Earth Is Headed for Disaster, Interdisciplinary Scientific Review Concludes

[barts]

An interdisciplinary group of 22 scientists, combining paleontological evidence with ecological modeling, has concluded that the earth appears headed toward catastrophic and irreversible environmental changes.
Their report, in the June 7 issue of the journal Nature, describes an exponentially increasing rate of species extinctions, extreme climate fluctuations, and other threats that together risk a level of upheaval not seen since the large-scale extinctions 65 million years ago that killed off the dinosaurs. [source]

There is good reason to take the work of these scientists seriously. Nevertheless, if history is any indication these warnings by our best and brightest will be ignored and nothing -- or at best nothing that will effective -- will be done by our species to prevent what is likely to happen to our detriment for thousands of years to come.

I submit that the notion that human beings are an intelligent species is suspect, and with little merit. Most importantly while a few of us have sufficient intelligence to create quite wonderful technologies and harness extraordinary energies, most of us lack sufficient intelligence to use these wonders in such as a way as not to doom if not our species, certainly our civilization.

[samson]

There is good reason to take the work of these scientists seriously. Nevertheless, if history is any indication these warnings by our best and brightest will be ignored and nothing -- or at best nothing that will effective -- will be done by our species to prevent what is likely to happen to our detriment for thousands of years to come.

I submit that the notion that human beings are an intelligent species is suspect, and with little merit. Most importantly while a few of us have sufficient intelligence to create quite wonderful technologies and harness extraordinary energies, most of us lack sufficient intelligence to use these wonders in such as a way as not to doom if not our species, certainly our civilization.

I motion that the argument should be based on education rather than intelligence. Most of the human population should, statistically, possess the intelligence, in terms of cognitive ability, to learn to make said technologies. This statistical inference is related to the IQ normal distribution. At least 50% of the human population can be said to possess an IQ equal or greater than 100. The inventors, which can be organized into teams rather than individuals, of today's technology most likely are of average IQ. Furthermore, the capability of developing technologies are related to education and so it makes sense that we move the discussion as a matter of education which is distinct from intelligence.

[Angry Citizen]

I submit that the notion that human beings are an intelligent species is suspect, and with little merit.

This is such a cliché argument. The collective wisdom of humanity is best exemplified by such things as Wikipedia, not the machinations of politics. If you recall, there is a concerted effort on the part of a small number of individuals to obfuscate the issue of environmentalism for purposes of profit and power. That it succeeds is a testament not to the ignorance of the population, but the intelligence and success of these foul actors.

[Thanatos]

This is such a cliché argument. The collective wisdom of humanity is best exemplified by such things as Wikipedia, not the machinations of politics. If you recall, there is a concerted effort on the part of a small number of individuals to obfuscate the issue of environmentalism for purposes of profit and power. That it succeeds is a testament not to the ignorance of the population, but the intelligence and success of these foul actors.

Wikipedia's not in charge of the nukes.

Sourceforge isn't allowed to solve climate change.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I motion that the argument should be based on education rather than intelligence. Most of the human population should, statistically, possess the intelligence, in terms of cognitive ability, to learn to make said technologies. This statistical inference is related to the IQ normal distribution. At least 50% of the human population can be said to possess an IQ equal or greater than 100. The inventors, which can be organized into teams rather than individuals, of today's technology most likely are of average IQ. Furthermore, the capability of developing technologies are related to education and so it makes sense that we move the discussion as a matter of education which is distinct from intelligence.

The problem is not intelligence.

It is that we have people who refuse to accept certain facts, regardless of the evidence. People deny that the planet's climate is changing, for various reasons. Some is irrational skepticism of anything the government says (ie the "if the government says it, its wrong" types), some from religious nutjobs who insist that we cant destroy the earth, because god wont let us, and some from people who simply arent convinced (i dont see how anyone couldnt be, considering the actual evidence).

Maybe education will help, but some will just resist, even as they are standing neck deep in water and their house floats away.

[minorwork]

I motion that the argument should be based on education rather than intelligence. Most of the human population should, statistically, possess the intelligence, in terms of cognitive ability, to learn to make said technologies. This statistical inference is related to the IQ normal distribution. At least 50% of the human population can be said to possess an IQ equal or greater than 100. The inventors, which can be organized into teams rather than individuals, of today's technology most likely are of average IQ. Furthermore, the capability of developing technologies are related to education and so it makes sense that we move the discussion as a matter of education which is distinct from intelligence.

Educated and intelligent though I'm not, I cower at the site of those acting the part when they say such as, "I motion..." Christ. I move that such terminology be corrected wherever encountered. Discussion? None? Do I hear a second to the motion? Gertrude seconds. Vote, all in favor say Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the motion carries. No quorum?

[minorwork]

There is good reason to take the work of these scientists seriously.

What would taking them seriously entail that I'm not doing it now? I use about 13 gallons of gas a month. I suggest Al Bore do the same.

Nevertheless, if history is any indication these warnings by our best and brightest will be ignored and nothing -- or at best nothing that will effective -- will be done by our species to prevent what is likely to happen to our detriment for thousands of years to come.

20 years ago the UN came out with Agenda 21. Some say it calls for a dumming down of populaces world over on the model that dumber people have smaller CO2 footprints since they don't make as much money. Poor folk having smaller CO2 footprints would make a good case for a depression too. I think you shouldn't be so pessimistic Barts. It seems obvious that the world is presently on the right path of downsizing. I look for further slowing of the world economy. How can you even suggest there is no serious intervention underway?

The most immediately responsive affects to slow driving and lower economic activity and so CO2 is to up gas prices.

"Overall, the research group said there was a 30% decline in traffic congestion in 2011, a measure they mostly attribute to the poor economy and high gas prices." comment about traffic congestion and I presume CO2 emissions from http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ongestion.html

[samson]

The problem is not intelligence.

It is that we have people who refuse to accept certain facts, regardless of the evidence. People deny that the planet's climate is changing, for various reasons. Some is irrational skepticism of anything the government says (ie the "if the government says it, its wrong" types), some from religious nutjobs who insist that we cant destroy the earth, because god wont let us, and some from people who simply arent convinced (i dont see how anyone couldnt be, considering the actual evidence).

Maybe education will help, but some will just resist, even as they are standing neck deep in water and their house floats away.

I agree. Apart from the religious nutjobs, that I'm sure you and I know where they come from, I guess the question now becomes why do we have such people?

Educated and intelligent though I'm not, I cower at the site of those acting the part when they say such as, "I motion..." Christ. I move that such terminology be corrected wherever encountered. Discussion? None? Do I hear a second to the motion? Gertrude seconds. Vote, all in favor say Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the motion carries. No quorum?

But good sir, Bart has submitted a notion for hearing in the public forum. As a member of the public forum, I reserve the right of motion as everyone. Will you deny me of my right and preclude my motion? (I'm just messing, don't take this seriously)

[truthreality]

There is good reason to take the work of these scientists seriously. Nevertheless, if history is any indication these warnings by our best and brightest will be ignored and nothing -- or at best nothing that will effective -- will be done by our species to prevent what is likely to happen to our detriment for thousands of years to come.

I submit that the notion that human beings are an intelligent species is suspect, and with little merit. Most importantly while a few of us have sufficient intelligence to create quite wonderful technologies and harness extraordinary energies, most of us lack sufficient intelligence to use these wonders in such as a way as not to doom if not our species, certainly our civilization.

We are fucked. I hope I don't reincarnate onto this planet. Our goal now in science should be to explore space so we can find a suitable planet to migrate to.

[minorwork]

We are fucked. I hope I don't reincarnate onto this planet. Our goal now in science should be to explore space so we can find a suitable planet to migrate to.

Our goal as an individual agent of consciousness should be to... ...explore the capabilities and limits of that consciousness in life?

[truthreality]

Our goal as an individual agent of consciousness should be to... ...explore the capabilities and limits of that consciousness in life?

I am not able to follow.

[minorwork]

I am not able to follow.

I'm just flabbergasted that you think this world is fucked and that another planet elsewhere has even the remotest possibility of being occupied by us who are a billion year extension of this planet. Therefore I seek alternatives to your dilemma. I posed an alternative and am open to others. The ocean of consciousness has yet to be mapped much beyond the boundaries of the waking state, IMO. I think any effort to put any light on it is met with intentioned resistance.