This, I think, is key to the sentiments underlying the OP.
Our current success as a species is reflected in the fact that our population now grows relatively unchecked. We have no large predators thinning our numbers, and recent advances in medicine have greatly magnified our overall ability to survive and spread.
This pattern can obviously not go on forever. At some point, we will have expanded beyond the environment’s ability to provide for us, even if the environment has been severely altered by us to suit our needs and desires. Unrestrained growth within an essentially closed system is simply not sustainable. Such long-term concerns seem so far to have gained little ground against short-term senses of need and/or entitlement in terms of our global behavior, and humanity’s growth seems, at this time, unlikely to be significantly curbed by our own conscious efforts anytime soon.
Eventually, however, our influence on the planet will decrease, either through total extinction, severe die-offs without total extinction, or mass migration to some other world (assuming we discover and develop the necessary technology) to escape devastation here.
Given the possibly disastrous state of habitability of the planet at that time for whatever other life remains that can not leave, and the subsequent low level of regard for our tenure here that would likely be held by any future sentient life on this planet (which could simply be the remnant of Earthbound humanity), it is not unreasonable to wonder if there is not some positive way to spin such a dire scenario.
Will there not be something those future generations can point to, directly resulting from our presence here, that will have been of unmitigated benefit to them?
Just each other.
First of all. we are not here to be any kind of “benefit” to anyone. We are here to try and survive the best we can until we inevetably die. Maybe the world would be some kind of untouched Garden of Eden Utopian paradise of birds and squirels and trees hapily playing and eating each other if humans weren’t here. Who cares? We wouldn’t be around to experience it.
Think of it like this - who cares if we burn up all the oil and coal? WE would and that’s it. We’re the only ones using it. The whole reason we even worry about sustaining the environment at all is because if we destroy it, it will no longer sustain us.
Well, assuming that our needing to leave this planet out of an honest desire for exploration, or because of some natural, catastrophic event that is presumably not our fault.
I guess one could put forth that humanity’s presence on Earth is to do exactly what we’re doing, and that’s that. If we’re the ones to destroy the place, even knowing we could do otherwise, then so be it. Who are we to question the larger scheme of things?
This would presuppose that the human impact on the spread of various species is beneficial to these species and the planet as a whole (Sorry to use the b-word again). I not so sure about this, and have no idea how we can be sure.
It isn’t going to go on forever. One way or another, this planet, and everything else, will come to an end. My question is, how much has and will humanity have to do with it.
Are our efforts to change materials doing significantly more harm than good, that’s my question (sorry to use the g-word again.)
And of this I am definitely not sure. Perhaps what the Earth will end up “doing” about it is getting rid of us if we don’t start to straighten up. Let’s say that the planet is, itself, conscious. Take the recent tsunami. Is that the Earth saying, “Okay, I’m gonna get rid of 200,000 plus of those pernicious buggers over here. If a lot of other stuff gets wiped out in the process, well, war includes incidental losses. Maybe in awhile I’ll get rid of a bunch somewhere else, if necessary.“ And when that fireball wiped out the dinosaurs, was the cosmos itself saying, “Screw this. Let’s start again from scratch.” Hoo boy, here come the accusations of genuine psychosis…
I just printed out this entire thread. 18 pages. You guys are great! Thanks again!
Yes, this is what I am driving at. It is the issue of self-consciousness, which humans appear to have in greater abundance than any other creation we know of. Why would we hasten the destruction of our own environment and lives, even being aware that that is what we are doing?
“Short-sightedness” is just too out-there an answer for you, eh? The fact is this: humans on average are living longer and enjoying a better quality of life than ever in history. As such, they’re less likely to worry about something that’s off in the future, which is where the potential destruction you’re talking about is.
I’m not sure what you mean in the first sentence. Are you trying to say that a longer and better overall quality of life increases short-sightedness? I don’t see how that could be. Perhaps you can edify me.
We have achieved longer lives through the development of the agricultural and other food and medical industries, which ensures that most of our stomachs will be more full than ever before, if not necessarily with particularly high quality food. Still, just about any food is better than none, in terms of keeping us alive. If we “get sick” modern medicine might well keep us alive for longer than expected in the past.
I’m all for longer lives; presumably the longer we live the longer we have to learn, produce for ourselves and each other, and hopefully become more wise in our actions. However, the current length of most of our lives, to me, consists of taking a longer time to die than at any previous point in history. Plenty of food and medicine have not appeared to enhance our quality of life, except to be able to stave off dreaded death for some time longer. Hang out in a nursing home for a few weeks to see the tragic evidence of this.
I’m interested in any responses to what I’ve just said.
You’re losing track of your oqn questions now. You specifically asked: “Why would we hasten the destruction of our own environment and lives, even being aware that that is what we are doing?” Marley23’s answer was “short-sightedness,” which is a perfectly good answer. That has zero to do with how long we live; humans have ALWAYS been environmentally destructive to some degree, no matter how long we’ve lived.
If you disagree with this response, provide some rationale.
I would bet the nursing home residents you say are so tragic would, in a majority of cases, not like to be cut off from the medicine and care you seem to think has such tragic consequences.
You’ve asserted a number of times that our lives are longer, but somehow less worth living, or simply consisting of prolonging a painful death. That is obviously not the case. The reason our life expectancy is the Western world is now longer is not that we’re pushing old people further - life EXPECTANCY has never changed much - it’s that we have learned to do three things to prevent early death;
Immunize against infectious disease,
Use sanitation to prevent the spread of disease, and
Stop bacterial infection with the use of antibiotics.
Sure, there’s a small impact on average lifespan due to our ability to keep Grandma going to age 84 instead of 82. (My 83-year-old grandmother questions your assertion that her life is tragic.) But the REAL impact is that we now don’t have very many children dying of smallpox, polio, plague, or common infections.
I wasn’t trying to state it so flatly, but I do think that often happens. When people have it easy in the present, they do worry about the future less.
Living = not dying.
I’ve spent time in nursing homes. In any case, you’re way off-base here. Consider the fact that in the West, infant morality is basically a thing of the past. You think the average 60 or 70-year-old is just staving off death these days? Not even close.
I’m not against this discussion branching into other areas, whether by myself or anyone else. This discussion has covered a lot of interesting ground. Good for it!
I’m interested in the issue of short-sightedness, although I’m not clear on how this, in and of itself, is a “perfectly good answer” to anything we have discussed. How and why does this short-sightedness come about? Okay, if the present situation is subjectively experienced by an individual as adequate or better, then there might well be a tendency to harbor less concern for the future. Could be. But why wouldn’t such a situation result in more and more focus on the future and how we can anticipate it and improve it further?
We fear death. There are numerous beliefs as to what happens after, but no one is absolutely certain. We are wired with a survival instinct, as are (to my knowledge) all species. We just want to keep living, and avoid for as long as possible that inevitable confrontation with the completely unknown. Will what we have done on Earth determine our subsequent circumstances? Or not? Which possibility is better, or worse? I’m not trying to insult nursing home residents for clinging onto life in whatever way they can. That’s part of who we are.
I contend with you here on a number of points. For one thing, life expectancy has increased dramatically over the last 500 years, by 2 to 4 times. Maybe we have always had the genetic capacity to live into our 80’s, and perhaps well beyond. Yes, immunization, sanitation, and antibiotics have contributed to pushing out that expectancy. But to what end? To return the “track,” as you put it, to my original questions, how is it that we are not using these extended life spans to attend more fully to the fundamental issues, such as the house we live in, both bodily and planetarily. Why are we letting it go to hell on a fast (or slow) train?
As for your Grandmother, you can let her know I certainly meant her no disrespect. I was speaking generally, not specifically to anyone, of course.
I think it’s just human nature. It has improved, since there are plenty of people concerned about these types of issues, but perhaps it will not be adequately dealt with until it affects us more directly.
That doesn’t wipe away what he said, nor does it mean that the end portion of your life is not worth living. Which is what you implied. I have two grandparents in their mid-80s who are living full lives, about as healthy as they can be, and are definitely not just staving off death. When you make a generalization like that, it applies to specific people. I hope you’ll realize that in the future.
Yes, but the primary reason for that is that infant and childhood mortality has decreased so much, just as RickJay said. If you were alive back then ad didn’t die before you were five, you had a decent shot at 60.
The issue is affecting us directly on a constant basis. And exactly what are you proposing “human nature” is?
I do not think that I implied any such thing. That certainly wasn’t my intention, and I don’t think that there was any reason to think that it was. I regret that my comments could be perceived in such a way, but then again, come off it.
Not sure about that. Would appreciate some statistical backup of that assertion.
Life Table
Life Table Approximating Roman Population (simplified from Coale-Demeny 2, Model South, Level 3, Female as cited in Parkin, Demography and Roman Society)
x e(x) x+e(x) C(x)
0 25 25 3.3
1 33 34 9.3
5 43 48 9.8
10 41 51 9.3
15 37 52 8.9
20 34 54 8.3
25 32 57 7.8
30 29 59 7.2
35 26 61 6.6
40 23 63 6.1
45 20 65 5.6
50 17 67 5.0
55 14 69 4.4
60 10 70 3.5
65 8 73 2.5
70 6 76 2.2
x = Age
e(x) = Life Expectancy at age x
C(x) = Percentage of population between this age and the next
Although at birth your life expectancy was 25, if you made it to 20, you could expect to live to be 54.
Today life expectancy at birth is 74 to 79 depending on sex. Life expectancy at age 20 is 75 to 80.
So while life expectancy at birth has gone up by 300%, life expectancy at age 20 has gone up by only 40%.
I’m not trying to accuse you of insulting anyone; by all means, say what you think. I am, however, pointing out that your argument hinges on the implication that there is no, or questionable, value or prolonging life. You’ve been quite clear on that point; “tragic” was the word you used.
But if prolonging life is of no value, then why do we do it? Instinct or no, there is clearly utility being derived from it. You’re also dismissing the fact that the prolonging of life is part and parcel of general improvement in health that tends to improve life at all ages; a 60-year-old a hundred years ago would often be closer in health to what a 70-year-old would be like today.
To not suffer a horrible, painful death, I would imagine. Dying of smallpox is an extraordinarily nasty and brutal way to go; the plague is equally horrifying. The death of a person brings terrible grief and pain to their family, especially if it’s a child. So I would say the “end” in this is the avoidance of misery, horror, grief, and agony. You’re WAY over-deconstructing this; the obvious answer is correct.
Who says we are?
I don’t mean to go all Julian Simon on us, but the notion that we are somehow doing an increasing amount of damage to the environment is highly doubtful; these is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that things are just fine, and existing problems will be fixed. In many ways we’re far CLEANER than we used to be; try living in London in the early-19th century when you had to soak your curtains in vinegar so the smell of shit wouldn’t stink you out of your own sanity. We change our environment to be sure, but so do all animals.
We can bang this one back and forth over the net all day, but it seems obvious to me that we are making huge efforts to improve the human condition, not just extending how long it lasts. A rather obvious example would be the strides made in the Western world in the area of securing equality and human dignity for all persons; just in the last 100 years we have seen hitherto unparallelled strides made in gender equality, racial equality, social security, and personal freedom. In my country, 100 years ago, women were not permitted to vote, races were legally considered different classes of people, the sexual freedom enjoyed today was unthinkable, and most people were very poor and had little emergency relief available if things went wrong. Just fifty years ago, Catholic and Protestant children were often told they were not allowed to play with each other.
And economics advances have vastly improved our material wealth. Look at just one little example; it is now possible for working class people to take vacations in distant places and overseas, something that 150 years ago would have been absolutely unthinkable and unbelievable.
It seems to me that we ARE putting a heck of a lot of effort into making life better, not just longer. If you gave me a choice of living for 85 years starting in 1771, or 75 years starting in 1971, I’d take 75 years in 1971.
I most certainly am in favor of our increasing our life span. I say that specifically and provide some of my own reasons for believing this in a previous post. I also think that quality of life is a consideration, subjective, but certainly a consideration.
Not sure what you mean by “WAY over-deconstructing,” nor on what you consider to be the “obvious answer.”
I’ll have to educate myself on Julian Simon’s (and Ed Regis’s) thoughts. From the little I’ve seen, I’m intrigued. Overall, he seems to be saying that not only are things not that bad environmentally, but they really aren’t bad at all. In other words, we haven’t done any substantial damage to our environment, and that claims that we have are self-serving. I suppose everyone’s trying to make a living, including environmentalists.
If The Doomslayer is correct, then I guess you’re correct. I’m still more concerned with our impact on our own environment, not just on ourselves and the rotten behavior we have exhibited toward each other in the past and present, and our attempts to rectify these things.
I can think of at least one way we may benefit this planet: by imagining and working toward the possibility of spreading this planet’s life forms to other planets.
On a more local level, pasturelands created and maintained by humans have been a boon to deer.
