The Danger The Planet Faces Because Human InstinctOverpowers Human Reason
David Ropeik
Jan. 16, 2015
...You woke up each day last year and went about your business as any
human does, compelled by deep and ancient instincts to do the things
necessary to get yourself safely to bed at night. You acquired the
resources necessary or helpful for safety and survival - food, water,
shelter, warmth/cooling, transportation, friendship and social/tribal
cohesion - and on a good day maybe you also acquired some fun stuff or
did some fun activity or filled in the upper levels of Maslow's
Hierarchy of Needs.
But chances are pretty good you cared more
about fulfilling your needs than anybody else's. And you cared about now
and today more than tomorrow. You didn't Think Globally. You thought,
and acted, and lived your life and fulfilled your needs, locally.
PERSONALLY. As did most of the seven BILLION human animals on the
planet, taking from the system the resources necessary for safety and
survival, and putting back into the system both their products and their
wastes. Each us us satisfying our own needs but cumulatively taking
from a system more resources than it has to offer (the once abundant New England cod fishery was finally closed by government fiat last year because of overfishing),
and putting back more waste than it can handle (air pollution in
Beijing recently got so bad it was "off the charts" rising beyond the
highest and most dangerous levels on the health scale designed to
measure such things.
Right now the global temperature records are making all the news. But
climate change is just one symptom of the larger problem that makes very
little news but which lies at the heart of why we, and all current Life
on Earth, face an unavoidable crash. We are compelled from the deepest
level of our genes and survival instincts to taking more from the system
than it can provide and put back in more waste than it can handle, and
no amount of human brain power outwit the natural instincts that are
driving us 150 miles an hour toward a cliff.
We are not the only
animal that does this. Many species live unsustainably in their finite
ecosystems and when their demands on the system outpace supply, move on.
We are, however, the only animal where the system limits are the entire
biosphere itself. Silly visions of moving to other places in the
universe notwithstanding, there is no place for humans to move to, and
there surely won't be within the relatively short time frame - a couple
hundred years - in which the natural system we depend on will become
"much less hospitable".
Many people, myself included, see rays of
hope in this dark sky; technological solutions to some of our challenges
(cleaner power, advances in agriculture and food production, reduction
in pollution and waste), less violence as more of us live closer
together (see: The World is Not Falling Apart),
and even the faith that human reason itself can, when the crises really
start hitting the fan, figure out ways to stop doing the damage we're
doing, undo the harm we've already done, or adapt to at least some of
the harms we face.
But to live in the delusion that these
solutions can entirely save the day...to believe that they can do any
more than head off the worst of what is to come...is dangerous.
Dangerous, because the belief that our intellect can provide the tools
and enlightened leadership that will ride to the rescue, arrogantly
denies the inescapable truth that we are still mostly instinctive
animals, each of us compelled by deep subconscious urges to do what we
can as individuals to survive today; and the day after that, and
everybody else, are just not as much of a concern. And they never will
be.
Can we do a lot to address these challenges? Yes, of course.
And we should. Can we do enough to address them all and forestall the
serious damage that lies ahead? Almost certainly not. But if we get a
little more realistic about just how much/little human reason can help
us conquer our deepest animal instincts, and a little less naïve that we
can 'live with restraint' as Bill McKibben has put it, we might sooner
get to the task of preparing for what's to come rather than pretending
we can head it off.
It is probably in the best interest of Life
on Earth As We Know It (LIFE long term is another matter entirely) if
humans accepted that there will be a steep price to pay for our
unsustainable ways, that given what we've already done this price is
unavoidable, and that pretending we can head this off and preparing as
soon as possible is urgently needed if we're going to at least keep that
cost as low as possible...
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Pope says God is not a magician who waves a wand
VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis has waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.
The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered Monday at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.
"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.
Pope Francis tells an audience that the Big Bang does not contradict
the "creative intervention of God". He says, "on the contrary, it
requires it". Rough Cut (no reporter narration).
Newslook
Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius' statement.
Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not."
Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis' comments, saying he had buried the "pseudo theories" of creationists.
"The pope's statement is significant," Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. "We are the direct descendants from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation."
Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan's University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was "trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes" with science.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Science is prevailing in the latest battle over Texas schoolbooks
Texas Textbook Publishers Say No To Creationism: Watchdog Report
The Huffington Post
By Rebecca Klein
10/18/2013
It appears that science is prevailing in the latest battle over Texas schoolbooks.
Though earlier this year several of the state’s textbook reviewers called for biology textbooks to discuss creationism, publishers are not complying with those requests, according to the Texas Freedom Network. The nonpartisan watchdog examined material made public by the Texas Education Agency and found that publishers are sticking with teaching evolution.
Citizens who serve on the Texas review panels are charged with making suggestions about proposed classroom texts that are being considered for the state's list of “approved” schoolbooks. While most reviewers on this year’s biology panel made routine, noncontroversial suggestions, some took issue with the fact that the proposed books did not include information about creationism while focusing on evolution.
However, information that publishers submitted to the Texas Education Agency show they are not incorporating the suggestions about "creation science" and plan to print books free of references to the theory of intelligent design.
“This is a very welcome development for everyone who opposes teaching phony science about evolution in our kid’s public schools,” said Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller in a press release. “Texas parents can applaud these publishers for standing up to pressure from politicians and activists who want to put their personal beliefs ahead of giving Texas students a 21st-century science education.”
Josh Rosenau, the programs and policy director at the National Center for Science Education, also declared the publishers' response a victory for science.
“They didn’t put in anything creationist or dangerous, so I’m prepared to call this a victory for the publishers,” he told The Huffington Post. “They stood strong against the pressure of the reviewers.”
The Huffington Post
By Rebecca Klein
10/18/2013
It appears that science is prevailing in the latest battle over Texas schoolbooks.
Though earlier this year several of the state’s textbook reviewers called for biology textbooks to discuss creationism, publishers are not complying with those requests, according to the Texas Freedom Network. The nonpartisan watchdog examined material made public by the Texas Education Agency and found that publishers are sticking with teaching evolution.
Citizens who serve on the Texas review panels are charged with making suggestions about proposed classroom texts that are being considered for the state's list of “approved” schoolbooks. While most reviewers on this year’s biology panel made routine, noncontroversial suggestions, some took issue with the fact that the proposed books did not include information about creationism while focusing on evolution.
However, information that publishers submitted to the Texas Education Agency show they are not incorporating the suggestions about "creation science" and plan to print books free of references to the theory of intelligent design.
“This is a very welcome development for everyone who opposes teaching phony science about evolution in our kid’s public schools,” said Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller in a press release. “Texas parents can applaud these publishers for standing up to pressure from politicians and activists who want to put their personal beliefs ahead of giving Texas students a 21st-century science education.”
Josh Rosenau, the programs and policy director at the National Center for Science Education, also declared the publishers' response a victory for science.
“They didn’t put in anything creationist or dangerous, so I’m prepared to call this a victory for the publishers,” he told The Huffington Post. “They stood strong against the pressure of the reviewers.”
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Fox News article on evolution of fish into land animals
'Walking' Fish Prompts Evolution Rethink
By Charles Choi
LiveScience
Fox News
December 13, 2011
Air-breathing fish that can hop and walk across the floor on their fins hint that walking may have evolved underwater before such animals began migrating on to land, scientists find.
The distant ancestors of humans and all mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and other four-limbed animals, or tetrapods, are fish that eventually developed the ability to breathe on land. One of the few living fish related to these ancient land-dwellers are air-breathers known as lungfish, which are found today in Africa, South America and Australia.
Now scientists find that an African lungfish (Protopterus annectens) can lift its body clear off the floor and propel itself forward using scrawny "limbs," abilities previously thought to have originated in early tetrapods.
"This shows us — pardon the pun — the steps that are involved in the origin of walking," said researcher Neil Shubin at the University of Chicago. "What we're seeing in lungfish is a very nice example of how bottom-walking in fish living in water can easily come about in a very tetrapod-like pattern."
The lungfish in question has an eel-like body and a pair of flimsy hind fins. "If you showed me the skeleton of this creature and asked me to make a bet on whether it walks or not, I would have bet it couldn't," Shubin said. "Their fins seem like the furthest thing from walking appendages possible."
The lungfish's history makes them popular pets among paleontologists, and anecdotes and rumors circulated among scientists for years about walking behavior allegedly seen in these strange fish. To uncover the truth behind these stories, the researchers designed a special fish tank in which they could record a lungfish's motions on camera from the side and below for in-depth analysis.
Their videos revealed the lungfish commonly used its hind or pelvic limbs to "bound," moving both limbs at once like one would hop, and to "walk," alternating limb motions. [Video of lungfish walking]
"I find it exciting and surprising that even with such small fins, this lungfish is able to not only propel itself, but lift its body clear offthe bottom as well," researcher Heather King, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, told LiveScience. "If you were to look at just the skeleton of the lungfish, you might never guess that it was capable of this behavior, especially since they don't have feet!" she wrote in an email.
The forelimbs look similar to the hind limbs, but were not involved in such bounding and walking movements. The researchers are not certain why that is, but "it is possible that if the hind limbs alone are sufficient for propelling the fish, the forelimbs would not be used," King said.
The lungfish's ability to support its body on its slim limbs might be aided by their buoyant air-filled lungs, researchers suggest.
"It shows what's possible in an aquatic medium where you don't have to support yourself with gravity," Shubin said.
This discovery might redraw the evolutionary route scientists think life took from water to land. Many of the steps needed to adapt to surface-dwelling could have occurred millions of years before early tetrapods developed limbs with digits and took their first steps on shore, King said.
These findings might also make us rethink whether recently discovered approximately 380-million-year-old tracks were in fact made by early tetrapods. They could have been created by other kinds of fish instead.
King, Shubin and their colleagues detailed their findings online Dec. 12 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
By Charles Choi
LiveScience
Fox News
December 13, 2011
Air-breathing fish that can hop and walk across the floor on their fins hint that walking may have evolved underwater before such animals began migrating on to land, scientists find.
The distant ancestors of humans and all mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and other four-limbed animals, or tetrapods, are fish that eventually developed the ability to breathe on land. One of the few living fish related to these ancient land-dwellers are air-breathers known as lungfish, which are found today in Africa, South America and Australia.
Now scientists find that an African lungfish (Protopterus annectens) can lift its body clear off the floor and propel itself forward using scrawny "limbs," abilities previously thought to have originated in early tetrapods.
"This shows us — pardon the pun — the steps that are involved in the origin of walking," said researcher Neil Shubin at the University of Chicago. "What we're seeing in lungfish is a very nice example of how bottom-walking in fish living in water can easily come about in a very tetrapod-like pattern."
The lungfish in question has an eel-like body and a pair of flimsy hind fins. "If you showed me the skeleton of this creature and asked me to make a bet on whether it walks or not, I would have bet it couldn't," Shubin said. "Their fins seem like the furthest thing from walking appendages possible."
The lungfish's history makes them popular pets among paleontologists, and anecdotes and rumors circulated among scientists for years about walking behavior allegedly seen in these strange fish. To uncover the truth behind these stories, the researchers designed a special fish tank in which they could record a lungfish's motions on camera from the side and below for in-depth analysis.
Their videos revealed the lungfish commonly used its hind or pelvic limbs to "bound," moving both limbs at once like one would hop, and to "walk," alternating limb motions. [Video of lungfish walking]
"I find it exciting and surprising that even with such small fins, this lungfish is able to not only propel itself, but lift its body clear offthe bottom as well," researcher Heather King, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, told LiveScience. "If you were to look at just the skeleton of the lungfish, you might never guess that it was capable of this behavior, especially since they don't have feet!" she wrote in an email.
The forelimbs look similar to the hind limbs, but were not involved in such bounding and walking movements. The researchers are not certain why that is, but "it is possible that if the hind limbs alone are sufficient for propelling the fish, the forelimbs would not be used," King said.
The lungfish's ability to support its body on its slim limbs might be aided by their buoyant air-filled lungs, researchers suggest.
"It shows what's possible in an aquatic medium where you don't have to support yourself with gravity," Shubin said.
This discovery might redraw the evolutionary route scientists think life took from water to land. Many of the steps needed to adapt to surface-dwelling could have occurred millions of years before early tetrapods developed limbs with digits and took their first steps on shore, King said.
These findings might also make us rethink whether recently discovered approximately 380-million-year-old tracks were in fact made by early tetrapods. They could have been created by other kinds of fish instead.
King, Shubin and their colleagues detailed their findings online Dec. 12 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)