Human extinction

[Floyt]

A-ha. Triassic/Jurassic aragonite -> calcite switch, that was banging around the back of my head somewhere... good resource paper, thanks Ben!

 

[athon]

From a paleontologists point of view, there are two types of extinction, a “true extinction” would be the one we often think of today, the bird species was extant, and then all the members of the bird species died out = extinct. But then there is something called pseudo-extinction, where species A evolves to be species B over time and in the fossil record it looks like species A went extinct.

I haven't yet read the rest of the posts here, so I'm probably repeating that which has already been said, but I figured I'd say it anyway.

There's no real distinction between an evolution into another species, and an extinction of one. Evolving is a generational change; technically, the concept of species is an artificial construct used to try to make sense of a snapshot of a continuum. A species which evolved into humans is now extinct; we are no longer that species. Crocodiles might have been around for millions of years, and their evolution might be gradual, but it's not exactly correct to say that the species of crocodile around half a million years ago is the same species today.

Athon

 

[Foster Zygote]

Creepy.

 

[Dave1001]

Who really cares about humans? Will I persist? I certainly hope so.

 

[CapelDodger]

There's no real distinction between an evolution into another species, and an extinction of one. Evolving is a generational change; technically, the concept of species is an artificial construct used to try to make sense of a snapshot of a continuum.

I agree. In the wider scheme of things, a successful species is one that leads to successor species. In the snapshot view, the failures are the ones that have no living descendants, but the test never ends. It's tooth-and-claw every day.

I don't think it's very promising that there's only one surviving species of genus Homo. The events that lead to HomSap speciation will be ... interesting ones. Moving off-planet? Social division leading to genetic diversion? A return to living in the woods - different woods, different humans? Eugenic programs? I doubt I'll live to see it. Speculation's fun, though.

 

[CapelDodger]

They should just pray for a gamma ray burst that is close by.

Why? (Leaving aside the prayer issue.) That wouldn't be voluntary. Any more than a split condom leads to voluntary parenthood.

Extinction by people choosing not to breed is voluntary. I've done my bit .

[snip]

 

[tracer]

Came across a news article online by Fox on “The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” (google “human extinction”, and “The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” for sources). First, I would love to hear opinions on this group, as it seems like a perfect example of natural selection in action (voluntary sterility anyone?).

The voluntary human extinction movement is the most moronically short-sighted thing I have ever witnessed.

Their purpose, so they claim, is to preserve the biosphere. They seek to accomplish this by sterilizing themselves.

The people who believe in preserving the biosphere intend to leave no offspring.

But the rest of the people, who do not belong to this movement, will keep on leaving offspring.

If they have their way, only the people least likely to care about the biosphere will have children that they'll teach their values to!!

 

[Dave1001]

Edit

 

[Trying2Bopen]

Okay, this thread may be dead, but has anyone else seen/read The Children of Men? Aside from the wildly improbable reason for the impending human extinction, I think it paints a good portrait of what society/the world would be like. I kinda feel like we are in a luxurious place when talking about whether or not we do/should care about the state of the earth after we are gone. When humans are actually on the way out, I don’t think it is very believable to think will be concerned about the state of the flower community in the local meadow, or even whether the ozone layer will still exist when we are gone. The end game is never a pretty one to play…

 

[CapelDodger]

If they have their way, only the people least likely to care about the biosphere will have children that they'll teach their values to!!

Is it only from parents that people learn values? I think not. There are other people out there that we meet and are influenced by. Sterility is not equivalent to death, the sterile live on as part of society. The wider society that moulds us as adults. The wider society that introduces us to subjects and concerns that our parents never considered.

Excuse my bluntness, but this sounds very like eugenics babble. The child as the genotype - you've just displaced it to values that are taught rather than inherited. Same mistake, blaming it all on the bloodline. Reality is more complicated and interesting than that.

 

[Dylab]

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that concern for the environment is at least partially genetic. He said they would be the least likely not that they wouldn't have any concern at all. Just because there are other variables doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what the point of bringing up eugenics is except that involves genetics.

 

[Trying2Bopen]

Is it only from parents that people learn values? I think not. There are other people out there that we meet and are influenced by. Sterility is not equivalent to death, the sterile live on as part of society. The wider society that moulds us as adults. The wider society that introduces us to subjects and concerns that our parents never considered.

Excuse my bluntness, but this sounds very like eugenics babble. The child as the genotype - you've just displaced it to values that are taught rather than inherited. Same mistake, blaming it all on the bloodline. Reality is more complicated and interesting than that.

I think tracer is just trying to point out the irony based on natural selection.

Besides, make everyone that cares sterile and suddenly a whole lot of people don’t care, not because they don’t want to care, but because they don’t want to be sterile. I am sorry, if really loving the environment means I have to swear off reproducing, then I am already off that train. And that is entirely based on culture.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that concern for the environment is at least partially genetic.

It clearly seems obvious to you that there's some genetically-determined trait that predisposes a person to such concern (money being serious concern to most of us) but it's not obvious to me. Concern for landscapes has generally been proprietorial rather than emotional.

He said they would be the least likely not that they wouldn't have any concern at all.

Complete absence of concern for the environment is no rarity, the "least likely" would definitely be "those that have none". "Less likely" might have worked better. Implicit in it all is that parentage is an important, if not crucial, determinant.

Just because there are other variables doesn't mean the effect doesn't exist.

I assume that applies to the genetic element, any argument for which would have to stand on its own merits.

I'm not sure what the point of bringing up eugenics is except that involves genetics.

More to the point is that it's discredited. I doubt tracer would disagree, he specifically mentioned "teaching". You've brought in the genetics, not tracer. I was suggesting that tracer's argument is in a way analogous to eugenics - something tracer may not have previously considered.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think tracer is just trying to point out the irony based on natural selection.

As if natural selection really applied to the case. An assumption bordering on the moronic, IMO.

Besides, make everyone that cares sterile and suddenly a whole lot of people don’t care, not because they don’t want to care, but because they don’t want to be sterile.

What part of "voluntary" is it that you find so hard to fathom?

I am sorry, if really loving the environment means I have to swear off reproducing, then I am already off that train. And that is entirely based on culture.

So someone wants to breed, and doesn't give a toss about the world their progeny inhabit because some other people choose not to breed. How generous do you think natural selection will be to people of that persuasion?

The genus Homo is hanging on by a fingernail. One surviving species (Bigfoot and Yeti aside). It seems reasonable to assume that there are two ways to go out - with some dignity, or kicking and screaming and taking many innocent species with us.

 

[Morchella]

Consider that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. I don't think humans are on a different path. Those that think we are going to get off this planet are watching way too much Star Trek. I don't care a whit about our species. Although we think we are great, we are too stupid to survive. We will suffocate in our own waste. I doubt we have another ten thousand years. Relative to other species like the dinosaurs , that is pretty short lived.
Life is more resilient. I do think life will go on on this planet. Perhaps in a billion years another more benevolent species will evolve from the cockroach.

Ha Ha

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Consider that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. I don't think humans are on a different path. Those that think we are going to get off this planet are watching way too much Star Trek. I don't care a whit about our species. Although we think we are great, we are too stupid to survive. We will suffocate in our own waste. I doubt we have another ten thousand years. Relative to other species like the dinosaurs , that is pretty short lived.
Life is more resilient. I do think life will go on on this planet. Perhaps in a billion years another more benevolent species will evolve from the cockroach.

Ha Ha

Cynical crabby skeptic!

Hey, if we don't get off this rock in some billions of years, then when this earth is gone, we are too. So Human extinction is either certain, or maybe something else will evolve out of our stupid mistakes due to some selective pressue we puny brained eediots can't even imagine.

Star trek sucks. I watch the new Battlestar Galactica, cuz Starbuck is a chick that can snap yer pitiful neck...

 

[Trying2Bopen]

As if natural selection really applied to the case. An assumption bordering on the moronic, IMO.

Culture is the progeny of natural selection, and there is a whole field of psychology dedicated to it (may I recommend a great book: Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, by David M. Buss). It is sometimes hard to wrap the mind around the idea that in the end we are driven by the same principles as bacteria-to produce as many successful offspring as possible, but it is an idea worth considering (Culture is used as a tool to meet that end).

So exactly why is it, may I ask, that you think natural selection doesn’t apply to this case, “An assumption bordering on the moronic, IMO”?

What part of "voluntary" is it that you find so hard to fathom?

It is not that I don’t give credit where credit is due; these people obviously care a lot about the environment. But ultimately their actions will be self defeating; the whole of the human population isn’t going to swear off breeding, I don’t think they will ever reach their intended goal. They may make the world better for the children of someone else, but that is not their intention.

So someone wants to breed, and doesn't give a toss about the world their progeny inhabit because some other people choose not to breed. How generous do you think natural selection will be to people of that persuasion?

“Giving a toss” only works because it’s helpful in terms of future reproductive success. If it didn’t matter whether or not we gave a toss in the past likely no one would today. There are thousands of organisms that don’t give a toss- even eat their own offspring, and they are doing just fine. Natural selection is not generous, it just is.

The genus Homo is hanging on by a fingernail. One surviving species (Bigfoot and Yeti aside). It seems reasonable to assume that there are two ways to go out - with some dignity, or kicking and screaming and taking many innocent species with us.

As far as I see it kicking and screaming is the only way to go, because sometimes fighting means pulling through and surviving. We are the product of 3.5 billion years of success. And if things don’t go kicking and screaming, then they go quickly. Just like generosity, the idea of “dignity” is a human one (or at least a species specific one), as is innocence.

 

[Trying2Bopen]

Consider that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. I don't think humans are on a different path. Those that think we are going to get off this planet are watching way too much Star Trek. I don't care a whit about our species. Although we think we are great, we are too stupid to survive.

Hmm, we are doing a good job so far. I mean, 6 billion is a pretty big number. Sure we are taking other species out right and left, but you gotta admit, we are unique.

We will suffocate in our own waste. I doubt we have another ten thousand years. Relative to other species like the dinosaurs , that is pretty short lived.

I don’t know of a single dinosaur species that lasted 186 million years, so maybe this isn’t a fair comparison.

Life is more resilient. I do think life will go on on this planet. Perhaps in a billion years another more benevolent species will evolve from the cockroach.

Ha Ha

Humans are always thinking the worst, and that is part of the reason I think humans are good candidates for a pseudo-extinction (i.e. evolving into something else) as opposed to an actual extinction. The mind, in my opinion, is one of the most versatile adaptations an organism can possess; it makes us generalists and open to invading almost any type of new environment, and it makes us responsive as well as eager to predict future calamities and prepare. I would guess that there is likely a big population crash coming up, and ultimately it will be down to whether or not there are enough breeding individuals in one place to sustain a viable population. If there are, I think there is a decent chance we will progress, at least better than the chances of a more specialized species.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I note nobody has mentioned the possibility of synthetic evolution through machine / organism synthesis or gene engineering. While this may still be science fiction, it becomes more possible each year and is a route quite inaccessible to any previous life form.

There is also the notion of transcendence - that humanity will pass through some transformation or "singularity" , again via computer / technical / biological convergence . It has been suggested that the reason SETI is finding no signals is because this happens to all intelligent entities and they vanish up their own tailpipe.

My own personal view is more mundane. Homo has indeed dwindled from several species to one, but the numbers and distribution of that one species are impressive. It would require a combination of planetary disasters to wipe out all humans. A gamma ray burst might, if it lasted over 24 hours, but that sort of targetting would make even a sceptic like me wonder about who aimed it. Solar flare? Nah. Volcanic superexplosion? Nah. Ice Age.? Don't make me laugh. We already know how to stop those. (You trigger a volcanic superexplosion).

I predict a day when the only large mammal on Earth is man, the only other native animals being crows , rats and other critters adaptable enough to survive in a world with thirty billion humans- a world where genetic modification is as cheap and ubiquitous as home computers, so that all humans are genetically modified to some extent.

The big unkown is if forced evolution might throw up something profoundly, differently new- for example a form of intelligence as far "above" our present average as that is above (say) a Chimp's. Or some other mental ability.

What form would this take? No idea. It may be philosophically impossible for us to know.
Even if everyone was as smart as Leonardo Da Vinci, which seems comprehensible and feasible, the world might be a very different place.

However we evolve, the assumption that all species must go extinct because they all have up till now is clearly illogical. No species ever went to the moon or tinkered with it's own genes till now. All bets are off- have been off since the first plains ape hit his neighbour with a rock.
If humans can get off Earth in large numbers and can store their mental states in machines, we are potentially immortal- though not as a species, but as individuals or a number of variants. Of course the Stars won't last for ever, but that's a rather different sort of scale to worry about.

 

[CapelDodger]

Culture is the progeny of natural selection, and there is a whole field of psychology dedicated to it (may I recommend a great book: Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, by David M. Buss). It is sometimes hard to wrap the mind around the idea that in the end we are driven by the same principles as bacteria-to produce as many successful offspring as possible, but it is an idea worth considering (Culture is used as a tool to meet that end).

So exactly why is it, may I ask, that you think natural selection doesn’t apply to this case, “An assumption bordering on the moronic, IMO”?

This case is not about the evolution of the Homo mindset, or even the evolution of agricultural societies. I have no problem accepting that we're chimps with hoes, and our minds evolved to suit our hunter/gatherer recent family background. This case is not one where the message is passed on genetically. Not breeding actually leaves you more time to get the message out there, if that's what floats your boat.

It is not that I don’t give credit where credit is due; these people obviously care a lot about the environment. But ultimately their actions will be self defeating; the whole of the human population isn’t going to swear off breeding, I don’t think they will ever reach their intended goal. They may make the world better for the children of someone else, but that is not their intention.

You're taking the idea very seriously, aren't you? There's no expectation of success. The point being made is that the survival of our species really doesn't matter. If it dies out because people stop caring, so what?

“Giving a toss” only works because it’s helpful in terms of future reproductive success.

Quite. Deciding not to give a toss about the environment your grandchildren grow up in is not obviously a winning strategy. The winning strategy, if you have dynastic ambitions, is to breed and safeguard the livelihoods of your grandchildren. Which means protecting the environment, or securing some promising part of it for your family.

A winning tactic would be to pay other people not to breed who otherwise would. A sort of carbon-offset arrangement.

If it didn’t matter whether or not we gave a toss in the past likely no one would today. There are thousands of organisms that don’t give a toss- even eat their own offspring, and they are doing just fine. Natural selection is not generous, it just is.

Quite. The way it interacts with circumstances is what's interesting. There aren't going to be 6 billion people on the planet by 2070, and that's not going to be because people stop breeding. Well, only in the sense that they don't grow old enough. Who's going to make the cut?

As far as I see it kicking and screaming is the only way to go, because sometimes fighting means pulling through and surviving.

I don't care about the long-term survival of the species. It's a fun exercise to speculate but if it's extinction and no successors, well there you go. The less collateral damage the better.

We are the product of 3.5 billion years of success. And if things don’t go kicking and screaming, then they go quickly. Just like generosity, the idea of “dignity” is a human one (or at least a species specific one), as is innocence.

And as a human I referred to them. What's your problem? I thought humanity was very important to you. If not for its concepts, why?

Every species out there is the product of a 3.5 billion year ancestry. Many live what we would regard as undignified lives - heck, so do many humans - but they are just as successful as us. Respect.