Philosophical Questions: Humans

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

How likely do you think it will be that humans will last another 1,000 years without killing ourselves off?

I'm dubious. On the one hand, humans are extremely numerous and adept at surviving. On the other, they have the capacity to wipe out most of the biosphere and are too stupid to realize it's a bad idea to saw off the branch they are standing on. I would not be surprised if humanity dies out. However, I think it's a lot more likely that they'll just wipe out modern civilization, and be left with a much lower population of humans at a much lower level of technology.

Of course, then they'd still have to survive their unfortunate decision to change the climate away from everything they evolved to cope with. The polar regions will remain habitable, but much of the hotter regions will not -- and that's a much smaller area of living space.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

There's also the point that although technology could be used to make uninhabitable places liveable (A/C for a start) we're not going to get a second shot at a technological civilisation if we lose this one. We've used up most of the low hanging easy-to-get-to raw resources, so we need a fairly advanced tech base to get to and process the raw resources we need to maintain and/or build a fairly advanced tech base.

Honestly, I dunno about a thousand years, I'm not even certain about a hundred. If we make it though this century, maybe... given that we'll probably be colonising Mars and the Moon in the next fifty, (which will need to be somewhat self-sustaining due to logistics) so that increases our odds of survival, if they get established.

[see_also_friend]

>>...given that we'll probably be colonising Mars and the Moon in the next fifty, (which will need to be somewhat self-sustaining due to logistics) so that increases our odds of survival, if they get established.<<

Then you run into the problem of people who want to fix problems on Earth, rather than playing house on Mars. Plus, if we can't solve problems here, how are we going to solve them when trying to terraform a Death World?

While I can see long term survival benefits in colonizing elsewhere in space, I am not sure it is worth that big a line in the budget right now. If your roof is busted, you need to pay for a roofer, not, a truckful of lotto tickets.

[siliconshaman]

You're not wrong, but right now we have a lot of billionaires who are focused on building lifeboats, and some of them are investing in colonising other planets. (there are also some who, as you say, are working on fixing problems rather than running away from them.)

Both is good. Belt and braces approach works.

[see_also_friend]

I am amenable to nudging people is slightly-more helpful directions, and someone building a lifeboat isn't hanging around and making a nuisance of themself. Though that does feel rather like the "getting rid of donkey" scene from the first Shrek movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmpK4gGW0pI

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> There's also the point that although technology could be used to make uninhabitable places liveable (A/C for a start) <<

A much lower tech for that is living underground. There are whole underground cities in some deserts. The problem would be obtaining enough food.

>> we're not going to get a second shot at a technological civilisation if we lose this one. We've used up most of the low hanging easy-to-get-to raw resources, so we need a fairly advanced tech base to get to and process the raw resources we need to maintain and/or build a fairly advanced tech base.<<

Well, not on the same branch of technology. Some others are still open. Ceramics and glass, the materials for those are plentiful and the bottom rung is literally throwing mud in a firepit. I've done it, in this life even. Biotech, it's not all DNA sequencing, some impressive things have been done just with handbreeding. But you do have to think outside the current box to see what's left.

>> Honestly, I dunno about a thousand years, I'm not even certain about a hundred. <<

Yyyyeah. I'm concerned about the level of weapons and the prevalence of imbeciles.

>>If we make it though this century, maybe... given that we'll probably be colonising Mars and the Moon in the next fifty, (which will need to be somewhat self-sustaining due to logistics) so that increases our odds of survival, if they get established.<<

True. Don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

[arlie]

My guess is that humans won't manage to sterilize the planet, or even make it uninhabitable by smart social foragers who evolved in a somewhat cooler climate. If technological civilization entirely collapses, they'll stop feeding global warming, and that cycle will most likely come to some kind of equilibrium, without becoming significantly worse than the hotter parts of the dinosaur era.

This is, of course, only a guess, and presumes they don't resort to thermonuclear war fighting over remaining scraps of resources, before their technology entirely collapses.

Evolution will move human survivors towards compatibility with their new climate and resources. They'll become smaller, and possibly nocturnal, or at least crepuscular (active around dawn and twilight). Possibly different descendant species will eventually evolve in each survivable area, as travel between continents mostly stops occurring.

But even after complete adaptation, the total world population of human-descendants might well be less than the population of any large urban area today.

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> My guess is that humans won't manage to sterilize the planet, or even make it uninhabitable by smart social foragers who evolved in a somewhat cooler climate.<<

Perhaps...

>> If technological civilization entirely collapses, they'll stop feeding global warming, and that cycle will most likely come to some kind of equilibrium, without becoming significantly worse than the hotter parts of the dinosaur era.<<

... but a large increase is already baked in, and people haven't stopped yet and aren't likely to stop soon. They're also bad at predicting tipping points, or rather, they only spot some of those. The thermohaline belt is already wobbling and if that breaks, we are really fucked.

>>This is, of course, only a guess, and presumes they don't resort to thermonuclear war fighting over remaining scraps of resources, before their technology entirely collapses.<<

That's a very large concern. Because it's pretty obvious that they're not going to stop making matters worse, which will lead to the hotter areas of the planet becoming untenable long before they become lethal, which will lead to many millions of people streaming away from them. What are the chances that nobody will use their biggest weapons attempting to push back that tide with a broom?

>>Evolution will move human survivors towards compatibility with their new climate and resources. They'll become smaller, and possibly nocturnal, or at least crepuscular (active around dawn and twilight). Possibly different descendant species will eventually evolve in each survivable area, as travel between continents mostly stops occurring.<<

Logical -- and brutally hard to come back from. 2+ species from a common ancestor will compete for the same or similar resources and have a damn hard time getting along. If you've got two unrelated ones, they may use different resources, like a land race and an aquatic race.

>>But even after complete adaptation, the total world population of human-descendants might well be less than the population of any large urban area today.<<

Probable. For most of history there were less than 1 million humans and it was mostly fine. They caused occasional upheavals and extinctions, but not enough to raise the background rate until they started overpopulating the planet.

Re: Well ...

[arlie]

When I want to create hopeful-ish stories, I tend to postulate technological humans going a bit crazy with biotech as their end approaches, making somewhat scattershot changes in their own descendants in the hopes of speeding up adaptation to their new environment, and getting human descendants into niches they'd have been unlikely to reach via blind evolution. Of course many of those changes prove unsuccessful or outright harmful, but it gives evolution more to work with among human descendants. And in an ideal world, the various strains co-operate with each other, allowing access to groups of resources none of them could get alone. Sometimes I even include small groups of original-style humans, living underground and maintaining as much knowledge and technology as they can. I don't think this is especially plausible, particularly the cooperation across descendant breeds, but it makes for a less miserable story.

[jayregee]

If this happens, I should be dead by then. So, I do not care. LOL!!!!

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

That's exactly how we got into this mess, and especially, why we haven't broken out of it.

[see_also_friend]

For mortals, suffering is finite, as we all die.

But I have people I care about who will likely outlive me, and since I will not stop caring about people much younger than me, the longer I live the more the problem will compound.

My already-born niblings may outlive me by a couple decades. My potential grandchildren? They might outlive me by a century. Add in friends, their children and grandchildren. Kind people I have never met, and will likely never meet. Many of the things I love about the world should outlast me by thousands or even millions of years.

I will die, someday. Everything I have ever loved will die or transform into something else.

But just because I know there is an end, that doesn't mean that I want it to come sooner, and it doesn't mean that I want it to be - bad. Painful. Terrifying.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Well reasoned. And if more people thought the way you do, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

The tribal custom is to consider repercussions for seven generations. If you measure by the ~20 years it takes humans to reproduce, that's about 240 years, which is a good start.

Re: Yes ...

[see_also_friend]

Sometimes I feel that people who think like me get taken advantage of a lot, which is rather tiring. :/

Still, overall I think it is better to care than to not care.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Sometimes I feel that people who think like me get taken advantage of a lot, which is rather tiring. :/

This is often true, but it is more of a problem for people with flimsy boundaries.

First, you need to think about what your particular causes are and what you have to contribute to those. Other causes are someone else's responsibility because nobody can take care of everything.

Second, as much as possible, arrange your life so that you have power over your own time and resources. Minimize other people's ability to force you to do things or steal your time and energy. When you control your own resources, then you can make mindful choices based on your current supply and demand.

Third, don't reward bad behavior. People who want favors from you should either be doing helpful things for you, or contributing to one of your favorite causes. Don't do favors for people who only show up when they want something, especially if they are mean to you and others in general. You are not a vending machine.

>> Still, overall I think it is better to care than to not care.<<

It's good to care, as long as you're not overextended or defenseless. Too much care is as troublesome as too little.

I have a couple of posts on this topic:

https://ysabetwordsmith.dreamwidth.org/13475899.html

https://ysabetwordsmith.dreamwidth.org/13815526.html

Re: Yes ...

[see_also_friend]

>>First, you need to think about what your particular causes are and what you have to contribute to those. Other causes are someone else's responsibility because nobody can take care of everything.<<

I have a good idea on this one, though I try to acknowledge problems outside my 'box.' Even if I can't fix something, doesn't mean I can't say "XYZ is wrong."

>>Second, as much as possible, arrange your life so that you have power over your own time and resources. Minimize other people's ability to force you to do things or steal your time and energy. When you control your own resources, then you can make mindful choices based on your current supply and demand.<<

Getting stuck on this one. Work in progress, I guess?

>>Third, don't reward bad behavior. People who want favors from you should either be doing helpful things for you, or contributing to one of your favorite causes. Don't do favors for people who only show up when they want something, especially if they are mean to you and others in general. You are not a vending machine.<<

Social obligation and favors can get muddled; though I think I can tell roughly where the line is and in what direction. Might be a bit off on specifics, but hey, better than having no clue at all!

Also, this is a reason why I really like the Stranger Things franchise. The token metahuman (and token jock) are valued for their skills amongst a friend-group of geeks and weirdos. The other friends are willing to help cover their weaknesses (and just generally enjoy spending time with them, even if it comes across as an Odd Friendship to everyone else).

It is possibly the best portrayal I have ever seen of teamwork, especially given a mixed soup/nary team. Bonus for the soup being twice exceptional and needing help with basic things like social interaction.

[see_also_friend]

I don't think we will be completely extinct in 1,000 years - we are incredibly widespread and incredibly tenacious.

That said, I don't really want to pop into a time machine and take a blind jump forward. Species enlightenment likely won't be finished uploading yet.