be able to live their natural lifespan. I'd rather not see them exterminated.

So...not reproducing is not a blanket solution. It is a great solution, if lots of people will join you. Having one or two...not a problem; it doesn't GROW the population, and does reduce it if people aren't having MORE.

Ideally, if each person had no more than two offspring, then the population would gradually decrease, as a certain percent would not survive to reproduce. If nobody had more than 2, and some had none at all, the population would decline at a better rate.

I was born in 1960. An only child born to a an only child mother born in 1938. We have four living generations in our little family right now; from my mother, to me, down to my single grandson, who will be the only child going forward after 4 generations.

I think that's a pretty good record. 1938-2013: a single child left behind us.

[MineralMan]

13. I see. Well, then...

You're not seeing my point, really. If you think the planet would be better off without humans, then having four generations of them living is kinda not getting closer to your proposed solution.

Everyone I've ever met who says that the planet would be better off without humans has no answer when confronted about that. Present company is always excluded in those discussions.

What that line usually means is "the planet would be better of without most humans...present company excepted, of course." That's where the argument breaks down, because whoever says that is always excepting themselves, but probably not excepting you, because they don't know you.

Yes, overpopulation is a real, pressing issue. Human demands have cause major, major problems for this planet. Just saying it would be better off without humans, though, proposes no solution at all, and extending that argument to its logical end is not a pleasant thing at all. If you're waiting for a global plague or some asteroid strike, I'm afraid that's unlikely to happen in your lifetime. So, the world will continue to be populated by humans, so we really need to deal with finding a different set of solutions than just wishing most humans weren't here...present company excepted, of course.

[LWolf]

14. But I don't.

Which I think I already communicated.

I don't think the planet would be better off without humans.

It would be better off with FEWER humans.

I think I was pretty clear on that. I never said otherwise.

Solutions? To the problems caused by overpopulation? Reduce the population.

Solutions to overpopulation? Of course, the planet will solve this herself if we do not do so first. I don't have solutions that don't intrude on choice. Is it critical enough to allow limiting choice when it comes to reproduction? We've seen how that worked in China.

I can think of lots of ways to go about it, but I can't think of a way that could not be corrupted by the powerful.

[MineralMan]

15. Well, OK, then.

"then perhaps humans SHOULD be extinct."

[antigone382]

22. The solution is actually to *expand* choice--particularly for women.

When women have autonomy sufficient access to education, healthcare, economic opportunity, and political participation, birthrates go down. When there is an adequate social safety net to provide for people in their old age so they don't *have* to depend on their children, birthrates go down.

Now, in a context of rapidly declining resources and the certainty of major climatic change in our lifetimes, I realize the practical implementation of these things on a global scale is an even more complex challenge than it would be given cultural restraints. However, I can also point to ways that such systems can be established without overtaxing resources; the fact is that it has been done, most notably in several Latin American countries and also some Asian ones. To a large degree, the ability of the global South to set up public education and subsidized social services has been curtailed, not by lack of political will or lack of resources, but by the explicit terms of structural adjustment programs and trade agreements, which demand the lowering of developing nations' government expenditures, and the concurrent increase of privatization at virtually any cost. Thus, all the factors which drive up birth rates--both the need for more children and the inability to prevent the creation of even unwanted ones--are exacerbated, and birth rates explode.

I do think it is possible shift focus from policies that effectively reproduce coercive, colonial-style relationships in favor of policies that give the people' of developing nations true autonomy, which will require the wealthier nations to responsibly curb their own extreme per capita resource consumption, and which will ultimately result in a more stable human population and a more stable ecology. However, the fact that I believe it is possible does not imply that I believe it is easy or even likely.

[LWolf]

25. That's one viable strategy, anyway.

I'm strongly in favor of national, public, not-for-profit, health care for all, and free public education, pre-school - trade school or university for all.


I'm also in favor of re-structuring income tax deductions to reflect carbon taxes and deductions, favoring those with no children to 2 children.

We could start here in the U.S. by abolishing neo-liberal policies; by not electing neo-liberals. Since they have firm control of both major parties, that, plus the health care and education issue, are enough challenges for whatever lifetime I've got left.

[csziggy]

8. To fit with the theme of the OP book recommendation

A great web site, fully tongue in cheek: "It's the End of the World As We Know it...Again" http://alma-geddon.com/

Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated since 2009, but it does give perspective on the many, many ways in which the end of the world has been predicted over the years.

[FSogol]

24. Great site, thanks. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

10. "You call what's goin' on around here a leak? Boy, the last time there was a leak like this . . .

. . . Noah built hisself a boat!!" ~ Absence of Malice

[one_voice]

12. Twinkies and roaches...

will survive.

[arely staircase]

21. plus sharks and

keith richards

[hunter]

16. Humans are just another animal species circling the drain.

Until we get over ourselves, until we stop thinking we are something special, claiming we have souls while other species do not, then we are doomed to become extinct. The vast majority of species become extinct, a branch or twig of life dies, and the empty spot is filled in by the branches of more distant relatives. Vertebrates like ourselves could be replaced by fungi or mollusks or something else. One never knows.

When I peer into the shifting futures of my crystal ball I usually don't see humans. Optimistically I see our more robust intellectual children keeping a few of us around as pets, but these children of human intelligence are not themselves human, or related to us by biology. We should think about how we treat the beings of our own wilderness, how we treat our domestic animals, how we treat the animals in the zoo, because that may be how we will be treated if some other being decides to care for us.

But mostly I see humans gone, a distinctive disturbance in the geological record like Pre-Cambrian Stromatolites.

I don't think there is any hope for our species until we realize we are organisms in tiny pond, motes in a universe older and more immense than we can possibly imagine. Scientifically we've recognized that the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the heavens do not revolve around us, but we haven't owned that emotionally because we don't want to be that small.

So we continue to pretend we are something we are not, and we continue to follow our programmed behaviors, reproducing, consuming until the resources are gone and our population collapses or some other very ordinary catastrophe takes us.

I think human optimism is just another programmed behavior. Without optimism there's no reason for a creature with any intelligence to get out of bed, no reason to pursue the rest of their programmed behaviors.

Goals, even goals of human survival are an illusion. If we do decide the survival of the human race is important (and it's probably not) then we will have to know ourselves first and decide what we want to be. Otherwise our programming takes us to a dead end and we vanish from living time.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Not much chance of us going extinct......

Barring perhaps a Gamma Ray burst or K/T repeat if we haven't gotten off-planet yet; but then again, most other life would be definitely gone, too.

Too many people out there, including here on DU, assume that we're fragile and easily disposable; in fact, we're one of the hardiest, and definitely the most capable, species out there, or we would have gone extinct a long time ago(Toba, especially. From several million to just 50-100k could be seriously problematic for any species).

Your sentiment, I'll admit, is a noble one, but it's one that also doesn't take all of reality into account.

[hunter]

18. Trilobites were tough too.

They survived for 270 million years. Modern industrial humans, not even close...

Cali, above, expressed it as a glass half full situation... It's not. Our sort of intelligence is still an empty glass. It might even be a broken glass that will never be filled.

Check back in a few million years and maybe we can say how "hardy" humans are. Until then it's just a wild guess.

[AverageJoe90]

19. Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges. n/t

[hunter]

29. It's not, and that's exactly where the human race has gone wrong.

We are creatures adapted to our environment like any other. There have been many innovative species that experienced exponential population growth and rapid decline, often to extinction.

Our intelligence is just another biological innovation, one of many in the history of life on earth. We have no idea what will come of it. Our descendants might be more intelligent than us, less intelligent than us. There is no direction in evolution. Our descendants could be the next Homo floresiensis the last of them dying on some Indonesian island or central European cave.

I don't think there is any escape for humanity, to the stars or anywhere else. If any earthly intelligence has a future among the stars, it will be an intelligence we create, in a creature that is at home there. Starships and cities on Mars will not be built by humans. If humans are still around we will be there as fragile guests, carefully tended to in environments that mimic our home planet.

[AverageJoe90]

31. Maybe so, but we are still truly unique. You can't deny that.

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

No other animal on Earth is like us. We have civilization and we have technology.....on top of an evolved consciousness. Let's at least give ourselves credit for that.

You are entitled to your opinion, hunter, and so am I. I just prefer a more-reality based approach, that's all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. No, we are creatures that adapt our environment like no other

There has never been a species as innovative as us. Our intelligence has had a greater effect on the history of life on earth, in a short time, than anything else life has done (things like the increase of oxygen in the atmosphere took hundred of millions of years). We have changed the plants growing on large parts of the earth's surface, moved animals around between continents, bred new forms of plants and animals, built long-lasting structures, and now we're changing the atmosphere. The human species lives in environments from the Arctic to deserts, and changes them all. We are extremely adaptable, because of our intelligence.

Yes, there's no direction to evolution, except that a change must give as good, or a better, chance of survival of the next generations, and chance of breeding. A decrease in intelligence of the whole species would not fit this (less intelligent individuals can survive inside an intelligent society, but their genes would not be able to spread enough to affect the combined intelligence).

[hunter]

37. I suspect nearly all periods of rapid climate change in earth's history...

... are a consequence of biological innovation.

We tend to think of life adapting to physical changes in the earth's environment, but it goes much further than that because these physical changes are usually caused by biological innovation.

In a very substantial way it was the evolution of C₄ plants that created the chaotic climate conditions our ancestors adapted to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_photosynthesis

If not for this biological innovation by PLANTS we'd probably still be bonobo-like creatures living in the forests.

The common image people have of paleontologists is someone looking for fossil bones, but it's the evolutionary innovations in biochemistry that have left their mark everywhere in the geological record.

If modern industrial human soon goes extinct, which seems very likely, the greater consequences of our existence, the geochemical changes, the reduced biodiversity, will be rapidly erased.

I think humans are still a "flash in the pan" at this point. Time will tell, but none of us are likely to be around ten million years from now.

I'm not dismissing the environmental damage we do, but our industrial species of human will probably be one of the species lost.

A decrease in intelligence is as likely as an increase simply because it takes a lot of energy to maintain intelligence, and with greater intelligence there is more to go wrong in the developmental process.

[CreekDog]

27. If you can't outright deny climate change, you'll say the change is no big deal

the trick you've employed is to always say you believe climate change is happening *in general*, but deny the specifics whenever they are posted.

in addition to denying the specific effects (your jury is ALWAYS still out...), you *minimize* the effects, saying again and again, that whatever might happen is not that big of a deal.

because your goal is to deny climate change wherever you can, in specific ways, and overall to REMOVE ANY SENSE OF URGENCY to act on it.

so you can admit a little climate change when pressed by others or facts themselves --but then you say it isn't so bad so no need to do anything rash or urgent to fix it.

that's what you do.

a libertarian lobbyist with free time between fundraising and other activities could practice his climate change denial talking points by posting just as you post.

[AverageJoe90]

30. That wasn't my intent behind that post and you damn well know it.

It seems that every time I happen to make a statement which doesn't jive with your views, you pull out this favorite little "climate denier" card of yours.

a libertarian lobbyist with free time between fundraising and other activities could practice his climate change denial talking points by posting just as you post.

A lobbyist? LOL. I haven't been employed at all in 5 years! I have practically nothing.

All you do is spout whiny talking points about how someone is a climate denier just because their views are a little off from yours. And, in my particular case, you've never offered any evidence to back up your claims. Never. Because there is none.

But, if you wish to continue this dumbass tirade of yours, please proceed, Governor.

[CreekDog]

34. don't try to make it about me. you disagree and minimize every specific climate change topic

you act like i'm the only one who notices it and like i'm the only one who disagrees with you.

but all these threads, and this one, show that many are arguing against your minimization.

[AverageJoe90]

35. CD, where did I mention climate change in that post?

All I said to hunter was that my understanding was is that we humans weren't all that likely to go extinct barring something truly apocalyptic like a gamma ray burst or a repeat of the K/T event that wiped out the dinos 65mya.

The truth is, I said nothing about climate change there. Nothing at all.

You act like I'm either some sort of troll or that I'm a libertarian/denialist puppet working to undermine DU, etc., yet you come at me, with these high-falutin', holier-than-thou accusations of "minimizing", etc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. Either the book or the review is a bit confused

The worst extinction in Earth’s history, the Great Dying, took place 250 million years ago — long before humans were around — when a massive volcano spewed particles into the air, blocking the sun and triggering a brief but catastrophic ice age. About 95 percent of species were wiped out, turning the oceans into a bacterial sludge that scientistis have nicknamed Slime World. A few larger animals did survive, including half a dozen species of “shovel lizard,” a pig-size beast known as Lystrosaurus. One of their secrets seems to be that they burrowed underground so that they wouldn’t be cooked by the first fiery blasts.

"The first fiery blasts" of a "catastrophic ice age"? Sure, animals next to the volcano might have faced 'fiery blasts', but that's not about the survival of global species, just those individuals in a region - which I don't believe they'd have a detailed enough fossil record to follow.

[AverageJoe90]

32. Still would be quite the scary scene, though.

And there's no doubt that that volcano complex had an enormous impact on life as it existed then; in fact, even the worst case Yellowstone scenario would be a cakewalk compared to this!

We can be grateful about one thing, at least: we can mitigate climate change, in many various ways. With a volcano, we might well kiss our hind quarters goodbye and hope for the best.

[Enrique]

23. there's a joke about a guy that's scared about the sun exploding

he's worried because he heard it was going to explode in a million years, then he's relieved when someone tells him it's actually a billion years.

[Warpy]

26. "Scatter" is the stupidest advice out there

The only people who are going to survive are groups whose skills complement each other in trying to adapt.

That's the way it's always been. Only mature societies with thriving economies can produce the rugged individualist and expect him to survive.