Fear of Losing Immortality
Posted by Glenn on November 26, 2005 - 1:05pm in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: charles darwin, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
It's the general philosophy that we as a species are above and apart from nature. It's found in many religions. It's definitely found in Star Trek. It's a pillar of both Communism and Capitalism. It's the universal idea that we are special, our superior brains separate us from the biosphere we inhabit. That we can transcend any traditional limits that nature sets for a species. That through ever greater technological innovation our species can continue to expand its size and consumption levels indefinitely into the future.
We have accepted this philosophy because the alternative is to deny our immortality. To accept the idea that humans could be subject to the same natural forces and limits as all other species of plant and animal on the planet - the idea that we are not special, except in our own eyes.
This is the central conflict between those who want to work toward a sustainable ecological balance and those who want to continue to delude themselves that humans can continue to extract ever greater demands on the natural environment. It's also a deeper insight into the implications of Darwin's Theory of evolution.
"What I want," he later told a friend, "is an assurance of immortality."This was an astute remark. Many of Darwin's readers, then and now, have tried to find ways to reconcile a divine creator with the clearly secular implications of Darwin's theory of evolution. As often as not, the effort is less a search for a first cause than a plea for assurances of immortality. Tennyson recognized that Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," which was published in 1859, offered no such promises.
What bothered Tennyson wasn't merely the possible loss of eternity. It was also the central observation that underlies Darwin's theory: the fact, first noticed by Malthus, that every species on the planet, including humans, produces far more offspring in each generation than nature can support. Coming as late as we do - nearly a century and a half after Darwin's "Origin" - we have the luxury of seeing at a glance what Darwin saw: that the pressure of so much excess population is a harsh but efficient test of the value of accidental variations in any species.
While this was a revolution in thinking at the time, the underlying implications of Darwin's theories for mankind were never really dealt with. Which is why restating Darwin's original ideas on the limits to growth never been more relevant:
The new exhibition called "Darwin" at the American Museum of Natural History portrays the making of the man and the scientist, and it reminds us how well and how fully evolution explains the life around us. It also captures the way Darwin's theory opened an entirely new window in the human imagination.It is possible to say, in fact, that humans did not begin to understand their place in nature until 1859. I found myself wondering, oddly, what it must have been like to be alive at such a revolutionary moment. But we live in a moment that is no less revolutionary. "Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound," Darwin wrote. In our time - the DNA era - the mechanisms of those laws have been revealed in ways that Darwin could only dream of, and in ways that confirm the essentials of his theory beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It reminds me that while the industrial revolution changed a lot about how we interact with the natural world, our pre-industrial ancestors would in general share our view that humans are above the natural world. From the exhibit itself, we can understand more about how pre-Darwin England viewed the natural world:
Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were not linked in a single "family tree." They were unconnected, unrelated and unchanged since the moment of their creation. And Earth itself was thought to be so young--perhaps only 6,000 years old--that there would not have been time for species to change. In any case, people were not part of the natural world; they were above and outside it.
The original source for this philosophy can be traced back to something that Jews, Christians and Muslims all have in their philosophical underpinnings, Genesis 1:28:
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
I find this biblical passage absolutely fascinating. Being fruitful and multiplying is not a uniquely human attribute. All species on the planet are born with a genetic directive to multiply as much as possible. However, I think the key point of this ancient text is that because we as a species are mentally (and therefore technologically) superior to all other forms of life, and because we will have the same genetic drive to reproduce we have a responsibility to replenish the environment around us instead of simply extracting resources from it.
It is a time to take responsibility. A time to heal. A time for replenishment. Turn, Turn, Turn.
It is only WE LEMMINGS who are immortal and superior.
Understanding the tree of "no ledge" is a good first step for your species. Maybe there is hope for your f-ledgling kind. We will put in a good word for you with the Captain of the Star Trek Armada.
Your view is very similar to the "flat earthers" who opposed/feared Columbus' voyage. If you were living in that time, you would have been one of those saying: "Let's not delude ourselves with cornucopian nonsense about other continents."
The difference between what I am writing and religion is that religion requires "faith". I do not take peak oil as gospel. In fact I am completely willing to be convinced with scienific logic and facts that our current lifestyle is sustainable, but so far everything that I read negates that thesis. My interest in peak oil began when I realized that all the data floated around about oil reserves and output was not confirmed on a well by well basis. I simply don't trust data that is based on faith that the Saudis and Iranians, et al are telling us the truth. For more on this read the end of this post
Also, don't put words in my mouth - I believe that new innovative technology will help us get to a more sustainable lifestyle. Technological development is not the problem, it's how we as a society decide use it that matters. I'm not advocating a return to anything, but rather a more sustainable future.
es·cha·tol·o·gy
n.
1. The branch of theology that is concerned with the end of the world or of humankind.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity, the Second Coming, or the Last Judgment.
Please point out where he said that.
I also notice that you don't answer the question.
You are a true crank.
No one here buys your false dichotomy:
"I have true faith in science, whereas the rest of you are delusional."
Peak oil is the outcome of science.
Haying with horses and a loader are just as technologically challenging as doing it with tractors and a baler. The difference is you don't have to rely on mechanics when the equipment breaks down.
You seem to be reading a lot more into what peak guy said than what he appears to have said.
So it's just an elementary deduction: If you are opposed to unsustainable practices, then you're opposed to the electric power grid. That sounds pretty medieval to me.
and...
Therefore,
you are, by your own reasoning, either "medieval" or FOR "unsustainable practices."
Which is it?
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of senseless, wasteful consumption and growth. It also doesn't mean that I'm ignoring the limits imposed by the planet. I means that I think the best chance for long-term survival of the human race lies in modern, technical, industrial culture. If we let the lights go out, it's 100% sure we will perish like the dinosaurs. Our minds are our only chance.
Furthermore, there is a built-in presumption that high-intelligence is a survival trait that will ensure the perpetuation of our species. This may not necessarily be so, for our superior intelligence has gotten us into lots of trouble. If we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war over access to oil, then from a classical Darwinian point of view, one might conclude that high-intelligence does not ensure survivial of the species.
It may be slightly too much to say that it is certain that Homo sapiens will become extinct in a time comparable to time that that species has existed but it is not, in my opinion, unscientific to say that the evidence is such that the odds are so strongly if favour of this happening that it should be accepted as a working hypothesis.
When this happens, bacteria, the real success story of evolution, as well as many other species will carry on as normal.
From a planetary perspective man's passing will not be of fundamental importance and from a cosmic perspective, and these religions tend to imply that their teachings have cosmic application, man's passing will be of utter insignificance.
Peakguy is entirely correct that the mind set that so readily accepts all manner of improbable propositions in order to avoid acceptance of the oblivion facing him in a few decades is pre-conditioned to accept comforting stories that dismiss or minimise the problems threatening him and to do so in the face of all evidence to the contrary
Crocodile:
It's a religious belief because you are predicting the future with too much certainty, i.e. with a certainty requiring faith. The fact that the dinosaurs became extinct due to a cosmic catastrophe does not prove that we are doomed to the same fate. We may be different from the dinosaurs. Only time will tell. The scientific position is agnostic: maybe we'll go extinct, maybe we won't. "Doomed" is a religious concept.
I would challenge you to point to a single animal species alive 100 million years ago that still exists in the same form today.
Alligators, army ants, cockroaches, the coelacanth, cycads, the dragonfly,the gingko, the horshoe crab, the nautilus, salamanders, the sturgeon.
Also, change and extinction are different things. If the human race survives by gradually morphing into something more mechanical (a la Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec), I wouldn't say the human race became extinct. There's a big difference between a lineage changing and perishing.
Criticism is a useful tool, we can all benefit from having our positions tested, but when there's nothing more behind it but more criticism, it gets truly tiresome.
By the way most Peak Oilers are not claiming that this will be the end of our species. The claim is that the implications will range from huge to disastrous depending on which path we take now.
I readily admit that my view is religious. It's a religion called "Faith in Science". The opposing view ("No faith in science") is also a religion, for exactly the same reasons.
The difference lies in political affinities. Believers in science are the natural heirs of the enlightenment and technological culture. Non-believers in science and technology clearly aren't the "scientists" in the debate. They are the natural allies of religious people, who have long been skeptical of science.
The downfall of human society due to technological hubris is one the oldest religious stories there is. See the Tower of Babel, Genesis 11.
The opposing view is not "No faith in science" it is "Science has limits". To know yourself, what you can do and the limits of what you can do is not a religious belief - it is one of the prerequisites of the critical thinking hence science. I know wishful thinking helps but it also has limits - cross the limits and you are in the delusional area.
Personally I prefer to doubt myself and the others than just place my beliefs and hold my thumbs. I've seen too much of evidence that this world is run by idiots to trust in it.
I strongly object betting our childrens lives on some possible techno-fix - it is irresponsible at the least. If you ask me we can fix PO even with current technologies... But there is a great chance we will simply not do it and even greater chance that the fix would turn worse than the problem itself (CTL or biofuels). And after PO surely will come peak natural gas, coal, drinking water, topsoil even biosphere... it's quite possible that PO will be the easiest to deal with.
I understand your feelings. There are a lot of oblivious SUV-driving cornucopians out there with too much faith in technology. I find them irritating too. But that doesn't mean we should declare open-season on technology and the human mind. It's too extreme and hopeless to say: "We're just animals, and technology isn't going to save us."
If you ask me we can fix PO even with current technologies...
I agree with you. But then why bash technology? Even really simple technologies like city planning and blankets and bicycles could make a huge difference. So why is there this undertone that science/technology is not going to save is?
It would be nice if everybody just admitted that technology isn't the problem. Then we could talk about the merits of specific replacement technologies, like nuclear power. (Of course, then you'll get the same two sides shaking out again: the people who think sustainability is the top priority, and people who think it's not.)
I'm not really interested in how the future is going to turn out. I'm an agnostic. Maybe we'll colonize the moon, or maybe we'll revert to the stone age and then go extinct. Both alternatives are possible.
I'm mostly interested in the future I want to work for. I want to work toward a future where we have electric power and colonize the moon. I can't give you iron-clad proof that it's going to happen, but I'm working toward it anyway.
I think you got it all wrong. Nobody bashes technology here, except for a few who think that support the mazohistic idea of going back to the caves. It is the way we use technology that matters; there are number of ways we can shoot ourselves with it in a way the caves option would be thousand times preferable. A lot of things point out that we are headed this way and not because technology by itself is bad but because we seem to be incredibly stupid using it. Hence the doomsday scenarios... Again as someone else said PO is a societal problem, not geological or technical, it is our short-term focused goals that lead us to a major crisis. I'm sure it will change a lot of things and lead us to a better society - the easy way or the hard way. And this society will also have its technologies (sustainable or at least with marginal effects to environment like nuclear). Our grandchildren will not climb back the trees. Unless we really screw things up in the years to come of course.
Wow. I'm amazed. It went off into personalized attack & defend mode rather than exploring the connection between denial of Peak Oil and denial of mortality.
Like Peakguy, I think there is a very strong connection.
We are inately wired to survive and continue our species. (Otherwise we probably wouldn't be here having this discussion.)
Part of that wiring includes some irrationally exuberant optimism about our future, namely: (1) we will always be here at least as a species; (2) we will always find a heroic way around every adversity that comes our way; and (3) Technology will always "advance" and bring our kind to new Star Trek heights of achievement and "progress".
As for heroic answers: when the bird flu strikes (if it strikes), we'll just send in a commando team starring Bruce Willis, Sylvester Stalone, Ben Afflick, did I miss anyone? oh yeh: Arnold to flame fry those sick chickens and make the world safe for Colonel Sanders again.
When Peak Oil hits, we'll telephone professors Pons and Flieshman to bring back their cold fusion kit and start it up again.
Never give up. Never give in. We are the greatest thing on this planet since sliced tyranasaurus. Or are we?
The near term question is whether the people in 2100 will be as numerous or have as high a standard of living. I'm really not sure of the answer to either of those questions.
Even immortality does not guarantee happiness or ever rising standards of living, not to imply that the two are necessarily connected....
- the general expectation of stability in nature
- the ability to focus on short-term problems
Most people will make the (statistically correct) assumption that tomorrow will be a lot like today. That boils down to an expectation that oil will be there, at similar prices, and we should worry about more pressing issues.High gas prices and energy crisises are game changers because they show instability in the system and frame the problem in the short term.
Basically we gotta hope that problems like peak oil, or global warming etc., present themselves through crisises and that they stimulate incremental action in that fashion.
- General expectation of stability in nature, and
- The ability to focus on the short term,
perfectly fit my beloved late pet 4-foot iguana, Edgar.
While I didn't speak his language, I could tell by the way he'd sit on his branch under the heat lamp for hours on end that he had a very strong general expectation of stability in nature.
And he was an expert at focussing on the short term. When he got hungry ther was nothing else he'd focus on except his bowl of iguana salad. In fact, he was so short-term oriented that sometimes if we'd go away for the weekend, we'd leave him a second bowl of salad to carry him through. Well, he was so focused on the short term that after he'd finish the first bowl, he'd immediately start in on the second bowl and polish that one off too.
Yep, Edgar the iguana was the perfect embodiment of these two qualities.
By the way, he didn't give a hoot about 'peak salad', either. Those salad bowls just mysteriously kept on coming. Must have been abiotic salad.
(If Edgar could drive through McLizards would he be obese?)