Can anyone else see global warming as a positive change? Perhaps it was written in the cards and we never knew

Question

Nature says survival of the fittest and only the strong will survive.. Thats what nature wants and the weak are all around us.. What if us humans have an undetermined mission. Its a big universe out there, ya know.. What if it needs to be that the smartest, brightest, healthiest propagate and increase intelligence in humans. It may be that their exists an intelligence you could never imagine, but can be only obtained through dysgenics.. Hitler attempted this, and tried to create a supreme race. This human history suggests many things.. Anyway, global warming will kill millions.. Humans will be streamlined and humans will be forced to use their intellect and make the right moves to save the human race. This may mean getting rid of the weak and stupid and only the healthy and intelligent get to ride..

grizzbr1 - you call me dysfunctional and tell me I don't know how to spell.. NO, that was the proper spelling, moron! Here is the wiki for it, jackazz! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

Answer 1

This is typical human behaviour, we do something and mess it up and then take too long to fix is and then oops its too late and we have to do something drastic. I actually slightly agree with you, I think that global warming will force humans to actually face reality and many will probably die.

The thing is I think a lot of people forget that we actually live with other creatures? DUN DUN DUN!!! who would have guessed? and that we actually NEED these creatures to survive ourselves. Without bees, there would be no flowers, without bees we would have no honey...one simple example....without sharks...the weak, diseased and mouldy carcusses of other fish would pollute the waters, we would eat the diseased and weak fish thus polluting our own bodies...Without lions, deer would eat all the grass and there would be none left...thus they would die out....no deer for humans to eat...uh oh! We depend on other creatures for our survival...dont just think of humans.

Answer 2

Did you ever stop to think that you might be one of the stupid weak ones?

You are dysfunctional; the word you don't know how to spell is Eugenics, or genetic cleansing; an American invention made famous, and infamous, by Adolph Hitler.

It may come down to Eugenics in the future, and I see it being used as in the movie Code 46 to prevent genetic based diseases now. But using it as a weapon as you suggest will eventually lead to having only one race left, which decreases the genetic diversity and makes the entire species weaker.

But the slogan "Pass Highschool With a B+ Average or Die!!" might be a worthwhile slogan for a lot of reasons lol.

Anyway, no animal can evolve to total habitat destruction, that is why mass extinctions are known to have happened at least twice in the past. Call it Global Warming, call it Climate Change, meteor impacts, call it all hot air. I don't care. Habitat destruction is what kills species.

Answer 3

Species are becoming extinct at the rate of 3 per hour, more and faster than any mass extinction on record (including the one that killed the dinosaurs). Loss of habitat is one cause, but a single process like Global Warming has so many effects it's all happening too fast to even understand.

Somewhere on the list of species moving toward extinction is the name Homo Sapiens. Whether we are way down at the bottom or further up, we do not know. I do sincerely hope and pray that all the people who like to smugly say "survival of the fittest" when discussing the fate of the other species preceding us will remember their own words when we have risen to the top of that list, as we surely must.

Answer 4

It was colder in the 60's and 70's and it was warmer in the 30's. It's a little warmer now, but that's a good thing. The planet has been much warmer and much colder. I think it's just fine now.

History shows that the optimal temperature is actually warmer than it is today, so we could do with a little more warming without any problems.

Heck, they used to grow grapes in northern England and crops in Greenland once long ago. Maybe it will be that way again someday. Who knows?

I think too many people worry too much about things that don't really affect them and that they have no control over anyway.

Answer 5

I see many positives in it. Longer growing season, milder winters, things like that. I read in the paper recently that people in Greenland are starting to farm again. Of course that is bad for the polar bears and if sea levels rise too much coastal cities will have to be evacuated at great expense. But in general, warmer weather is better than cold weather. Global warming is MUCH better for life than an ice age. And The present warming, no matter what its cause, will NOT be warmer than numerous warm periods Earth has gone through in the last few hundred million years.

Answer 6

The way I look at it if we can change the climate we are terraforming. If we succeed on Earth we could then try the similar thing on Mars. Considering that Earth will eventually become over populated and we will need new planets to colonize we could consider what we are doing an experiment. I would not mind the planet being warmer. I would like to be able to sunbathe on the Baltic or Arctic.

Answer 7

Nature does not say survival of the fittest at all. MAN says that. Look at the work of Kropotkin who argued that evolution in the Darwinian sense of Survival of the fittest was only a part of a theory to describe evolution.

In the animal world the majority of species live in societies, it is the GROUP struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The struggle for the individual (the fittest) is the concept in its narrowest (ideological) interpretation.

In reality mutual aid has attained the greatest development, the most numerous, prosperous, and adaptive species. This is done by mutual protection, promoting longer life which leads to knowledge and new survival skills of the group and development of sociable habits/skills which promote further group cohesion and mutual aid.

From the Stone Age man has lived in beneficial clans who developed social traditions and norms to ensure their group 'species' existence within the wider eco system. These customs were developed to protect and enrich the natural environment, not deplete it.

It is only in realitively recent times that man has lost this 'knowledge' and believed himself to be superior to all other things instead of equal to which was the preivious ideology.

'Possession' of a locality was through community residence. It was habitation of a locality not possession as in the modern concept of ownership. They lived as equal to all other living things. Traditions and stories maintained this, and protected them from harm and harming their environment which in turn ensured this understanding of the land continued.

Your model as to whom will be saved can be easily argued against. In the scenario you give, it would not necessarily be the smartest, nor the healthiest who survive to 'propagate'.

First it will be determined by geography and secondly it will be determined by strength. One convincing person can take control, can persuade the masses, the less intelligent, the weak. The tribe can TAKE control and take Advantage of the problems you suggest. These 'clans' will not need to be particularly intelligent, just able to survive, they will do this in your scenario by mutual aid. Survival skills are very different from academic 'intelligence'. In your scenario it will be those with the ability to be self sufficient and those who work collectively who would repopulate, this will not necessaraily be the healthiest nor the fittest.

Of course this is all subject to geography. You are much more likely to be dramatically affected by global warming in some parts of the world or in some parts of countries than others.

Answer 8

Historically global warming has been VERY beneficial to humanity. Remember, without it much of the northern hemisphere would still be covered in ice.

Now as for the "everybody living near the shore will drown" bit.. consider this.

In the next 100-150 years the models predict a foot increase in sea level. In the last 100-150 years we experienced about a foot increase in sea level. We've somehow managed to get on just fine, that won't change.

Answer 9

I think I'll just ignore the Hitler references and go on to the rest of the question...It is true that true Darwinian evolution in the sense of 'survival of the fittest' has most likely been thrown off by the organization and interdependence of modern society. However, I don't think any person with the slightest trace of a moral center would want to change that fact. And if you're looking forward to global warming as a way to purge the Earth of the "unfit," I think you may need think about who will be most affected by global warming, and then possibly reexamine your definition of "unfit." And if you honestly think that global warming will cause humans to take to space and conquer the universe, you need to ease up on the SciFi channel. The current rate of global warming is quite a bit faster than the rate of development in the space program. If global warming continues on the trend it is currently following, the most important final results will be unimaginable suffering for a huge portion of the Earth's population, catastrophic damage to all of Earth's ecosystems, and a dramatic change in the social, economic, and political structure of the entire world.

Answer 10

Well, when you think about it, the strong live on the weak (food), and global warming will not just get rid of the weak, but it will do so in a quite wasteful way, meaning the strong can no longer live on the weak... I mean, the thought of eating human flesh, to me, is rather unappealing, and without the weak, that's what we'd be doing.