Do you think humans are smart enough to seriously damage ourselves and not smart enough to stop it?

Question

Some of the smartest people in existence (climate scientists) are telling us that our reliance on fossil fuels is putting us on a path toward catastrophic results. Some of the less intelligent people claim that these scientists are either part of some elaborate scam or are complete idiots.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWwA7u27SODHeZEr2j6ctTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071205150603AAtbJBq

The question is, will our species as a whole do enough to avoid the predicted catastrophic consequences, or will those who doubt the scientists be able to prevent such action. Will enough people be willing to take enough action and make sufficient sacrifices to meet the major greenhouse gas emissions cuts proposed by the scientists?

Or are we smart enough to invent the technology to advance our society while unknowingly putting it on a dangerous path, but not smart enough to get off that path once we realize where it's headed?

My name is a parody of those who call themselves 'Dr.'

Tomcat - yes I think climate scientists are SOME of the smartest people, as are most scientists.

Answer 1

I fear we are not smart enough to save ourselves from catastrophe but I am glad that there are many people working hard to prove me wrong. In deed the consequences of our foolishness are so severe that I am prepared to put in a great deal of effort myself to setting an example and lobbying for sustainable policies and ways of living.

As it happens I do not believe mankind’s actions would lead to the end of life on earth or even to the end of human life but they will lead to serious enough consequences unless we change direction soon.

My fear is that global warming and other forms of man-made damage would lead to the extinction of many species, because they would be unable to adapt or migrate quickly enough. The human species, however, does have the ability to survive but would suffer enormous social and economic upheaval in the process. The process is likely to be so severe that the population would be hugely reduced and we would be left with pockets of survivors scratching a living without the technological aids we currently enjoy. This outcome is made all the more likely by the fact that we would have consumed all the more readily available fossil resources, such as oil, gas and coal, in the process of creating the global warming.

The good news is that the answers to the problems of resource depletion and global warming are the same and consist of exciting technological and social challenges.

The technological challenge is to develop technologies for the conservation of energy and for the development of energy from sustainable sources (wind, wave, tide, hydro and solar). This will be exciting work for those who have the vision.

The social challenge is to develop and promote simpler, less wasteful lifestyles. I can tell you from my own experience that this is not easy but it is far more fun than trying to keep up with the neighbours and their pointless turnover of stuff (e.g. new kitchens, bigger cars, fashionable clothes).

I find the prospect of rising to these challenges exciting and I have no doubt that mankind is capable of achieving a simpler, less wasteful, lifestyle, assisted by new technology, so that we can pass on a cleaner and happier planet to our children and grandchildren. We just need to be quick about it because the longer we leave it the higher the cost.

Best wishes

Answer 2

Mankind continues to invent and produce weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of World War I killed ten million people. The weapons of World War II killed 55 million. Will humanity be able to survive World War III, or will it regress to Stone Age conditions? The question infers that mankind is the dominant species at the moment. Mankind is one of about 50 million species that have existed since the start of life and 90%+ of those are extinct. It is therefore highly likely that mankind will go extinct sooner or later, either through our actions or otherwise. The idea of any species being 'dominant' is not the way that nature seems to work. Every species from a bacteria to a tree is 'dominant' in its environment, otherwise it wouldn't be there. It is a fallacy to think that evolution 'leads' to mankind; there is no progression, merely that in each generation, the ones that survive breed with minute differences caused by mutation and sexual recombination. You cannot say that a human is 'more evolved' than a bacteria; in fact a bacteria is considerably more evolved as its generation time is so much shorter (20 minutes vs. 20 years), and you should see what some of them can do! Fancy living at 120 degrees Centigrade? Given long enough, i.e. maybe 50 million years even the species which we have destroyed will be replaced with species that occupy the same environmental niches. The answer therefore is that the world will keep on turning, whether we are here or not. I often imagine that the species that are left will heave a sigh of relief, if they could

Answer 3

Think about history. Think about where we are today.

I like to frame things in terms of absolute limits; it helps to define the options. I like to think that humans are infinitely stubborn and infinitely adaptable. Nobody wants to change until they are absolutely forced to. But if a tornado drops down on your house, you adapt. One day you're drinking beer and watching TV. The next day you are sifting through rubble looking for bodies. You pick up the pieces and move on. Do you think we are going to spontaneously stop what we are doing and magically start working together in love and harmony like if a fairy tapped everybody on the head with a wand? Do you think we will start working together before or after we have a huge global crisis? Little problem with that.

By the time we have a crisis big enough to get everyone’s attention we will be past the point of no return. It will have become too late to do anything about it, no matter what the effort. The crisis will take the form of cascading environmental collapse. Parts of ecosystems will collapse, then entire ecosystems, then the ecosystem of the planet.

Yeah, yeah, you can go on and on with the Pollyanna crap about how things are cleaner now, we will figure it out, it's not so bad, the world is big and we are small, yak yak yak. Bull****. The average person has not a clue in hell what we are up against. Completely ignorant of the science. The signs of trouble are all around us, even within our own bodies.

I won't bother listing the extreme, obscene, perverse, criminal, reprehensible, despicable things we do to each other and the planet every minute of every day. Its common knowledge to anyone with interest and pointless to rehash what nobody will acknowledge anyway. But there it is. We stare right at it but look the other way. We will only change when it comes back and hits us over the head.

I suggest you read E.O. Wilson’s "The Future of Life". We are -already- past the point of no return. The mass of humanity is rushing towards a narrowing caused by the limit of natural resources and the limit of the biospheres ability to regenerate itself. It has become a matter of how many humans will survive the bottleneck and what will be left of the natural world.

The moral imperative becomes - help save as much of the natural world and help people prepare as much as humanly possible while we still have time. This is why I post here. The first step is to educate people as to the magnitude of the problem.

Do I hope I'm wrong? With all my heart. Do I think I'm wrong? Sorry, no.

Answer 4

"....telling us that our reliance on fossil fuels is putting us on a path....." "Putting"......well, they are definitely smarter than you. Nice grammar. You people "follow the leader" with this agenda. You are no better than the people you are calling complete idiots. Bottom line....there are just as many climate scientists claiming the opposite (and have been doing a great job of disproving the science of the agenda-driven IPCC scientists) of what you preach every day. What makes you smarter than any other person on these boards? Cause you make some claim to be a graduate of Berkeley? Well I graduated MIT, I'm smarter. Anyone can claim this or that about their education, but you have shown me nothing but how to cut and paste from internet sites that support your agenda. So what is your feeling about coming on these boards every day and pushing your agenda? Do you feel the need to be part of some emotional argument? Does this make you feel needed? Do you have a complex about feeling accepted? Go cite Wiki on psychiatrist and then go see one.

Answer 5

“Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?”

An article in Scientific American raised this intriguing question. It predicted that global warming “will expand the incidence and distribution of many serious medical disorders.” For example, in some places “the number of deaths related to heat waves is projected to double by 2020.”

Less obvious is the role global warming could play in infectious disease. “Mosquito-borne disorders are projected to become increasingly prevalent,” since mosquitoes “proliferate faster and bite more as the air becomes warmer. . . . As whole areas heat up, then, mosquitoes could expand into formerly forbidden territories, bringing illness with them.”

Finally, there are the effects of flood and drought—both of which can result in polluted water supplies. Clearly, the threat of global warming must be taken seriously.

Answer 6

We still don't know what happened to other ancient civilizations like the Mayan,and others. Did their leaders tell everyone not to worry because the 'volcano' god had been appeased with human sacrifices. Maybe,at some point the leaders lost control of the masses. Maybe they got tired of the whole sacrifice thing,or maybe the growth in population destroyed the local enviroment. So yes, we can be smart enough to bring about our own distruction. The choice is ours to make,and this is the time!

Answer 7

If we have created it??? Then we can stop it, it's that simple. Once more data is collected and we have more data to sample then we can get an even better grip on the warming trend and what is causing it, then if it is caused by man the skeptics such as myself will gladly do our part. Majority rules and that's the way it is at the moment for the pro's. I don't think the american people have much to say about it. It's up to our policy holders and big wigs of the country. who will lie to get into office then not to a damn thing they said they would!!

Answer 8

Thank You. Finally some one speaks out for what has been a controversy since the beginning of the whole global warming incident.

Change is something that none can avoid but let me speak out clearly, if or if not we as "smart human" take some responsibility for what is a worldwide problem in a short period of time human will be an extinct species. Some say that there isn't global warming others do but let us accept the fact that not many of us are helping Planet Earth. WE were fighting Planet Earth now she is fighting back. Let us all be good companions to Mother Earth because she has always been good to us. Give back to the community, give back to Earth.

Answer 9

One of my favourite references when I write a term paper is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. It's really worth a read. After you read that book and ponder the examples in past history where humans had a chance to change the way they do things or continue into disaster, humans have a bad habit of choosing disaster. I'm not sure how this is any different. We have a bad habit of acting like dear in the headlights.

Answer 10

I think your question should say: Do you think humans are stupid enough to seriously damage ourselves and not smart enough to stop it?

My answer is yes. People are ignorant to that fact that global warming is real and too lazy to change their old habits. I mean how hard is it really to conserve and recycle? It is just a matter of making an extra effort. I think money is a major factor too. For instance, why do they already have flex cars in Brazil but not in America when some of these cars are being made in the states and shipped to other countries? It all boils down to money. Gas companies would lose money and our president is involved with those companies. I saw an executive from one of these companies being interviewed and he said that if ethanol became a fuel source for our cars that they would then lower the cost of gas to like 80 cents! That is infuriating to me! We are being ripped off and it's out of hand.

Bottom line... Most people are too self-absorbed to make changes in their lifestyle. My opinion is that once the damage is done then we are pretty much screwed. Mother nature is gonna kill us all!