348. CO2 EMISSIONS: REALITY CHECK
How is humanity doing on the CO2 emissions scorecard?
The IPCC uses 6 scenarios to forecast future CO2 emissions, and the worst case scenario is A1FI (fossil intensive). The following graph shows the situation as of 2004-2005 according to a study entitled "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions" by Raupach et al. published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Source):
These are the facts, from the paper cited above:CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning and industrial processes have been accelerating at a global scale, with their growth rate increasing from 1.1% y–1 for 1990–1999 to >3% y–1 for 2000–2004. The emissions growth rate since 2000 was greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late 1990s. Global emissions growth since 2000 was driven by a cessation or reversal of earlier declining trends in the energy intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) (energy/GDP) and the carbon intensity of energy (emissions/energy), coupled with continuing increases in population and per-capita GDP. Nearly constant or slightly increasing trends in the carbon intensity of energy have been recently observed in both developed and developing regions. No region is decarbonizing its energy supply.Sobering, isn't it? Since the Kyoto Treaty was signed, CO2 emissions have actually accelerated.
Efforts to control CO2 emissions remind me a great deal of the war on drugs. A lot of government programs, handwringing, breathless alarmism, multinational treaties, ad campaigns, calls to redouble efforts, education in the schools etc. But none of it has any impact at the usage level. Governments everywhere are basically powerless because the people want to use the product.
There is also a very similar culture of denial. If you tell a drug war supporter that their efforts aren't having any impact, it doesn't register in their brain. They don't want to hear it. Similarly, if you tell a global warming alarmist that CO2 reduction campaigns are pointless because they don't have any material effect, they get very defensive: "Don't say that! It might be the truth, but we shouldn't talk about it. It's bad for morale."
It's true that we have a moral duty to try to do the right thing. But we also have a moral duty to not delude ourselves into thinking we can achieve things which we actually can't.
by JD
posted by JD @ 3:41 AM
40 comments
40 Comments:
I have to agree. This is because people filter their perceptions through their beliefs, complexes, and level of repression. Sorry for the psycho-babble...but the GWC and Peak Oil debates must be understood at their source in the human psyche. A fear based person...that is..a person with fear in their unconscious (fear complex) tends to believe the world is coming to an end. In a panic...they settle for the first messiah or ideology that affirms them...regardless of the objective facts. I think it was Jefferson who said.." a problem can never be solved at the level of consciousness that created it." This is the same mentality of the Bush administration that based on fear based projection, believed Iraq had WMD's.
By the way folks, please type in a screen-name with the Name/URL option when you comment. You don't have to register or anything. Too many anons make the thread hard to follow.
Thank you, JD
"It's true that we have a moral duty to try to do the right thing."
The right thing to do here is nothing because the problem has been invented by hysterics.
If we do nothing (eg A1FI scenario), the IPCC projected that in 2100, each Earth dweller will be 17x richer than in 2000 (WG2 report)
And they want to have us believe that beeing 17x richer would be a catastrophe! What a sickening nonsense.
So the vast majority of climate scientists are hysterics?
And those wise, wise people who see through the folly of global warming are for the most part individuals who don't have the academic background to understand the data that the scientists are studying?
OK, got it.
Hmmm ... JD's blog has transformed into a Global Warming Denialism blog while oil has skyrocketed to $117 a barrel & diesel is over $4 a gallon & gasoline is almost $3.50 a gallon.
I guess that JD has lost the Peak Oil argument. He has moved on to the next futile, erroneous, uninformed argument.
After losing the Peak Oil argument, JD's going to lose the Climate Change argument.
Why do you even waste your time, JD? Do you make a habit of being wrong all of the time?
I guess that JD has lost the Peak Oil argument.
Get real, Dave. We're barely into the 1st round of a 15 round fight.
High oil prices are no shock or surprise to anyone here. In fact, those prices are the mechanism which will drive the shift to alternatives I have described here ad nauseum. When you notice a lull in car traffic, more mopeds/bicycles, and lines of sullen people queueing up for the bus in the morning -- that's when you'll know: JD was right.
I'll be proven wrong when the industrial/scientific machine stops advancing. As long as that machine hums along, I'm happy, regardless of what else happens.
Also, I'm not a global warming denialist. The evidence that we are currently in a long-term warming trend is solid, and I accept that. My position on the "Climate Change argument" is that we're not going to take any effective measures against global warming, whether people believe it or not. I doubt I'm going to be proven wrong, but if you want to take a crack at it, be my guest.
So the vast majority of climate scientists are hysterics?
I would say no, but influential people in the climate science community have advocated the use of hype and hysteria to attract media attention.
James Hansen: "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate... scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.Source"
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. [fn1. Schell, J. (1989). 'Our fragile earth', in "Discover" 10(10):44-50, October.]"
Furthermore, just a couple of posts ago we had Ted Turner on national TV whipping up hysteria saying "We'll have eight degrees -- we'll be eight degrees hotter in 10 -- not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died, and the rest of us will be cannibals."Video
I kind of missed the groundswell of objections from the reality-based climate community in response to Turner's comments. But that's no surprise, is it? Hysteria has a beneficial effect on federal funding. In fact, that's probably the solution to Schneider's dilemma: outsource the hysteria-generating function to 3rd party media personalities like Ted Turner.
Hello JD,
High oil prices are no shock or surprise to anyone here.
Really?
Ok, JD, I have a question for you:
Has Peak Oil already occurred, or ... How expensive will oil become before Peak Oil has occurred?
I'll be proven wrong when the industrial/scientific machine stops advancing.
The industrial/scientific machine is going to stop advancing pretty soon, JD. You are going to live long enough to witness the collapse of the industrial/scientific machine.
My position on the "Climate Change argument" is that we're not going to take any effective measures against global warming, whether people believe it or not.
You won't get any argument from me regarding the above. I absolutely agree with you: Humankind isn't going to do anything to solve the climate change problem.
This is, precisely, the reason why the Homo sapiens are going extinct. Humankind is working very hard at self-extermination, and our species is succeeding horrifically at that task.
But there's good news: Once humankind is extinct the Earth will recover and life with flourish and Nature will resume her dominance over the Earth for at least another billion years.
Homo sapiens aren't essential to the Earth. Life can and will go on very well without us.
That previous attempts have failed does not mean all future attempts will fail.
What we do with mistakes is admit them, study them, and learn from them.
Or we could just sit around feeling sorry for ourselves.
We fell down. So we get up, we keep going. As Yoda said, "do or no do, there is no whinge."
JD,
How's that multiple personality disorder coming? I hear there are some good meds for that now. You're a conservationist, no you're a gluttonous asshole, no you're a conservationist, no you're a glutton ...
I lose track. Doesn't this argument fly directly in the face of all of your other arguments that people will start conserving when prices skyrocket? If people conserve (as you've said before) it will help control greenhouse gases.
"But there's good news: Once humankind is extinct the Earth will recover and life with flourish and Nature will resume her dominance over the Earth for at least another billion years."
and now that Her greatest Triumph has extinguished itself she can give up too.
The Humans being extinct argument has got to be the most illogical of positions, you as a human are making it.....do you never think that maybe your consciousness either as a result of evolution or divine gift is not trivial nor like a disease....that maybe you, a self aware mind is perhaps the most significant of earth's or a creators accomplishments and by extension is the whole point to it's (earth) existence? or at the very least a significant step in the evolutionary or spiritual ladder, and that we owe it to ourselves and our planet and depending on your faith, your creator, to surive and grow rather than to perish in vain?
Ok, I think we are on more solid ground here, it perhaps provides some missing context to previous posts.
It's actually an important post for people concerned about GW. The analogy with drugs is quite apt, except that addiction to population and economic growth is not seen as a bad thing; in fact the opposite, governments actively encourage them. viz EU's baby blues
Reducing CO2 emissions is going against people's basic desires. Alarmism is not going to change that; indeed there is evidence that extreme messages are counter-productive.
It is pretty certain we are committed to climate change limited only by the amount of fossil fuel that is economic to burn. If we are to have an emissions plan, it must be a plan that incorporates that reality.
Hello freak oil,
The Humans being extinct argument has got to be the most illogical of positions, you as a human are making it.....do you never think that maybe your consciousness either as a result of evolution or divine gift is not trivial nor like a disease....that maybe you, a self aware mind is perhaps the most significant of earth's or a creators accomplishments and by extension is the whole point to it's (earth) existence?
No, not at all. Of course, humans really want to believe that the Earth has spent 4.5 billion years waiting for Homo sapiens to evolve. Of course, humans want to believe that the Universe has spent 13.7 billion years waiting for Homo sapiens to evolve.
But there is no special significance attached to the Homo sapiens whatsoever. Humans are not essential to Nature, the Earth or the Universe.
So the extinction of the Homo sapiens is no more significant froma cosmic perspective than the extinction of the dinosaurs.
or at the very least a significant step in the evolutionary or spiritual ladder, and that we owe it to ourselves and our planet and depending on your faith, your creator, to surive and grow rather than to perish in vain?
No, there is no special obligation of the Homo sapiens to survive. While I might want to live forever it is quite obvious that I have no choice except eventually to die. In the same sense, even if the Homo sapiens wanted to attain immortality our species must eventually suffer the same fate as any & all the other animals: Our species will go extinct.
The tragedy of humankind is that by destroying the Earth so effectively our species has driven itself to the edge of extinction. So, in a sense, our species' behavior over the last several centuries constitutes a form of suicide, a self-extermination.
Should humankind prefer to survive rather than go extinct we really should stop pumping the atmosphere with so many pollutants. But I suspect that our species would really prefer to go extinct as that is the only reasonable explanation of humankind's collective behavior.
Hello bc,
It is pretty certain we are committed to climate change limited only by the amount of fossil fuel that is economic to burn.
Yes, indeed. So it is quite certain that the Homo sapiens will go extinct.
So much for humankind. Suicidal, planet-destroying primates really do want to go extinct, don't they?
Yes, indeed. So it is quite certain that the Homo sapiens will go extinct.
Yeah, whatever.
Are you some kind of professional troll?
Hello bc,
Are you some kind of professional troll?
Well, bc, are the sort of ignorant person who walks out on the ocean floor because you are ignorant about the approaching tsunami?
Humankind's in trouble and the ignorant people who are polluting the Earth are pushing the planet well beyond its limits and thereby guaranteeing that the Homo sapiens will go extinct.
So humankind will go extinct. The Earth will go on very well without us.
Pollution problem solved.
The facts on the ground are that US per capita emissions are more than three times as high as those of France, Sweden and Switzerland while standards of living are the same. Chinese per capita emissions will surpass French, Swedish or Swiss emissions within a year or three while having an immeassurably lower standard of living.
So obviously things can be done. But they have to be done on the level where we plan our physical infrastructure, what kind of power plants we build, how we heat and cool our homes and how we develop cities.
Boring engineering stuff which costs lots of money and require uncomfortable political decisionmaking.
More easily swallowed handwringing and populist babble about banning mineral water or plastic bags will not get us anywhere at all but is far more comfortable.
Doom-troller david mathews came back to haunt JD's blog. Go back to your cave and stop polluting the internet with your nonsense babble. It globally warms my desire to just punch you in the face.
To even imply that it would be "good" for Nature for men to go extinct is beyond ridiculous, and a symptom of a culture delusion that spans for entire ages now, this notion that we humans are not part of Nature!
That mankind is the greatest achievement of Nature is manifest in the very existence of this sentence, it is evident that only Man can formulate it!
Therefore, even if all the rest of the ecosystem is blown away and mankind has to survive with artificial means, it means that earth's nature was but the egg nest of a species of a higher order. If mankind goes to hell with it, then yes, I'm sure that Nature will get over it.
I am yet to see though the symptoms of that last event occurring. Last time I checked, there were 6 billion people. To extinguish mankind, you'll need to kill them all.
Hello luis dias,
It globally warms my desire to just punch you in the face.
Violence has always served as an appopriate tool of the ignorant to escape from hearing a harsh & unpleasant truth.
To even imply that it would be "good" for Nature for men to go extinct is beyond ridiculous, and a symptom of a culture delusion that spans for entire ages now, this notion that we humans are not part of Nature!
This is just silly, Luis. Those dinosaurs were a part of nature and they went extinct. The trilobites were a part of nature and they went extinct. The Homo habilis were our ancestors and they went extinct.
By denying that Homo sapiens can go extinct you are excluding humankind from Nature.
That mankind is the greatest achievement of Nature is manifest in the very existence of this sentence, it is evident that only Man can formulate it!
If this is your argument for humankind as the greatest achievement of Nature, I am not impressed. A primate which can form a sentence is allowed by Nature to go extinct.
Therefore, even if all the rest of the ecosystem is blown away and mankind has to survive with artificial means, it means that earth's nature was but the egg nest of a species of a higher order.
The above sentence is a prime example of the suicidal ignorance which guarantees that Homo sapiens will go extinct.
I am yet to see though the symptoms of that last event occurring. Last time I checked, there were 6 billion people. To extinguish mankind, you'll need to kill them all.
Nature's well equipped to handle that task. The forces of Nature have eroded mountain chains more impressive than the Himalayas to level plains.
Nature will eradicate humankind's technological civilization within this century. Nature will eradicate Homo sapiens from the Earth within 100,000 years.
That's the future, Luis. You might as well accept it.
Oh Dave Mathews is back.
"Nature will eradicate Homo sapiens from the Earth within 100,000 years."
That may or may not be true. So what? Am I not supposed to enjoy today because 100,000 years from now we might not exist. What the hell?
Do you enjoy any aspect of your life?
Hello fr,
That may or may not be true. So what?
I see that your viewpoint differs very little from my own: The extinction of the Homo sapiens is a trivial event.
Am I not supposed to enjoy today because 100,000 years from now we might not exist. What the hell?
You can do whatever you wish, fr. Your decisions will have an impact upon humankind's future, though. If you live in a foolish manner the terminal decline of humankind will occur in a horrific manner.
Do you enjoy any aspect of your life?
I enjoy life, which is to say: I enjoy Nature, the Universe, and God.
What do you enjoy, fr?
"But there is no special significance attached to the Homo sapiens whatsoever. Humans are not essential to Nature, the Earth or the Universe."
It was an opinion expressed for the sake of consideration, not arbitrary supposition presented as fact as you seem to be fond of.
and for the record, just who the hell are you to say what the human consciosness is or isn't and when we should die? Do you suffer from megalomania?
the upside of extinction of the entire species is you will be part of that and the little birds and trees will not have to here your pedantic self-inflation.
I guess my emotional dissonance on not wanting to accept my inevitable fate (apparently a certainty as you
absolutely can see the future, as well as everything's place in the universe) has made me turn against you in fear and ignorance. I'm not a religious man Dave, but who, where or whatever God is, I am certain he is not you. I only say that because you have really tried to endow yourself with an almost supernatural understanding of all of our fates.................and even if you are right, and you might be, just remember you are still you, a small pointless human who made a LUCKY guess about the future and that is chance, not something remarkable about you.
have a nice day! :)
Hello freak oil,
I'm not a religious man Dave, but who, where or whatever God is, I am certain he is not you.
That's a distinct possibility, freak oil. As to the question of whether I am God or not, I am a strict agnostic.
As to questions regarding the future of humankind, you can be quite certain that what I am saying here is absolute truth. Although, were you to reject the message, it is obvious that you won't live long enough to verify the correctness of your opinion.
As for myself, I spent the day walking for miles along the sea wall in downtown St. Petersburg. My reward for the efforts: 2 manatees, 1 hammerhead shark, dozens of rays, 3 dolphins, birds of all sorts, 3 baby alligators, 1 mother alligator, millions of minnows, and an awesomely beautiful blue sky decorated wonderfully by a bright shining sun.
"Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you could build for Me?" (Isaiah 66:1)
I can assure you that the owner of the Earth has become weary of the primates who are handling the planet like the worst sort of squatters imaginable. Humans have thoroughly trashed the Earth and we've thoroughly worn out our welcome which Nature provides freely to her children.
I look at this planet and observe that one animal has become the enemy of every living thing on this planet. This is not a healthy situation, either for the planet or for the tormented primate plague.
What sort of fate do you suppose humankind has earned by its actions on the Earth?
If you were God -- or if you were Nature -- how would you handle this situation?
We already know how humankind chooses to handle the planet: kill everything, burn everything, destroy everything, pollute everything, exhaust every resource.
These are not the behaviors that I associate with an animal that expects to survive for every long in the Universe.
This guy is so crazy that makes me ROFL!! You mad egomaniac, thank GOD that you are "agnostic" about BEING God! I can't even imagine when you start proclaiming that you KNOW you are God!!
"The extinction of the Homo sapiens is a trivial event.", which I might add, only happens in your own delusioned head.
For heaven's sake, get down from your keyboard and go get laid. I don't think I've ever met anybody in the "internets" so much in need, and perhaps unaware of it.
That you've laid out the entire human drama for yourself, spanning hundreds of thousands of years, I think it's a great thing, and if you write it and add some romance and nice rethorics, you'll only have to draw a nice cover and get a sci-fi publisher.
That you present it, not even as something you believe in, but as something that is bound to happen inevitably, only tells me that your interest only boils down to make a psychological aesthetical impression on us, which is commonly referred as TROLLING.
One animal has become the "enemy" of every living thing? Haven't you even considered that those are human abstract categorizations that Nature simply doesn't compute?
If I were God or Nature?!? Haven't you considered that God simply doesn't exist and Nature is not a persona per se, therefore without any objective or purpose whatsoever?
And We can be quite certain that what you am saying here is absolute truth??
There were always doom prophets in mankind's history, much brighter than you in general, that talked about the end of times and the fall of Man. How about this absolute truth? If there are doom-prophets telling you that the world is coming to an end, relax then, things are as normal as they can possibly be.
These are not the behaviors that you associate with an animal that expects to survive for very long in the Universe?
And who exactly are you to proclaim knowledge of survival skills of intelligence species, when you only have ONE example of such, and it's an experience that hasn't finished yet? You're so full of yourself. Be careful, you're just about to explode like a giant ball of bullshit.
A primate which can form a sentence is allowed by Nature to go extinct? And who CARES what this entity you "animate" in your mad mind allows or not? I don't think that we, as a species, will allow it. Period.
I might as well accept it?
I accept that you are out of your fucking mind. Only an old man with no brethen would accept that. If mankind were like you though, I think we'd have already been extinct, some million of years ago. The voice of grim acceptance of impending doom, while beholding last platonic sunsets, and a livid tear drops, is pitifully laughable.
Get out of that pedestal of yours. Remember the old saying: the higher you are the higher the fall. You are placing yourself almost in orbit!
Hello Luis,
This guy is so crazy that makes me ROFL!! You mad egomaniac, thank GOD that you are "agnostic" about BEING God!
Being agnostic about being God seems appropriate to me.
"The extinction of the Homo sapiens is a trivial event.", which I might add, only happens in your own delusioned head.
Are you denying that Homo sapiens can go extinct?
Please do clarify your argument. The above paragraph is too ambiguous.
That you present it, not even as something you believe in, but as something that is bound to happen inevitably, only tells me that your interest only boils down to make a psychological aesthetical impression on us ...
Are you making an argument, Luis?
If you have some specific objection in mind, you should say it ...
Haven't you even considered that those are human abstract categorizations that Nature simply doesn't compute?
An extremely ambiguous question, Luis. You will need to formulate your questions more explicitly if you wish to engage in an argument.
Haven't you considered that God simply doesn't exist and Nature is not a persona per se, therefore without any objective or purpose whatsoever?
God's existence and Nature's existence are actually irrelevant to my argument, Luis.
The subject of our dispute is the existence and extinction of the Homo sapiens .
There were always doom prophets in mankind's history, much brighter than you in general, that talked about the end of times and the fall of Man. How about this absolute truth?
Well, Luis, if a prophet tells you that you are going to die , you can know for certain that the prophet has expressed an absolute truth even if the prophet is wrong about everything else.
When I say Homo sapiens will go extinct , I am speaking an absolute truth simply because the laws of biology and laws of physics forbid immortality.
In other words: Extinction is the universal, inevitable and inescapable fate of all species.
Hence it is an absolute truth.
And who exactly are you to proclaim knowledge of survival skills of intelligence species, when you only have ONE example of such, and it's an experience that hasn't finished yet?
A simple comparison between human behavior and the behavior of the animals which have survived for millions of years is sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that there is something terribly wrong with humankind.
The behavior of the Homo sapiens on the Earth is properly identified as suicidal and it is these behaviors which are accelerating humankind down the path to a horrific extinction event.
And who CARES what this entity you "animate" in your mad mind allows or not? I don't think that we, as a species, will allow it. Period.
Nature's been around for 4,000,000,000 years, Luis. Homo sapiens have only been around 100,000 years. Only fools would bet on the side of the Homo sapiens against Nature.
Get out of that pedestal of yours. Remember the old saying: the higher you are the higher the fall.
You speak wisdom which you evidently don't understand. "The higher you are the higher you fall" would seem a legitimate warning to the Homo sapiens.
If you comprehended the implications of your own words you would realize that it is humankind which is driving itself extinct by its own foolish, suicidal actions.
Nature's been around for 4,000,000,000 years, Luis. Homo sapiens have only been around 100,000 years. Only fools would bet on the side of the Homo sapiens against Nature.
Side??
Our Self-Awareness interest in our own survival, and the fact that you sir, as a human, feel respect for other life, and nature, exemplifies why our survival is fundamentally different from any other species going extinct.
YOU!! David, are ironically the proof of what you seek to refute!
You being a human and a member of our species calling into question the actions of man proves why we CAN survive!!
Brilliant!!
Hello freak oil,
Our Self-Awareness interest in our own survival, and the fact that you sir, as a human, feel respect for other life, and nature, exemplifies why our survival is fundamentally different from any other species going extinct.
You are seriously mistaken, freak oil. The quality which you so admire does not guarantee the survival of the species.
Jimi Hendrix was the most talented guitar player in the Universe but that did not stop the drugs from killing him.
The dinosaurs were extremely good at what they did -- so good that the dinosaurs prospered for tens of millions of years -- but their special talents and survival skills did not prevent the asteroid from exterminating them.
Humankind is special, especially to the humans, but our unique traits won't prevent our suicidal habits from destroying the Earth to such a horrendous extent that it drives our species extinct.
This is the reason why it is so vitally important for humankind to stop polluting the Earth immediately, and cease all environmentally destructive activities immediately.
The animals need not worry about survival because instincts prevent the animals from behaving like planet-destroying fools. Humans are intelligent enough to destroy the Earth but too stupid to realize that such behavior constitutes a form of suicide, a self-provoked extinction.
"Being agnostic about being God seems appropriate to me. "
So you don't know if you are God or not? Well if you don't know, chances are that you are not, he?
"Are you denying that Homo sapiens can go extinct?
I don't deny anything, because what I really can't stand is people so sure of themselves telling me what will definitely happen. Just like you.
"Are you making an argument, Luis? "
Yeah. The argument that you're full of shit. I was only being nice, but it seems you only understand if I phrase it this way.
"An extremely ambiguous question, Luis. You will need to formulate your questions more explicitly if you wish to engage in an argument."
Ambiguous to the clueless. What I mean is that you are focussing on the sins of mankind, and on the almost divine and "just" repply of "Nature" to fight back mankind and push us back to extinction, without even considering that Nature doesn't give a fucking damn, because it doesn't think, it doesn't act, it does nothing, it only is. You're "animating" Nature as if it were an entity trying to fight back mankind, something that our ancestors did with the storms, rain, droughts, fertility and the likes. So to try to personalize Nature and predict it will act with human abstract considerations in mind, is utterly ridiculous. We still don't have a fucking clue of what is the point of Life, and therefore to try to dismiss mankind intelligence as a possible answer (or tool) to that question is ignorant drivel.
"The subject of our dispute is the existence and extinction of the Homo sapiens ."
No, the subject of our dispute is your entrenched pessimism, doom preaching and outright mankind damnation. What are you trying to prove? That mankind is not worthy of the Earth? That mankind is cruel to the Earth? Nonsense! These are all natural traits in Nature! The only problem with mankind is that we did so fucking too well in competing with all other animals and plants.
And to claim that mankind is in peril because they were just fucking too good reveals the absurdity of your position.
"When I say Homo sapiens will go extinct , I am speaking an absolute truth simply because the laws of biology and laws of physics forbid immortality."
That's a truism, and I couldn't care less at that. The future is always uncertain, so all you can say is that it is good chance that we go extinct. I doubt that we go extinct without giving birth to an even higher class of being, but I admit it is a long-shot speculation. As stated above, this isn't the crux of the discussion.
"A simple comparison between human behavior and the behavior of the animals which have survived for millions of years is sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that there is something terribly wrong with humankind. "
Hmmm lets see where that comparison might be:
In the usage of intelligence?
In the domestication of land and animals?
In the creation of tools and technology?
In the creation of Philosophy, Religion and Humanistic values?
In the creation of Scientific Method?
In the Ethical questioning of our own attitudes and actions?
In our excellent capability of adaptation of an incredible array of different conditions? (where is other animal that can live in antarctica, climb the everest, live in the desert or sail in the farthest ocean?)
Yes, I can see where you can deduce your "comparison" from. Idiot.
"The behavior of the Homo sapiens on the Earth is properly identified as suicidal"
Nonsense. That's only your wishful thinking.
"Nature's been around for 4,000,000,000 years, Luis. Homo sapiens have only been around 100,000 years. Only fools would bet on the side of the Homo sapiens against Nature."
Only fools would bet against the Homo Sapiens, for if he goes extinct there wouldn't be anyone left to pay the bet back! And that's what you don't see, you are too entrenched in a "virtual" cosmos that exists by "itself", when Quantum Theory suggests that the Cosmos doesn't even exist until we go and see it for ourselves. To proclaim a cosmos without our existence is of incredible non-interest. The Cosmos simply won't "exist" anymore. At least until another intelligent species recognizes it as such.
""The higher you are the higher you fall" would seem a legitimate warning to the Homo sapiens."
Warning, yes, always. We like the thrill. A full blown proof of mankind's demise, ahah, ...no.
"own foolish, suicidal actions."
THIS is the crux of the discussion, for your doom and gloom romance novel is only relevant if mankind does show that behavior, which I don't see. That people are in a continuum of consciousness and intelligence is obvious, that there are people stupid and bright, selfish and selfless, is obvious (for no other reason than that of the very existence of such words), that these contradictions are crutial for the continuous natural selection should be evident.
A hundred years ago, the west was like China, smog and pollution everywhere, people without any kind of rights working overnights, diseases killing millions, famine, genocide, wars spreading carpet bombs destroying entire cities, intolerance all around, eugenism, nazism, communism.
To be pessimistic today is to ignore that the cup has been filling water since then, only to see it still half empty.
"I can assure you that the owner of the Earth has become weary of the primates who are handling the planet like the worst sort of squatters imaginable."
It's this kind of bullshit that creeps me the hell out of you, go right now and find an asylum for yourself.
How on Earth your assurance that your imaginary friend dislikes what "primates" are doing to Earth is any way relevant for human kind extinction is completely beyond me. Grow up. When I reached 6 I stopped playing with my imaginary friend.
Dave,
Are you better than someone?
Are you an extraterrestrial?
Will you answer that by saying that you are not claiming to not be a hypocrite?
and if so what is the point in your position?
If we are all doomed, then why bother, really..........?
I feel like if I say that this is a counter-productive debate, you will respond with something along the lines of either attacking human productivity or saying that it is futile...So I am pulling out of my little debate with you.......
Hello Luis,
So you don't know if you are God or not?
I said no such thing, Luis.
The argument that you're full of shit.
I'm impressed, Luis. You can make an intellectual argument.
What I mean is that you are focussing on the sins of mankind, and on the almost divine and "just" repply of "Nature" to fight back mankind and push us back to extinction, without even considering that Nature doesn't give a fucking damn, because it doesn't think, it doesn't act, it does nothing, it only is. You're "animating" Nature as if it were an entity trying to fight back mankind, something that our ancestors did with the storms, rain, droughts, fertility and the likes. So to try to personalize Nature and predict it will act with human abstract considerations in mind, is utterly ridiculous. We still don't have a fucking clue of what is the point of Life, and therefore to try to dismiss mankind intelligence as a possible answer (or tool) to that question is ignorant drivel.
I'm impressed by the sheer magnitude of your ignorance, Luis. That's all that you are saying in the above.
What are you trying to prove? That mankind is not worthy of the Earth? That mankind is cruel to the Earth? Nonsense! These are all natural traits in Nature! The only problem with mankind is that we did so fucking too well in competing with all other animals and plants.
Finally an argument! An absurd and pointless argument, it is true, but an argument nonetheless.
Are you suggesting that humankind's destruction of the Earth constitutes a purely natural act?
That's very odd. Over the last four billion years this particular act has occurred once and only once.
Of the 100 billion species who have inhabited the Earth, only one has engaged in this behavior.
So to say that human behavior is natural and consistent with Nature is absurd.
And to claim that mankind is in peril because they were just fucking too good reveals the absurdity of your position.
I am not suggesting that humankind is good, Luis. Humankind doesn't impress me at all. Not in the least.
Humans aren't so good at all. This is the reason why the Homo sapiens will go extinct.
Only a defective animal would drive itself extinct in a suicidal act of planet-destruction.
Hmmm lets see where that comparison might be ...
I'm not impressed by any of those things which you mentioned, Luis. None of these things are going to prevent Homo sapiens from going extinct.
What do any & all of these accomplishments when once Homo sapiens are extinct, Luis?
Only fools would bet against the Homo Sapiens, for if he goes extinct there wouldn't be anyone left to pay the bet back! And that's what you don't see, you are too entrenched in a "virtual" cosmos that exists by "itself", when Quantum Theory suggests that the Cosmos doesn't even exist until we go and see it for ourselves. To proclaim a cosmos without our existence is of incredible non-interest. The Cosmos simply won't "exist" anymore. At least until another intelligent species recognizes it as such.
This is silly. If the Universe does not exist without the Homo sapiens, exactly how is it that the Universe existed for 13.7 billion years without Homo sapiens?
To be pessimistic today is to ignore that the cup has been filling water since then, only to see it still half empty.
A particular uninformed statement, Luis. Evidently you aren't paying close attention to what is happening on the Earth.
Hello Luis,
How on Earth your assurance that your imaginary friend dislikes what "primates" are doing to Earth is any way relevant for human kind extinction is completely beyond me. Grow up.
We need not argue about God or Nature's existence, Luis.
Humankind's continued existence is under dispute. I have said & continue to say that a day will come ... soon ... in which the Homo sapiens no longer exist.
You haven't yet produced an effective argument on behalf of humankind's immortality.
As such, your viewpoint is -- by default -- identical to my own.
So we are agreed that Humankind will go extinct.
Yay!! The loony (you Mr Matthews) has finally got someone to agree with him....and they dont even know it!!
Lets have some fun then shall we????
Define "natural" David. No ducking out now.....
JD, or anyone for that matter,
I was reading over the following article today
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-gas18apr18,1,7050208.story?track=rss
and some thoughts crossed my mind...
We have all had the discussions on how public transportation, and walking, cycling, etc can lessen the impact of peak oil, but I began to ponder the lack of attention given to how isolated rural communities, and in this case formerly agricultural communities can have a less fuel intensive lifestyle. It seems difficult as communities such as this are practically impoverished by their relative economic position.
Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions how individuals, governments and corporations, can shift situations like this to a more positive paradigm? or at the very least mitigate the negative.
Let's try that link again...sorry
Gas Prices box in an Alabama community
Hello morgoth,
Define "natural" David. No ducking out now.....
Within the context of Nature, morgoth, "natural" is defined as "the living" as opposed to "unnatural" which includes all those tools & constructs of humankind which are, by their intrinsic nature, always dead.
Therefore included within the natural world are the Homo sapiens -- we are a living organism, an animal, a mammal, a primate -- but excluded are all those things invented by humankind.
If this definition does not seem correct to you, I'd be pleased to hear how you define "natural".
what the fuck? I thought you were going to debunk peak oil dumbasses. not some global warming crap. get back to what makes you great in the first place; this is like watching the beatles trying their hand at rap or something.
dave matthews, I hated your band, your music sucked, and if you want humans to be extinct, I say there's talkers and there's doers. start doing and start with the man in the mirror!
Hello wayne kerr,
dave matthews, I hated your band, your music sucked, and if you want humans to be extinct, I say there's talkers and there's doers.
Somehow I believe the message of the present argument has absolutely eluded you.
The doers in this case, Wayne, is humankind itself.
It is not my wish that the Homo sapiens go extinct. It is the suicidally self-destructive behaviors of the Homo sapiens which are driving humankind extinct.
You say: start doing and start with the man in the mirror!
Now I couldn't ask for a more excellent demonstration of how stupid humans behave when they encounter an unpleasant message. If you cannot endure hearing the message you prefer to kill the messenger.
But whether I live or die, the conclusion remains the same: Humankind is engaging in suicidally self-destructive behaviors on a planetary scale which shall result in the extinction of humankind.
Dave,
I've had enough of your repetitive spam for the time being. I will be deleting any further comments from you, so please move along to one of your other trolling locations.
Thanks, JD
I don't see why you would delete Dave Matthews comments. He's been very civil compared to other posters. No one has, as of yet, convincingly opposed his arguments - which can be argued quite easily with a little thought.
Peal oil or no peak oil, GW or no GW. I'm a realist. I'm *betting* that food prices and energy are going to continue going up to a point where I will no longer be able to afford them. So I've bought a 13 ac farm and cut back considerably on my energy use. That's my solution to CO2 emissions. I'm reducing them because I don't want to pay increasing amounts for fossil fuels.
It has nothing to do with fear. For some people the world coming to an end is simply a changing world. Because I believe in peak oil does not make me scared of it. I will adapt. The fact that I know it's coming allows me to begin accumulating knowledge instead of information as I've been doing so far.
JD, you mentioned high oil prices are the mechanism that will drive change. Have you read the Hirsch report?
Post a Comment
<< Home