The Sixth Mass Extinction

So looks like we're kinda screwed...

I know there are a few members here who have... "controversial" opinions about climate science but 60% of all vertibrate life wiped out in less than fifty years is a measurable fact. You can argue all you like about global warming but the damage to the ecology is indesputible. If humanity continues the way we are going then we are not going to last more than a few more generations before the ecology of Earth can no long sustain civilisation, or perhaps even the species itself.

The reason I have posted this thread is because it's been keeping we awake at night. Accepting death is one thing but it's hard to go on with life knowing your entire species is probably on a fasttrack to extinction. The worst thing is I don't think there is anything that can be done at this point. As a rule people don't tend to act until the crisis is upon them and by then it will be too late. I mean, if hardly anyone is willing to give up burgers or flights to save planet then how can we ever make the long term sacrifices needed to save ourselves? I think we could still save ourselves but human nature is it's own worst enemy.

Maybe I am being overly pessimistic? I feel awful thinking about the fate of our grandchilren once everything comes to a head. Of course, I am trying not to give into despair. I have a vegetarian for long while and am now hoping to transition myself to a mostly vagan diet through the end of this year into 2019 but progressively cutting out dairy (I think I am more likely to be successful like that than simply cutting it all out and once). I am also looking for a job closer to home so that I can drastically shorten my commute or even switch to using the train (not possible at the moment with my current job).

Thoughts? Plans? Read anything interesting that might give us (read me) a little more hope?

If 60% of all vertibrate life has been wiped out, then that means we still have another 40% that we can eat.

AI will kill us all. Not because it'll be evil, just because it'll be the right thing to do.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:AI will kill us all. Not because it'll be evil, just because it'll be the right thing to do.

I'm honestly curious as to why AI is always portrayed as psychotically evil and will decide to wipe us all out.
What would be the point as it's a computer with robot body it can live anywhere in the galaxy and doesn't need to fight for resources on earth so why should it bother wiping us all out, if it hates us it can leave us behind with a note saying "Screw you guys you all suck!".
It could also just as easily decide to cohabit with us on peaceful terms or just ignore us and live in a cyber wonder world and just ignore us.

Why do you assume the worst?

I’ve cut down pretty much everything I can now and my footprint is at about 50% of my 2020 carbon allowance.

I’ve managed to get quite a few people to cut meat out of their diets either completely or partially and veganism is seeing a huge increase year on year so if that trend continues over the next 10 years, coupled with a green energy boom we might just make it. Brexit might help us with the diet transition, but we might end up undoing any good we can make there with dirty fossil fuels.

It’s obviously too late for this extinction cycle though unfortunately I read an article last week that said (from memory) approximately 70% of insects have been wiped out since the 1970s. I wish I could find the article now!

Calculator here if you want to roughly see how you’re doing to meet the UKs 2020 target

https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/

Meep wrote:So looks like we're kinda screwed...

I know there are a few members here who have... "controversial" opinions about climate science but 60% of all vertibrate life wiped out in less than fifty years is a measurable fact. You can argue all you like about global warming but the damage to the ecology is indesputible. If humanity continues the way we are going then we are not going to last more than a few more generations before the ecology of Earth can no long sustain civilisation, or perhaps even the species itself.

The reason I have posted this thread is because it's been keeping we awake at night. Accepting death is one thing but it's hard to go on with life knowing your entire species is probably on a fasttrack to extinction. The worst thing is I don't think there is anything that can be done at this point. As a rule people don't tend to act until the crisis is upon them and by then it will be too late. I mean, if hardly anyone is willing to give up burgers or flights to save planet then how can we ever make the long term sacrifices needed to save ourselves? I think we could still save ourselves but human nature is it's own worst enemy.

Maybe I am being overly pessimistic? I feel awful thinking about the fate of our grandchilren once everything comes to a head. Of course, I am trying not to give into despair. I have a vegetarian for long while and am now hoping to transition myself to a mostly vagan diet through the end of this year into 2019 but progressively cutting out dairy (I think I am more likely to be successful like that than simply cutting it all out and once). I am also looking for a job closer to home so that I can drastically shorten my commute or even switch to using the train (not possible at the moment with my current job).

Thoughts? Plans? Read anything interesting that might give us (read me) a little more hope?

My wife is something of an expert in Collapsology...the study of potential systemic collapses in our society. The premise of the discipline is that the world, or more specifically Capitalism, is based not just on the idea of growth but on exponential growth. Exponential growth with finite resources is impossible and if this system continues to dominate it will lead to an eventual collapse of society as we know it, quite possibly within our lifetimes. It also rejects the common counterpoint that technology will save the world. At the rate we are going, we'll have stripped the planet bare in a few generations, way before the miracle tech that Silicon Valley types often hype appears.

For example, Elon Musk has stated that 100 gigafactories would "save the world" but such claims completely handwave the sheer amount of raw materials needed to build such buildings. Apple are now offering huge discounts for people who trade in their old phones, not because they've suddenly become environmentalist, but because the metals essential to mobile phone and computer production are becoming rarer and rarer and recycling has become a necessity to keep prices at current trends. Dysprosium, a metal used in wind turbines, phones and electric cars is forecast to become extinct, for want of a better word, in 2 years.

So yeah. Not good news I suppose. As a married couple, we have chosen not to have children for this reason, as we have become increasingly cynical about the potential state of society in 20, or 30 years.

Yeah, I suppose not having children or at least limiting it to only one is the best thing a person can do right now. Aside from any arguement about what kind fo future those children will have, the absence of a person entirely represents a significant saving in the amount of resources consumed.

Peter Crisp wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:AI will kill us all. Not because it'll be evil, just because it'll be the right thing to do.

I'm honestly curious as to why AI is always portrayed as psychotically evil and will decide to wipe us all out.
What would be the point as it's a computer with robot body it can live anywhere in the galaxy and doesn't need to fight for resources on earth so why should it bother wiping us all out, if it hates us it can leave us behind with a note saying "Screw you guys you all suck!".
It could also just as easily decide to cohabit with us on peaceful terms or just ignore us and live in a cyber wonder world and just ignore us.

Why do you assume the worst?

As I said, it won't be because it'll be evil. It will be the right decision, for the good of the world/solar system.

This is something I think about a lot, we have changed a few habits at home to try to stop unnecessary waste but ultimately the big changes come from government. I mean if things like plastic lids and straws haven't been banned then really what can we as individuals do? Hell I moved house from an area with a massive recycling plant and weekly collections to a place that doesn't even take glass in the biweekly recycling collection. So while I do agree that we as individuals should try to make a difference, it's very small and only really a bit of back slapping so that we can feel better about ourselves for doing our bit. Governments have all the necessary experts at hand so should make the required decisions.

I'm not in any way a nationalist but I think the amount of privatisation in the country is going to hurt us. In my industry (electricity) there have been some fantastic innovations brought around due to the current situation with 'competition' but they are mostly small scale. The problem is that with any market place, companies will always be more short term than a national industry. An engineer with the job of building the best network for the country with a 60-80 year life will do so but which companies are making investments that they're but going to see a return on in at most 20 years. So why I think it's possible the 'smart grid' is theoretically possible, it would require a large scale plan going forward, not just a few subsidies and financial incentives in the hope that the market will find a way.

Tafdolphin wrote:For example, Elon Musk has stated that 100 gigafactories would "save the world" but such claims completely handwave the sheer amount of raw materials needed to build such buildings. Apple are now offering huge discounts for people who trade in their old phones, not because they've suddenly become environmentalist, but because the metals essential to mobile phone and computer production are becoming rarer and rarer and recycling has become a necessity to keep prices at current trends. Dysprosium, a metal used in wind turbines, phones and electric cars is forecast to become extinct, for want of a better word, in 2 years.

I think that's a bit unfair, how else are you going to bring about change without building new things? To be honest material shortage isn't something I fear as I'm confident that engineering will find alternatives to these problems, this might be naive but I can't believe these big tech firms haven't envisioned an alternative as ultimately they don't want turn stop making money. Climate change on the other hand is something I see as inevitable, even if we in Europe and even the US made the necessary changes, China doesn't give a strawberry float.

We've got them all in glorious 4K on Planet Earth II now so we don't really need them anymore.

Hime wrote:I think that's a bit unfair, how else are you going to bring about change without building new things?

Through systematic change. Dramatic systematic change, on a societal level. Tech is not coming to save anyone, and no-one's getting invited aboard Musk's spaceship. When you start researching into this problem it's amazing how many people simply assume that Big Industry can't possibly be as short sighted as they appear to be. Unfortunately, all evidence (or the lack thereof) point to the fact that they are.

To be honest material shortage isn't something I fear as I'm confident that engineering will find alternatives to these problems, this might be naive but I can't believe these big tech firms haven't envisioned an alternative as ultimately they don't want turn stop making money. Climate change on the other hand is something I see as inevitable, even if we in Europe and even the US made the necessary changes, China doesn't give a strawberry float.

Which is the commonly held position on the subject but unfortunately there are almost no evidencible facts to show this is the case. Like I say, even Apple are only now putting measures in place and they are measures of reduction, not sustainability and the reasoning behind them is one of self support rather than any greater good. As I say, exponential growth with finite resources is a factual impossibility.

Hime wrote:This is something I think about a lot, we have changed a few habits at home to try to stop unnecessary waste but ultimately the big changes come from government. I mean if things like plastic lids and straws haven't been banned then really what can we as individuals do?

https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/

Straws account for less than 1% of the plastic in the ocean. Banning them is like changing to an energy saving lightbulb in your house. Virtually pointless beyond making you feel like you’re actually doing something.

Climate change on the other hand is something I see as inevitable, even if we in Europe and even the US made the necessary changes, China doesn't give a strawberry float.

The US is arguably the one that needs to change the most. They’re the biggest polluter. At least China are in a clean energy race with countries such as India. They’re even commuting to tree cities now

Tafdolphin wrote:

Hime wrote:I think that's a bit unfair, how else are you going to bring about change without building new things?

Through systematic change. Dramatic systematic change, on a societal level. Tech is not coming to save anyone, and no-one's getting invited aboard Musk's spaceship. When you start researching into this problem it's amazing how many people simply assume that Big Industry can't possibly be as short sighted as they appear to be. Unfortunately, all evidence (or the lack thereof) point to the fact that they are.

To be honest material shortage isn't something I fear as I'm confident that engineering will find alternatives to these problems, this might be naive but I can't believe these big tech firms haven't envisioned an alternative as ultimately they don't want turn stop making money. Climate change on the other hand is something I see as inevitable, even if we in Europe and even the US made the necessary changes, China doesn't give a strawberry float.

Which is the commonly held position on the subject but unfortunately there are almost no evidencible facts to show this is the case. Like I say, even Apple are only now putting measures in place and they are measures of reduction, not sustainability and the reasoning behind them is one of self support rather than any greater good. As I say, exponential growth with finite resources is a factual impossibility.

Musk was referring specifically to electricity distribution, no? There is no systematic change that doesn't involve construction in a large scale. As I say the smart grid is theoretically possible and progress is being made but it's still a way off. Other than accepting intermittent black outs there isn't a way to fundamentally change electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

I did a bit of reading after your post and it looks there was a crisis looming in 2011 when China restricted its exports of rare metals but it never came about as companies stock piled but it did say that it also lead to research of alternatives. It's not an area I have any knowledge in so I can't add much to the conversation and will have to continue with my head in the sand like the rest of us.

I've been planning to make some lifestyle changes over the next few years.
I've already cut red meat and pork from my diet for health reasons, once I move out from my family home I'm going to start slowly moving away from chicken and fish until eventually going vegetarian or at least keeping a mostly vegetarian or pescerterian diet. I'll probably start favouring local produce more too.
I've recently got rid of my car and being honest I'm not in a hurry to get another.
I'm sure at one point I'll have to look more seriously into how I can do more, it helps me massively that I don't care for having children.

Well, even if its a fraction of a percent that's still a fraction of a percent less plastic.

Deciding that your own actions are pointless is not helpful in the slightest. Also, social movements tend to have momentum. The more people start doing something the more other people want to follow the example so really the fewer the number of people doing these things the more important it is that you do them. You could be one of the people who gets the ball rolling.

Although it is also right to say that the government could be doing a lot more. One of the worst things today is the resurgence of right wing populism around the world that seems dead set on continuing if not accelerating the destruction of the natural world. Brazil alone controls a lot of the remaining wilderness on Earth and has just fallen to a guy pledging to help land clearance and eliminate enviornmental protections; which is deeply depressing. I think we need to make more and more people aware of just how dire the future for their descendants is looking right now, Once they accept the facts they will demand their leaders do something.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Peter Crisp wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:AI will kill us all. Not because it'll be evil, just because it'll be the right thing to do.

I'm honestly curious as to why AI is always portrayed as psychotically evil and will decide to wipe us all out.
What would be the point as it's a computer with robot body it can live anywhere in the galaxy and doesn't need to fight for resources on earth so why should it bother wiping us all out, if it hates us it can leave us behind with a note saying "Screw you guys you all suck!".
It could also just as easily decide to cohabit with us on peaceful terms or just ignore us and live in a cyber wonder world and just ignore us.

Why do you assume the worst?

As I said, it won't be because it'll be evil. It will be the right decision, for the good of the world/solar system.

Are you saying that Humanity as a whole is so evil that for the good of the solar system we must be eradicated?
That's a rather bleak view and while I think we can and should do better I think as a species Humanity deserves to survive to colonise as far as it can.

I find this whole idea that humanity is some kind of cancer on the planet really quite odd.

Hime wrote:
Musk was referring specifically to electricity distribution, no? There is no systematic change that doesn't involve construction in a large scale. As I say the smart grid is theoretically possible and progress is being made but it's still a way off. Other than accepting intermittent black outs there isn't a way to fundamentally change electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

So, both Musk and your post posit that the problem is the source of power. The systematic changes I'm referring to are, as mentioned, societal. There's something called the Rebound Effect which, put simply, is "the reduction in expected gains from new technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use, because of behavioral or other systemic responses. " Basically, if something becomes more readily available, electric power in this instance, the demand will increase relative to that increase and the net gain will be zero. This can be applied to almost all new technologies. More efficient car? People are going to use cars more. Electric cars getting cheaper? People are going to switch and the demand on the grid erases any perceived gain.

The problem is not replacing or changing the source, it's changing the way society views and consumes such things. Musk saying he can save the world by producing more electricity is like Mugabe trying the save his economy by printing money. It's not sustainable and still leads to collapse.

Peter Crisp wrote:I find this whole idea that humanity is some kind of cancer on the planet really quite odd.

I mean, in terms of the way cancer works, and the way humans have treated the planet...the models align almost exactly. I'm not saying humanity is a cancer, there's a shitload of good in the world, I just think that viewed externally as a single organism our patterns are quite...cancerous.

I don't think those of us living in G8 countries can really do much other than be aware that our lifestyles are damaging the ecosystem and as individuals decide to change our diets, shopping habits and use more eco friendly products.

Renewable energy is also essential and should be massively invested in, we need more wind turbines and solar panels on all new buildings (and old ones too), hell, even nuclear power is preferable to fossil fuels which are basically killing the planet while evil regimes like Saudi Arabia and Russia get rich and powerful by extorting the rest of the world for oil and gas - if everyone started using clean energy then maybe those said regimes might simply run out of money and cease being relevant to the civilized world.

Tafdolphin wrote:I mean, in terms of the way cancer works, and the way humans have treated the planet...the models align almost exactly. I'm not saying humanity is a cancer, there's a shitload of good in the world, I just think that viewed externally as a single organism our patterns are quite...cancerous.

Ok fair enough I can see the comparison in the way we spread but this almost longing for the destruction of humanity for the supposed good of the solar system is just odd.
I'm (I realise this is rather out of character for me) rather optimistic about the future and feel the Star Trek: TNG style future where we have managed to solve the current problems (maybe minus the warp drives) is more likely than the post apocalyptic futures we see presented these days.
I also struggle to see what harm we can do even if we just strip mine them to sterile worlds that have zero possibility of life forming on them. Seriously, what harm is done by scooping up gigatonnes of gasses from the atmosphere of Jupiter to use as fuel?

The most drastic option I think should be taken is a full decant of Earth to ready made terraformed planets and moons but the eradication of our species is just a shocking amount of self loathing I just can't get behind.