What really matters?

[Dubious]

Dubious. You're quite right when you say that homo sapiens is responsible for the next mass extinction which will beset our planet but I'm having some trouble understanding the more general point you're making. Such mass extinctions have occurred many times before and they always lead to INCREASED biodiversity and more more complex lifeforms.

We obviously weren't there when those mass extinctions happened but, though unplanned, we and other life forms were indeed the result of those events which took hundreds of millions of years to happen. We have no idea if evolution would again work its way up to increased biodiversity especially if we instead of nature were responsible for the demise. Who knows how the variables may change in that case. Also, our intelligence happened only ONCE on this planet despite all the extinctions which happened before. It cannot be known or even assumed that there will be a repeat broadcast especially since no extinction was exactly like the last one. Biodiversity and more complex lifeforms would, in any event, be a moot point for us as a specie since we would no-longer be a part of it.

In fact a species as smart as us could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm, so to think of homo as a cancer is a very anthropocentric way of looking at it. The biosphere will keep on evolving with or without us and our presence here is more akin to a fleabite on the biosphere than a cancer.

It is more than uncomfortably warm already, extremely warm and literally killer hot in a number of areas. How long did it take to get to these temperature and storm extremes? When I was a kid, there was no mention of rapidly melting glaciers and starving polar bears. If we do become extinct and another intelligence like ours emerges it would take millions of years for nature to accomplish. I can't see how it follows that we could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm. We have absolutely no idea what the planet would be like after even one such cycle.

Anthropocentric or not our effect on the planet is not unlike the effect of cancer on an organism which is the analogy so often made, not least by independent experts, because of the gradual degradation which cancer causes. What more appropriate comparison can there be! With all the reports including scenery of environmental degradation we're long past the fleabite stage.

The real difference on this occasion is that a species has evolved as the uber-predator of an entire planet and this species has the capacity to directly influence its future evolution through the use of forward thinking and intelligence.

As paradoxical as it may sound but unless intelligence is regarded as its own potential trap easily capable of prematurely defeating what it may in time accomplish, its future evolution may one of jeopardy, never hoped for or considered in advance, with a far greater probability of loss than gain. It only has to happen once. Whatever comes after will no-longer be of any concern to us.

[Obvious Leo]

. We have no idea if evolution would again work its way up to increased biodiversity

That's about the only thing that we DO know. Evolution ALWAYS leads to increased biodiversity and more complex life forms. What we don't know is what form such biodiversity will take and what sort of complex life forms might evolve.

Also, our intelligence happened only ONCE on this planet despite all the extinctions which happened before. It cannot be known or even assumed that there will be a repeat broadcast especially since no extinction was exactly like the last one.

This is quite true. There's no such thing as a certainty in evolution except in the general trend of it.

Biodiversity and more complex lifeforms would, in any event, be a moot point for us as a specie since we would no-longer be a part of it.

Also true but irrelevant.

When I was a kid, there was no mention of rapidly melting glaciers and starving polar bears

Nevertheless global warming was first predicted over 150 years ago, was formulated into a proper theory by the mid 20th century, and was accepted as mainstream science by the 1970s. That no meaningful action has thus far been taken is not the fault of science.

I can't see how it follows that we could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm

That's not what I said. I said it was possible that an uber-predator of comparable intelligence to our own could evolve and become extinct as many as a dozen times again on our planet. Personally I'd like to see the dogs have a crack at being the boss next time. By and large they're both smarter and have a more obliging personality.

Anthropocentric or not our effect on the planet is not unlike the effect of cancer on an organism which is the analogy so often made, not least by independent experts, because of the gradual degradation which cancer causes.

From a biological point of view this is a very short-term and alarmist stance. Within a few million years almost all trace of our existence will have vanished, and a few million years is the blink of an evolutionary eye even on our planet, let alone in the wider domain of the cosmos.

As paradoxical as it may sound but unless intelligence is regarded as its own potential trap easily capable of prematurely defeating what it may in time accomplish,

This is the ultimate irony of course. It may very well be close to a certainty that any species which evolves the capacity to destroy itself will inevitably do so. Voltaire would love it.

"The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated"....Michael Crichton.

Our species is at a crossroads in its evolutionary journey and may very well not see this century out. However in the best of all possible worlds if we manage to survive another hundred years we could probably survive for another billion. Maybe even ten billion. What interests me most is not so much where we evolved FROM but what we're evolving INTO because nature has no precedent in a species which can actually determine this for itself.

[Skip]

Another delicious irony: diversity and evolutionary change are usually a result of Nat5ure's profligacy - make as many as possible and see what survives. But for humans to continue evolving, and especially to attempt those astonishing feats of self-development that are now within our reach, we need to reduce our numbers. The way things are going now, we are more and more preoccupied with fighting over dwindling territory and resources - and the fighting itself degrades the territory and wastes the resources. But the kind of catastrophe that will accomplish the decrease in population will almost certainly destroy the social infrastructure necessary for advanced science.

It's a big old Matryoshka doll of ironies.

[Lacewing]

Yes, quantity seems to be diluting quality... but without the quantity, we might not recognize the quality that is possible. So perhaps all is ultimately ebbing and flowing (exploring and refining) just as it must toward greater states of quality/evolvement? I think this is what Greta often speaks of.

[SpheresOfBalance]

In this interpretation of "parasite" you are treating the biosphere as the host organism and humans as parasites. Yet what organisms grow their own parasites? We aren't aliens but part of a lineage of great apes and primitive hominids.

The biosphere is responsible for the existence of every organic entity which includes parasites according to its definition. Where else is it supposed to come from?

So, by your definition humanity is a cancer - a part of an organism that does not cooperate by limiting its growth like normal cells. However, we again run into the issue of order. Cancers are disordered entities but humans are the opposite.

Cancers as a process are very organized and adept in killing its host which is the reason it hasn't yet been defeated. How many times have humans been compared to a virus or a cancer since the behaviour of humans fit the description almost perfectly.

http://www.livescience.com/26473-david- ... lague.html
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S20 ... cancer.htm

I'm no fan of Deepak Chopra but here he makes a good summary of our affinities with cancer as an agent:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-ch ... _7092.html

So you believe the biosphere would thrive without us? It could continue being beautiful without due appreciation, and continue being savage without abatement, and then the whole lot (maybe barring some deep living microbes) dies in a billion years. If an asteroid hits, maybe much sooner.

Absolutely it can thrive without us. Is there any serious doubt in your mind about this? Since when have we become its insurance policy?

If an asteroid hits, maybe much sooner.

Give us some credit. We're on route to accomplishing the same thing in slow motion.

I don't find that vision as inspiring as the possibility of enhanced humans rising from the wreckage of the Earth before the Sun wrecks it and bringing life to other moons and planets.

All very nice but in the meantime let's not screw-up this one before we get to the others. It remains supremely uncertain whether your noble destiny for the human race has any chance of working out but one thing is for sure, we're HERE in the meantime. Screw that up and you can park this wonderful Ray Kurzweil dream in the nearest landfill.

If we are not part of the biosphere, what are we part of??

I believe I mentioned ..."We" are only a very tiny segment in the theme park of planet Earth...

So nope, humans are born of the Earth. We are pieces of the Earth, just like every other critter. We are dominant because we are empowered and any other empowered species would do the same.

No argument here. Every empowered species creates its own complications. The question becomes how empowered are they to control it?

The Amazon takes billions of years to make and we must save it. Humans take billions of years to make and you want us all dead?

Your analogy makes no sense at all, but, NO, I DON'T WANT US ALL DEAD! Also, I think even you – had you thought about it a little more - would acknowledge the vast difference between a thoroughly unique ecosystem which hosts millions of species in flora and fauna vis-a-vis a single species contained in almost all environments.

What for? So animals can bumble along just like "the good old days"- until an asteroid or the Sun gets them?

There were many more animals that bumbled along in the “good old days” than exist now. We've been very prolific in culling the animal population throughout the ages. A power equivalent to an asteroid has hit them already. We call it the human race. In the nature of things as confirmed by geology and paleontology they would have waited eons longer and it would have been more sudden.

The "good old days" ... when humans lived to their early twenties, had high infant mortality, frequently died violently and spent their short painful lives riddled with parasites, exposed to the elements and living in constant fear of predators. Is that your idea of an ideal world? If you want the clock wound back, at what point in history would you like use to back to? If we regressed to a point that you wanted, would you want us not to progress any more?

What are you talking about If we regressed to a point that you wanted and the whole litany of allegations that were never made? Why such nonsensical assertions that somehow you inferred and blame me for?

What I emphasized is that unless we get a whole new perspective on behavior on this planet moving forward may be far less of a priority than damage control. Being the über intelligent creatures we believe we are, if we can't manage that then go ahead and croak. It's no loss to the planet and/or surroundings. Stripped of any stupid idealism, is there any doubt about that? If humans are to be creatures of destiny then that process should have been started long before now. Unfortunately, even NOW is not a promising catalyst for the future you envision.

Metamorphosis involves replacing simpler structures with more complex ones better adapted for the new life.

What new life would that be?

Um, humans. Last time I looked we were alive. Don't we count? If not, why?

Having evolved along with everything else on the planet, cotemporal even with the Amazon, as you mention, 'new life' would be a misnomer. I didn't get how the term applies, so I asked.

Earth is turning into Venus in a billion years' time anyway.

True but that doesn't mean we should attempt a head start on the process if we aspire to the kind of future you mention.

I think of humans as the biosphere's reproductive organs.

Must say a bizarre thought indeed. This would infer humans as being the creators of everything contained in the biosphere. In fact as it's reproductive organs we actually become the biosphere!

If the biosphere is going to persist after the Sun's expansion then humanity may well play a major role, at least greatly improving the chances of Earth-induced panspermia elsewhere. Life has a drive to persist and explores all possible options like water explores the cracks in pavement (hardy surprising since life is largely water).

Life certainly has a drive to persist but this refers to life as a whole in its complete manifestation not some infinitesimal part whatever be its shape or form in which its individual instances turn on and off like fireflies...we being merely one of those instances.

I agree with you dubious, humans have become a cancer!
We have either forgotten or not realized how important the Spheres of Balance are.
Growth in such a system, upon which we depend, was/is never as important as Balance!
This system is in fact a symbiotic biosphere, when something tips it's balance, it is in 'fact' cancerous to those relationships.

[Skip]

Yes, quantity seems to be diluting quality... but without the quantity, we might not recognize the quality that is possible. So perhaps all is ultimately ebbing and flowing (exploring and refining) just as it must toward greater states of quality/evolvement? I think this is what Greta often speaks of.

That would be true if the environment in which it takes place were expanding to accommodate the population. The problem is not that quantity dilutes quality, but that crowding, oppression, fighting and scarcity prevent human quality from being fully realized or noticed. Potentially wonderful human specimens are eliminated at an early age by hunger and disease and violence. Also, the resources lavished on weapons research and war-making are unavailable to human science and constructive endeavours. Also, the arts, social and biological sciences cannot flourish in an atmosphere of international hostility and paranoia. Also, those areas of knowledge are not valued by populations in the grip of rage and fear.

If it ebbs all by itself and eventually flows, well, que sera, sera. But if we are really to direct our own evolution

Obvious Leo --- What interests me most is not so much where we evolved FROM but what we're evolving INTO because nature has no precedent in a species which can actually determine this for itself.

we need a stable, sustainable, race of non-disposable humans.

[Obvious Leo]

For a truly evolved sentient species physical resources are a trivial consideration.

"The universe is BIG.....VERY BIG".....Douglas Adams (RIP).

The problems we are currently confronting as a species are questions of resource management and not questions of resource availability. If we don't resolve these questions then we'll suffer the same fate as the 99.99% of species which came before us. Extinction. Nature won't give a shit and the cosmos will simply continue to evolve without us.

However this does make us unique embellishments to the planetary biosphere thus far. Thus far we are the only species to have evolved on this planet with the capacity to determine its own destiny. It would sadden me if it turns out that we're stupid enough to allow such an opportunity to go to waste but evolution takes no prisoners. We either adapt or we die.

The universe is but an infant and already it is estimated that there must be at least a billion planets in our galaxy alone which are capable of sustaining life. There are probably at least 200 billion galaxies and in each of those galaxies life-possible planets will continue to form for possibly hundreds of billions of years. Sometimes it's useful just to step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

[Dubious]

We have no idea if evolution would again work its way up to increased biodiversity

That's about the only thing that we DO know. Evolution ALWAYS leads to increased biodiversity and more complex life forms.

I'm not a biologist but even I know that this statement is too absolute to be true that in fact evolution is a more complex process than one invariably going in the same direction:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution of biological complexity is one important outcome of the process of evolution. Evolution has produced some remarkably complex organisms - although the actual level of complexity is very hard to define or measure accurately in biology, with properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology all being used to assess an organism's complexity.

Some used to believe that evolution was progressive and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint. This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity (the mode) appears to have remained relatively constant.

...and this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... omplexity/

Nevertheless global warming was first predicted over 150 years ago, was formulated into a proper theory by the mid 20th century, and was accepted as mainstream science by the 1970s. That no meaningful action has thus far been taken is not the fault of science.

I never said it was the fault of science!

I can't see how it follows that we could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm

That's not what I said. I said it was possible that an uber-predator of comparable intelligence to our own could evolve and become extinct as many as a dozen times again on our planet.

What you said was: In fact a species as smart as us could evolve and then become extinct as many as a dozen times before the planet becomes uncomfortably warm. I'm sure it just came out the wrong way, it happens to all of us but don't say you didn't say it.

Anthropocentric or not our effect on the planet is not unlike the effect of cancer on an organism which is the analogy so often made, not least by independent experts, because of the gradual degradation which cancer causes.

From a biological point of view this is a very short-term and alarmist stance. Within a few million years almost all trace of our existence will have vanished, and a few million years is the blink of an evolutionary eye even on our planet, let alone in the wider domain of the cosmos.

All very good but the discussion is about what's happening now and the near future, not what's up in a million years.

As paradoxical as it may sound but unless intelligence is regarded as its own potential trap easily capable of prematurely defeating what it may in time accomplish,

This is the ultimate irony of course. It may very well be close to a certainty that any species which evolves the capacity to destroy itself will inevitably do so. Voltaire would love it.

The point I was attempting to make was that intelligence during all its stages of accomplishment should consciously regard itself as a potential ever existing danger to itself which requires a counter projection INTO its own interior not only distending outward to conquer the unknown. Those civilizations best able to monitor the back alleys of their mental faculties are the ones most likely to call the future theirs.

[Dubious]

We have either forgotten or not realized how important the Spheres of Balance are. Growth in such a system, upon which we depend, was/is never as important as Balance! This system is in fact a symbiotic biosphere, when something tips it's balance, it is in 'fact' cancerous to those relationships.

A good way of putting it. That's why the analogy of cancer is so often used to denote what's happening to an environment in which everything is connected. Pathology in one part through metastasis affects other parts putting the entire organism in danger. What better word to describe it! It's also absolutely true that Growth in such a system, upon which we depend, was/is never as important as Balance! Something our intelligence hasn't sufficiently come to terms with. Economics itself is a thoroughly cancerous entity of our own devising pushing its mandate to constant growth as if it can only thrive by constantly expanding. What constantly grows and expands until it kill the host except a cancer.

[Greta]

The biosphere is responsible for the existence of every organic entity which includes parasites according to its definition. Where else is it supposed to come from?

Organisms do not grow their own parasites - the eggs come from outside.

Cancers as a process are very organized and adept in killing its host which is the reason it hasn't yet been defeated. How many times have humans been compared to a virus or a cancer since the behaviour of humans fit the description almost perfectly.

Cancers are amorphous blobs that only kill because they grow in an uncontrolled way and thus interfere with ordered systems, but they have relatively very little organisaion. A cancer lacks that organisation in the same way as bacterial colonies lack the coordination of organisms.

There is nothing in a cancer (or parasite) that suggests greater concentrations of organisation. That only occurs with metamorphosis.

Absolutely it can thrive without us. Is there any serious doubt in your mind about this? Since when have we become its insurance policy?

Is your immune system an insurance policy? Biology responds to circumstances.

All very nice but in the meantime let's not screw-up this one before we get to the others. It remains supremely uncertain whether your noble destiny for the human race has any chance of working out but one thing is for sure, we're HERE in the meantime. Screw that up and you can park this wonderful Ray Kurzweil dream in the nearest landfill.

I may well be a more staunch and long-term environmentalist than you, having had "green sympathies" some decades before the ideas became popular. Back then people called you a hippie if you held those views.

You misread me profoundly. I am all for slowing the rate of the "Holocene Extinction Event" as much as possible. However, that doesn't mean I should not accept the reality - and the reality is that Earth's terrestrial biology is in its last stages of life, humans or not. Either we carry it on or it all dies in less than a billion years.

If that's the case there is still some hope of panspermia because some microbes floating through space will find a new watery home. However, billions of years of organisation will be lost to the solar system, and humans and their descendants have the potential to greatly improve the biosphere's chances of spreading its seeds elsewhere.

Also, bear in mind that our radio signals, light and space junk are advertising our presence to the cosmos. If there is intelligent life elsewhere with long distance capabilities, it will surely send drones to collect biological material.

I believe I mentioned ..."We" are only a very tiny segment in the theme park of planet Earth...

I see, you're only saying we are part of the biosphere, not all of it. Obvious enough.

My point was and is: what humans are doing is what the biosphere is doing and, yes, it's obviously doing many other things too. We might only be a part of it but we make up the largest biomoass of large animals in Earth's history, we have terraformed much of the planet, created numerous new organisms via genetic manipulation and may even in the process of creating technological intelligence. And, yes, we are responsible for the extinction event currently in train. The biosphere is doing it to itself - breaking down established systems and replacing them with systems capable of becoming far more complex.

Every empowered species creates its own complications. The question becomes how empowered are they to control it?

Seemingly not very at this stage.

Your analogy makes no sense at all, but, NO, I DON'T WANT US ALL DEAD!

If humans are akin to parasites (and somehow also cancer?) would that be something you want to keep alive? Are we inclined to save and preserve tapeworms in our gut or cancerous masses in our organs?

Sure, you - and almost everyone who's not corrupt or blinkered - would like to see more restraint, less greed, less waste, more consideration for natural systems and to generally slow our impacts to allow for sustainability. In my experience, slow growth is more grounded and sustainable growth, so I am strongly in favour of conservation efforts, especially of systems (like the Amazon).

I do think the most likely explanation is that the biosphere is metamorphosing rather than all this self-loathing parasite/cancer tosh. I am all in favour of slowing the changes as much as possible, to focus much harder hard on renewable energy, recycling, reusing, to generally preserve as much as possible and to more deeply consider the plights of other species.

What for? So animals can bumble along just like "the good old days"- until an asteroid or the Sun gets them?

There were many more animals that bumbled along in the “good old days” than exist now. We've been very prolific in culling the animal population throughout the ages. A power equivalent to an asteroid has hit them already. We call it the human race. In the nature of things as confirmed by geology and paleontology they would have waited eons longer and it would have been more sudden.

Actually, there's huge numbers of large animals on the Earth, just that an increasing percentage are intelligent hominids. You yourself have the impact of a very small asteroid, as does the family of magpies that sometimes visit my garden. Which size asteroid do you suggest humans are akin to? There are asteroids large enough to bring on a catastrophe akin to the Permian (although this was probably not caused by asteroids). Informed observers believe the Holocene extinction event will be a very long way from some of the worst extinctions: https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth-scienc ... xtinctions

If in the next few million years humans manage to deflect even one monster asteroid we will have "paid our way". It's early days yet.

What are you talking about If we regressed to a point that you wanted and the whole litany of allegations that were never made? Why such nonsensical assertions that somehow you inferred and blame me for?

No, that's what YOU have been advocating - regression - railing against the destructiveness of modern civilisation, saying how much better off the Earth would be without humans. You are focused on the negative and persistently ignore the positives of humanity. Metamorphosis hurts, just as any change does.

What I emphasized is that unless we get a whole new perspective on behavior on this planet moving forward may be far less of a priority than damage control. Being the über intelligent creatures we believe we are, if we can't manage that then go ahead and croak. It's no loss to the planet and/or surroundings. Stripped of any stupid idealism, is there any doubt about that? If humans are to be creatures of destiny then that process should have been started long before now. Unfortunately, even NOW is not a promising catalyst for the future you envision.

You effectively accused me of a straw man when I assumed you wanted us to return to a simpler time. Maybe fair. It looked like you were advocating for regression and I do think there are mixed messages from you there.

I will now call you out on your straw man here. You paint me as one not interested in humans trying to alleviate environmental damage. I have been interested in environmentalism for decades, given the Green my vote or a high preference for about 30 years, and been a keen recycler, and so forth for about that long.

Do you think I'm looking forward to all this? That I like it? Of course not. I prefer the status quo as much as any animal that prefers the conditions to which it was adapted. Trouble is, reality doesn't stand still to hold desirable snapshots for us. Change is happening. Humans are major agents of change and we are careering towards the unknown without control, essentially following the scripts of physics and biology to their logical conclusions, given the circumstances.

The way I'm seeing it, billionaires and their offsiders seem most likely to carry on humanity's projects as the rest of us fall away (survival of fittest). Do I like that vision? Do I want the greedy and selfish to "win"? Nope, although I suspect that high concentrations of wealth a power are capable of achieving more than diffuse ones, even if amoral. My logic is at odds with my value systems here. I hold out some hope that surviving billionaires/helpers and their next generations will be chastened by the harm they caused and grow a heart.

Earth is turning into Venus in a billion years' time anyway.

True but that doesn't mean we should attempt a head start on the process if we aspire to the kind of future you mention.

We don't have to aspire. It's happening anyway. Significant environmental restoration efforts will continue to be attempted and our descendants should have far greater capabilities in this area, which is starting to boom. The future is not very predictable because of the novel interaction between natural systems and technological capability, our attempts at steering controls, and unexpected results, eg. plants growing faster with more carbon in the air. (Note: they aren't growing anywhere near fast enough for sustainability, though). Another interesting notion is that we are not far from being due for an ice ace. The overall future of environment and climate is uncertain, although the effects of heating this century (in short time spans) is far more predictable.

I think of humans as the biosphere's reproductive organs.

Must say a bizarre thought indeed. This would infer humans as being the creators of everything contained in the biosphere. In fact as it's reproductive organs we actually become the biosphere!

Bizarre for life to have reproductive capability?

I suspect that things may be far more bizarre still! What is the core complaint everyone has? That biology is increasingly being turned either into geology, or being pushed into simpler forms, thus closer to the original "nonliving" geology that preceded biology on Earth. Meanwhile humans are creating geological intelligence. Many informed observers think it likely that this geological intelligence - AI - will either feature as a permanent augmentation or take us over.

It's a weird situation. We are effectively in the early process of becoming more geological - less carbon and more silicon. What might that mean in terms of the way natural systems evolve and behave?

Most of us living in this time and much of what we love and value are doomed. The next hundred years will see tragedy on an unprecedented scale. We have been through the best of times and we are on a sharp downhill run - or at least most of us are. All we can aim for is harm minimisation.

In terms of the thread's question - "what really matters?" - harm minimisation must feature, applying to every area of life. The acceptance that "stuff happens" and attempts to alleviate that harm rather than adopting dangerous "magic bullet solutions", with the deluded notion of solving problems "once and for all", eg. war on drugs, war on terror, war on gangs, war on crime.

If the biosphere is going to persist after the Sun's expansion then humanity may well play a major role, at least greatly improving the chances of Earth-induced panspermia elsewhere. Life has a drive to persist and explores all possible options like water explores the cracks in pavement (hardy surprising since life is largely water).

Life certainly has a drive to persist but this refers to life as a whole in its complete manifestation not some infinitesimal part whatever be its shape or form in which its individual instances turn on and off like fireflies...we being merely one of those instances.

Actually, life is frequently content to lose its whole so as to to allow infinitesimal parts of it to persist. That is the reproductive process in a nutshell. Numerous life forms commit hari kuri so as to reproduce.

[Dubious]

Cancers are amorphous blobs that only kill because they grow in an uncontrolled way and thus interfere with ordered systems, but they have relatively very little organisaion. A cancer lacks that organisation in the same way as bacterial colonies lack the coordination of organisms.

When you mention “amorphous blobs” you're referring to the actual result of a process from its etiological cause to to its pathogenic development to it's manifestation as an amorphous blob. To my mind, it would require a highly organized procedure to generate unmitigated cell growth just like any disease requires a process by which to begin and develop. What lies between the cause of a disease and its sequel is a process, which by definition, cannot be disorganized but which WE wish to disorganize so it never shows up.

- and the reality is that Earth's terrestrial biology is in its last stages of life, humans or not.

Interesting statement but not completely understood as to what is meant! What active agents are in control to bring terrestrial biology to its last stages if there were no humans? Not every biologist, I think, would agree! How would life change on the planet, humans or not, without biology. Though the event is happening as stated because of humans, it remains a “To Be or Not To Be” question whose outcome depends on many factors we aren't even cognizant of should that occur...which is almost certain.

Not least, if it weren't for us it wouldn't be happening which kind of puts humans in the dubious position of being genocidal monsters against other creatures which have been our compatriots for the entire journey...something deeply recognized in the mythologies of indigenous peoples. I regard that as horrific!

Is it necessary to progress by destroying entire species and ecosystems? What people tend to forget in their technological mania as the be-all and end-all inclusivity of all that's important is that EVERYTHING we accomplished and hope to accomplish WHOLLY depends upon the INFRASTRUCTURE of ALL infrastructures remaining at least reasonably polite. If nature gets super nasty and extreme, you think technology is going to save us? How much of it would even be available.

In theory, if a considerably more intelligent alien eventually showed up here, how would we explain our actions as the sole proprietors of advanced mental faculties? It's not likely our technology would impress them anywhere near as what kind of intelligence caused this much damage to a planet which may be one of the most unique in the galaxy. Man is truly a pathetic creature who nevertheless still yearns to receive from yonder - a message for his mind to ponder.

It's many years since I read Erich Fromm but I recall an analogy he made by connoting the worship of technique as a form of necrophila since something dead, cold, inorganic and one-sided is the object of our worship, that is, everything opposite to what constitutes life.

My point was and is: what humans are doing is what the biosphere is doing and, yes, it's obviously doing many other things too.

The biosphere would in any event be doing what it's doing without humans. I'm not certain how to interpret this. Do you mean humans are doing to the biosphere what the biosphere is doing to us?

If humans are akin to parasites (and somehow also cancer?) would that be something you want to keep alive? Are we inclined to save and preserve tapeworms in our gut or cancerous masses in our organs?

He's a cancer on the planet not because of his existence but because of his destruction of the planet which is replete with and controlled by the Gordon Gekko mentality where even more than enough is never sufficient and where the “greed is good” motto, though not politically correct to say it that way, is nevertheless adhered to. Greed as institutionally implemented along with its indispensable sidekick corruption are among the main ingredients of a global cancer.

I will now call you out on your straw man here. You paint me as one not interested in humans trying to alleviate environmental damage.

I never once thought so and, once again, have no idea what would have caused you to infer that. I don't know you but your posts signal to me the opposite of someone who doesn't care.

The biosphere is doing it to itself - breaking down established systems and replacing them with systems capable of becoming far more complex.

I'll never understand how anyone can make claims like this with such certainty! Of course on philosophy forums anyone can create any kind of virtual reality even a whole customized universe if you like.

When something breaks down it becomes much more simplified prior to becoming complex which, as a process, is not guaranteed to follow. Complex systems DO NOT immediately follow biospheric breakdowns. It takes many millennia to many millions of years to start rebuilding and as mentioned, it's not guaranteed.

If humans are akin to parasites (and somehow also cancer?) would that be something you want to keep alive? Are we inclined to save and preserve tapeworms in our gut or cancerous masses in our organs?

If humans are akin to a cancer it's only because he usurps everything like a cancer for any and all self serving reason he can think of with almost zero regard for consequences. If a cancer could talk it would say the same thing humans always say to justifiy anything disgusting or devious: Business is Business.

No, that's what YOU have been advocating - regression - railing against the destructiveness of modern civilisation, saying how much better off the Earth would be without humans.

Of course it would be better off without humans. A lot of what's missing would still be around if it weren't for us and soon almost all of it will be missing as you already mentioned. But what the hell, a fair exchange! We will have made more room for the two-legged variety! Even though it may seem I'm railing against modern civilization, I'm really railing against human nature which, to put it mildly, hasn't turned out so well. In addition modern civilization being unquestionably destructive to the biosphere, 'regressing' to what caused it is not recommended.


You first said:

I think of humans as the biosphere's reproductive organs.

Now you say:

Bizarre for life to have reproductive capability?

...but initially you mentioned only humans and seem to have excluded everything else that lives, grows and reproduces in the biosphere. Ergo my response:

This would infer humans as being the creators of everything contained in the biosphere. In fact as it's reproductive organs we actually become the biosphere.

Actually, life is frequently content to lose its whole so as to to allow infinitesimal parts of it to persist. That is the reproductive process in a nutshell. Numerous life forms commit hari kuri so as to reproduce.

Can't make sense of this sentence. In what way is this true "content to lose its whole"? Does this mean Nature voluntarily committing hara-kiri on its long evolution toward complexity in order to regenerate itself from the beginning?

...this post is much longer than I intended and don't expect to make more. It's a worn-out subject! My views in some respects are not unlike yours but fundamentally we have very different opinions. It makes no difference what either of us think. The future is virtually guaranteed to unfold in ways that will surprise everyone.

[Obvious Leo]

When something breaks down it becomes much more simplified prior to becoming complex which, as a process, is not guaranteed to follow. Complex systems DO NOT immediately follow biospheric breakdowns. It takes many millennia to many millions of years to start rebuilding and as mentioned, it's not guaranteed.

Yes it is. A biosphere is a non-linear dynamic system, otherwise known as a dissipative structure, and provided the appropriate external conditions obtain, such systems ALWAYS evolve from the simple to the complex. This is a definitional law of nature as fundamental as 1+1=2 and is a mandated outcome for all self-determing physical systems, including the universe itself. However what this law does not mandate is the form in which such future complexity might manifest itself. Only minds can determine that.

[Dubious]

When something breaks down it becomes much more simplified prior to becoming complex which, as a process, is not guaranteed to follow. Complex systems DO NOT immediately follow biospheric breakdowns. It takes many millennia to many millions of years to start rebuilding and as mentioned, it's not guaranteed.

Yes it is. A biosphere is a non-linear dynamic system, otherwise known as a dissipative structure, and provided the appropriate external conditions obtain, such systems ALWAYS evolve from the simple to the complex. This is a definitional law of nature as fundamental as 1+1=2 and is a mandated outcome for all self-determing physical systems, including the universe itself. However what this law does not mandate is the form in which such future complexity might manifest itself. Only minds can determine that.

Yes! From simple to complex. Understood! But note simple precedes complex and if a system breaks down it reverts to simple or let's say far less complex. At that point it can either work its way up to a complex system or depending on the damage may not work its way up at all.

[Greta]

Dubs, yes, it's a demanding discussion and understand your decision to stop. Thanks. it was fun. I'll focus on the key point:

The organisation needed for cancers to multiply is in no way comparable with the levels of organisation of humans. As mentioned before, we cannot be parasites on the biosphere because parasites come from outside, and we have a long proud history in the biosphere as one of the current branches of the great ape family. We are not panspermic aliens dropped on the planet.

This is the key point. We are not parasites and we aren't cancers. Parasites and cancers, like us, are responsible for destructive processes to living systems, but neither has a product even remotely analogous to human society. Pretty well every organ and structure in a mammal's body is far more complex than growing blobs of cancer or their parasites. Yes, cancers are complex like microbes are complex but you cannot logically compare microbial and mammalian complexity, let alone human mammals.

However, there is another destructive process in nature - apoptosis, where structures are broken down during growth and/or metamorphosis, and are replaced by new, more complex structures. This appears most likely unless humanity's roles are entirely unprecedented in nature.

As for terrestrial life reaching its final stages, life on earth commenced around four billion years ago. The Sun is heating up and in about a billion years it will be game over, except for some underground organisms.

The biosphere is doing it to itself - breaking down established systems and replacing them with systems capable of becoming far more complex.

I'll never understand how anyone can make claims like this with such certainty! Of course on philosophy forums anyone can create any kind of virtual reality even a whole customized universe if you like.

My certainty comes from evidence - it's the story of evolution of the last few billion years. A few extinctions along the way and then life returns - more complex and adapted than ever. If the biosphere isn't doing it to itself, then we go back to humans as "aliens", which of course is incorrect.

Despite all this, on individual and societal levels, natural conservation is in our best interests, no matter what the long term future may hold. I also think that aiming to hold a balanced view of humanity's strengths and weaknesses is more likely to bring happiness (or at least not bring misery) than an emotionally-driven focus on weaknesses, perpetually outraged with inevitable* realities.

* Even if we all scaled back our resource use to that of people in developing countries, all it would do is slow the inevitable. We are the empowered species and we are taking over the place, just as trilobites and dinos did. It's a new phase in the making and, as said before, change is always difficult, always resulting in the loss of treasured things.

[Obvious Leo]

Yes! From simple to complex. Understood! But note simple precedes complex and if a system breaks down it reverts to simple or let's say far less complex. At that point it can either work its way up to a complex system or depending on the damage may not work its way up at all.

"Prediction is difficult, particularly of the future".....Yogi Berra.

Welcome to the real world. Complexity theory speaks only to the general trend of holistic systems towards a lower entropic state and can make no truth statements about the fate of a system's component parts, which are simply left to the tender mercies of the second law of thermodynamics.

"All things come from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"....Anaximander...On Nature

Anaximander was the first philosopher to figure out that all life forms must have originated from yet simpler life forms, which was no trivial accomplishment since the only tools he had to work with were the tools of formal logic. Galapagos was too far away for a rowing boat.

As for terrestrial life reaching its final stages, life on earth commenced around four billion years ago. The Sun is heating up and in about a billion years it will be game over, except for some underground organisms.

No need to panic just yet, luvvy. A billion years is ample time to prepare more salubrious digs.