Neil,
For me, statements such as "The Earth is an evolving whole" arouse
suspicion: one must agree with it, since it is true of almost anything we
can name: the solar system, the galaxy, the economy, a cow, a hemorrhoid.
This is a rhetorical device: leading with a premise one must accept sets
the reader up to accept with what follows, which may be much more
questionable.
Referring to my earlier post and your response, one of the major
differences between questions arising from a religious orientation and
those arising from a scientific orientation is what the poser will accept
as evidence toward forming an answer. You know: passages of scripture,
visions, the words of prophets, still, quiet voices in the night on one
hand, vs. direct observations, measurements, censuses, statistical
inference, mathematical modeling on the other.
However, when you speak about homeostatic mechanisms, solar output, and
global mean surface temperature, you are (it seems to me) firmly in the
realm of science, and so I am asking about the scientific basis for your
statements. Since you are talking about future events, I can't very well
ask to see data derived from them, but how about modeling, like the climate
modelers do? Have you developed models of solar output, oceanic and
atmospheric heat transfer, etc. which you supply with parameter values and
data drawn from real-world measurements? Have you run your model with data
from the past to see if it accurately predicts the observable conditions of
the present? Have you modeled the "non-human weakening of the homeostatic
regulatory capacity," and have you in turn modeled how this changed
regulatory capacity causes temperatures to rise to the point of killing off
all life?
I'm not saying that modeling actually proves anything; it just makes
predictions that may or may not be borne out. However, a good model does
allow us to eliminate many imaginable outcomes simply because they don't
make sense; they don't follow from known starting conditions.
If you have such models, or some other scientific basis for your
statements, I would appreciate a quick description, enough to let me know
whether it would be useful to buy your books.
Martin M. Meiss
2012/3/27 Neil Cummins <[email protected]>
> Thanks Todd
>
> Your first question has a simple answer:
>
> I seek to persuade people of this because I believe that the life that has
> arisen on the Earth is wonderful and precious and I don't want it to go
> extinct. I want to see it survive, thrive, and ultimately spread out to
> other planets.
>
>
> Your second question has a more complex answer because it has many
> components:
>
> I'll try and summarise...but much is inevitably missing from such a
> summary...
>
> The Earth is an evolving whole, and the non-human weakening of the
> homeostatic regulatory capacity (of the GMST) will (if the human species
> goes extinct) lead to a jump in the GMST to a level at which complex
> life-forms will not be able to survive. As the Earth continues to evolve
> and the Sun's output increases the Earth would not be able to move back to
> lower temperatures which could sustain complex life in the future. This
> means that all of the life that has arisen on the Earth would go extinct.
> Humans can prevent this from happening - can save life on Earth - by
> technologically offsetting the weakening of the homeostatic regulatory
> capacity (and then in the distant future by transporting life-forms to
> non-Earth parts of the universe).
> Neil
>
> http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Todd Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Neil,
> >
> > I am curious as to why you seek to persuade people that the extinction of
> > *Homo sapiens* will cause the extinction of all life on earth? Secondly,
> > how do you posit that this will happen?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Neil Cummins <
> [email protected]>wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for this.
> >>
> >> We seem to agree on quite a lot.
> >>
> >> However, I seek to persuade people in my books that the extinction of
> the
> >> human species would ultimately lead to the extinction of all life on
> >> Earth,
> >> rather than a new era of evolution (although my view is compatible with
> a
> >> very short new era followed by total extinction).
> >>
> >> I should point out that my claim that the human species is the pinacle
> of
> >> the evolutionary progression of life on Earth has to do with its
> position
> >> in the evolutionary process rather than to do with "unique
> >> characteristics". All species have unique characteristics and there
> might
> >> be species of non-human Earthly life which are more intelligent than
> >> humans.
> >>
> >> Best
> >>
> >> Neil
> >>
> >> http://neilpaulcummins.blogspot.co.uk/
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.cranmorepublications.co.uk/73
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Brian West <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I will respond to both posts, but given that I have not read Mr.
> >> Cummings'
> >> > book. We, as a species,
> >> > are intricately involved in a series of selective evolutionary events
> >> that
> >> > have culminated to result in
> >> > the biodiversity that we see today. We, as well as all extant life on
> >> > planet, stand on the shoulders
> >> > of millions of species that have come and gone that paved the way for
> >> our
> >> > current biosphere. The
> >> > planet did do just fine without the presence of Homo sapiens sapiens
> for
> >> > the last 3.8 billion years,
> >> > but now that we are here, we do play an important part in it--for
> better
> >> > or worse. Would life go on
> >> > without us? Of course. But if we went, in theory, so would many
> >> species
> >> > that have coevolved with
> >> > us. Dave, we are intricately involved in our biosphere and it is
> >> > intricately involved with us. We are
> >> > a cog in the machinery of our current biosphere. We are important in
> the
> >> > current picture of our
> >> > biodiversity and biosphere. We are but a still-shot in the whole reel
> >> of
> >> > the film we call life, but our
> >> > still-shot is still important. We are a keystone species. The loss of
> >> > Homo sapiens as a species
> >> > could cause a cascading extinction event. But, Dr. Cummings, we must
> >> not
> >> > make the mistake of
> >> > near-sightedness in this situation.
> >> >
> >> > Life on the planet would be affected by our disappearance, but it
> would
> >> > not end by no means, but
> >> > pave way for a new era in evolution (i.e. The Age of Reptiles paved
> the
> >> > way for The Age of
> >> > Mammals). I reject the notion that we are superior to all other
> >> species.
> >> > We do have unique
> >> > characteristics that allows for us to stand apart, but so do many
> other
> >> > species. For one example in
> >> > a sea of others, the polyextremophile Deinococcus radiodurans is a
> >> > biological "superman" that has
> >> > many characteristics that make it "superior" to Homo sapiens. I
> mention
> >> > this not to perpetuate the
> >> > idea of superior or inferior, but to caution in using the words and
> >> ideas
> >> > behind superior or inferior.
> >> > We are the ones who rank and order and categorize and value, which is
> to
> >> > some extent why we
> >> > treat the planet the way we do. Dr. Cummings, we must move away from
> >> the
> >> > anthrocentric
> >> > worldview that our forefathers perpetuated, which led to the abuse and
> >> > destruction of so many
> >> > aspects of our biosphere.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Todd D. Johnson
> > Research Assistant
> > Raffa Lab
> > Department of Entomology
> > University of Wisconsin Madison
> > [email protected]
> > (610) 984-5636
> >
> >
>
