Friday 20 January 2012

7875

 

Why i think we’re all doomed and my response to it.

 

OK, frivolous title for a serious subject.  I often assert that i believe we are one of the final generations of the species, and that Homo sapiens will soon become extinct, without explaining why.  Hence this blog post.

In detail, my belief is as follows:  Sometime in the very near future, by which i mean a couple of generations, our species will have become extinct, and that it is unlikely that enough will be done to prevent this.  I’m aware that it’s long been popularly believed that the world is about to end and i’m open to the possibility that i’ve done this.  Moreover, i realise that in a sense, the belief that human beings are about to disappear without trace is an unusual belief for a Christian.  Nonetheless, it is what i believe.

I have several reasons for thinking this is so, and i’m going to present two of them in detail.  I’m not going to mention climate change as one of them because i don’t want to engage with that argument.  Nor will i be talking about the question of overpopulation.  Even so, there is an interesting tangential argument about high population which is relevant.  It’s known as the “Doomsday Argument”:

There are said to have been somewhere near 80 thousand million humans on this planet.  The human population at most times since the Mount Toba eruption during the last ice age has been increasing, and though there are some drops due to the Four Horsemen the general trend is not only upwards but exponentially so:  population is currently doubling about every three decades.  I was born at a time when the world population was less than half its current size and if growth continues in this way, children born in 2042 will be born into a world whose population is about twice as big as now.

If the lifetime of this species (and any predecessors able to conceive of something like the idea of the end of the world) is finite and population increases over most of its history, and if we can consider ourselves to have been born at a random point in that history, the probability that we have been born near the end is higher than at other times simply because there are more people now than ever before.  Therefore, it is more likely than ever before that we are about to become extinct, and with each passing generation the probability increases.  Therefore, there is not only a relatively high risk that we are the last generation, but our children are even more likely to be it, and so on, as long as the population is rising.

Although i thought of this independently, this is quite a well-known argument for imminent human extinction.  An important implication for a parent is that one’s children should be prepared for difficult circumstances to a greater degree than usual.

Another reason is the increasing complexity of the infrastructure.  As technology changes, we become more dependent on a system which involves enough people to have sufficient skills to keep it going, and for there to be sufficient material resources to enable this.  This has in fact been the case for a very long time, but it is also a trend which increases with the rate of technological change.  This also involves increasing risk.  A Specific example is our reliance on distant sources of energy such as power stations and oil and coal deposits, which depend on complex systems to continue functioning.  Another instance is the dependence of telecommunications on a physical infrastructure such as mobile ‘phone networks, cable-based internet and, again, reliable sources of power.  Today, ordinary utilities and the likes of essential drug supplies depend on all of that working well.  The more complex this system becomes, the harder it is to guarantee its maintenance.  That maintenance also depends on a high level of education, and there needs to be a high level of practical skill to keep it going.  If it fails, which is again increasingly likely as time goes by, people will need to be creative, flexible and resourceful.

Other arguments for our extinction in the near future include reduction in biodiversity, the existence of the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, reliance on scarce physical resources and conversion of those resources into a form which makes them difficult or impossible to recover, the evolution of new pathogens and the appearance of new diseases.  Each one of these reasons may be wrong, but taken together there are so many of them that the probability of at least one of them happening is high.  It also seems that, just as the Doomsday Argument is that probability of human extinction increases with population, a similar argument could be made that the more long-term risks emerge the longer the species survives, meaning that the risk of our extinction rises in any case.

It’s for these reasons that i believe it’s likely that we are about to die out.  I also think that attempts to prevent this, where a risk is apparently identifiable, are not significant:  not enough people are doing enough, and there are unknown risks about which we can clearly do nothing.  Therefore, i think it’s almost certain we will soon die out.

The question is, how to respond to this, and this is where i make two different kinds of response.  One is internal:  i think this is effectively a bereavement and that thinking of it in those terms explains quite a lot of how people behave.  Deep down, many people have a hunch that we haven’t got long to go.  They therefore respond as if they’re grieving, which i’ve possibly over-enthusiastically seen as a five-stage process involving denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  I would like to reach the stage of acceptance and stay there.  Some suggested manifestations of each stage might be:

Denial:  I would say climate change denial here but i don’t want to annoy anyone.  Therefore, i’m going to give the example of a general unwillingness of people to face the prospect of changing their own approach to how they live in a manner which is beneficial to themselves.  Sorry to be vague.

Anger:  The Occupy movement, demonstrations and non-violent direct action.

Bargaining:  The Transitions movement, which inspired me to write this entry in the first place.

Depression:  I don’t really need to justify this i think.

Acceptance:  This is a stage which is quite unstable, not one which makes one superior but, i hope, one which i’ve reached.  Note that it is beyond depression.  I am not claiming that this is a depressing prospect, simply an inevitable one.

Note also that this doesn’t mean i will forget about the whole project of attempting to alleviate whatever the oncoming disaster is.  I try to act in such a way that if all people acted similarly they would be able to prevent our extinction.

My other response is to ensure that children are able to remain resourceful, inspired and engaged with the world in such a way that they can benefit from any situation the world throws at them.  I am trying to provide opportunities that maximise self-sufficiency and a general rather than a specific level of competence.  This belief is a major motivation for me making the children aware of their choice with respect to their upbringing.  Also, as many children as possible need this flexibility, which is not currently being provided by schools.

Hence this is a big reason, behind it all, to see schools as inadvisable and hazardous to the long-term survival of the species.

3 comments:

  1. I disagree with your argument, but not in the way you would like me to.
    Yes we will most certainly cease to exist, as humans. But you could say that about anything. Yes, it may be our fault. Yes it may be the result of having lasted too long so that the probability of a remote external event actually becomes one. Yes it may be that we approach some capacity limit. These are all petri dish scenarios. And no, we are no more complex than your average petri dish as a sample. We may be complex in other ways, but we are, in essence, a confined interaction, with set bounds. Given that this is true, there is almost certainly a limit to our existence, for all the reasons you mentioned and a few more. Making the most of limited resource is of course the only way to deal with this scenario, without either creating, or discovering, new resource. Passing on this "resourcefullness" to progeny is the obvious way to prolong this agony, so to speak.

    My own dim view on this is:
    Any particular group of entropy reducing entities are doomed, over time, so we are told. This could merely be the result of being around so long that eventually we have to keep the mean probability. It could be the result of positive feedback loops, a la petri dish. It could even be the result of over organisation. Zero entropy is, after all, zero entropy (although there may still be some jury somewhere still out on that).

    We find ourselves, quite bizarrely, in an entropy trough. A while ago the device I am typing this response on was a bunch of sand, basically. And if I stood up and left it here, it would return to that form, over time. It may have taken a shorter period to compose this equipment than for it to decompose, but the result would be the same. In fact THAT point is debatable since S = k log W has no time, after all. On top of that, if we reverse time direction entropy always increases, hence the trough. That is a bit freaky! To be quite honest I haven't quite got my head around that. One of the postulates around a time arrow is that entropy increases, therefore we could tell a racked snooker table from a broken rack. i.e. we could know the direction of time. Turns out this seems to be guage variant. Locally we may be able to determine if the snooker table had just been set up or if someone had had a break. But globally (insert seperated guage), we could not.

    These entropy troughs, or as everyone likes to call them, life, must exist in many places. Thinking that our particular trough is important is like thinking we are the centre of the universe. Technically it is correct. But it turns out it is correct for every point in the universe.

    The reason we will cease to exist, has very little to do with us, in the big scheme of things. I agree we may aggrevate the circumstances somewhat, but not to a huge degree. We will cease to exist. We may do it soon, we may last a bit longer. But entropy troughs will last for ever, they have to. We (earth, not you, no need to take this personally) are just a cork in the entropy ocean, we will bob up, and bob down as the wave of life passes us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So go, teach your children. Teach them that everything is not as it seems. Teach them that organic fat mixed with the cinders from a fire can clean the shit out of anything. Teach them history is a story written by the present victor, let them read "1984". Teach them science is a religion, teach them religion is a story. Teach them that stories are our religions and religions are our stories. Let them choose. Let them get scared. Let them feel euphoric. Let them feel comforted, let them feel abandonded, let them feel free, let them feel incarcerated. Let them feel. That's all we have. For sure as shit it will end. And the last one of us that dies better be a better person than we are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, sounds good to me. I suppose the thing that gets me is that i'm emotionally involved in the people who may be the last of the species. In a way though, we all die individually anyway and the difference that we all die at once or in a shorter interval than usual may not make those deaths particularly special. It might even be better not to have anyone mourn those deaths. They don't matter to the dead themselves after all, and it's generally worse for the survivors.

    I like the way you disagree with me!

    ReplyDelete