Are
Humans Going Extinct?
Dahr Jamail
Dahr Jamail
Some
scientists, Guy McPherson
included, fear that climate disruption is so serious, with so many
self-reinforcing feedback loops already in play, that humans are in
the process of causing our own extinction.
1
December, 2014
August,
September and October were each the hottest months ever recorded,
respectively. Including this year, which is on track to become the
hottest year ever recorded, 13 of the hottest years on record have
all occurred in the last 16 years.
Coal
will likely overtake oil as the dominant energy source by 2017, and
without a major shift away from coal, average global temperatures
could rise by 6 degrees Celsius by 2050, leading to devastating
climate change.
"Across
two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most
authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated
the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts
represent."
This
is dramatically worse than even the most dire predictions from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts at
least a 5-degree Celsius increase by 2100 as its worst-case scenario,
if business continues as usual with no major mitigation efforts.
Yet
things continue growing worse faster than even the IPCC can keep up
with.
Scientific
American has
said of the IPCC:
"Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the
world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently
understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger
those impacts represent."
And
there is nothing to indicate, in the political or corporate world,
that there will be anything like a major shift in policy aimed at
dramatically mitigating runaway anthropogenic climate disruption
(ACD).
Guy
McPherson is a professor emeritus of natural resources, and ecology
and evolutionary biology, with the University of Arizona, who has
been studying ACD for nearly 30 years.
Near-term
human extinction could eventually result from losing the Arctic sea
ice, which is one of the 40 self-reinforcing feedback loops of ACD.
His
blog Nature
Bats Last
has developed a large readership that continues to grow, and for six
years McPherson has been traveling around the world giving lectures
about a topic that, even for the initiated, is both shocking and
controversial: the possibility of near-term human extinction due to
runaway ACD.
As
McPherson has told Truthout: "We've never been here as a
species, and the implications are truly dire and profound for our
species and the rest of the living planet." He told Truthout
that he believes that near-term human extinction could eventually
result from losing the Arctic sea ice, which is one of the 40
self-reinforcing feedback loops of ACD. "A world without Arctic
ice will be completely new to humans," he said.
At
the time of our interview less than one year ago, McPherson had
identified 24 self-reinforcing positive feedback loops. Today that
number has grown to 40.
A
self-reinforcing feedback loop can also be thought of as a vicious
circle, in that it accelerates the impacts of ACD. An example would
be methane releases in the Arctic. Massive amounts of methane are
currently locked in the permafrost, which is now melting rapidly. As
the permafrost melts, methane, a greenhouse gas 100 times more potent
than carbon dioxide on a short timescale, is released into the
atmosphere, warming it, which in turn causes more permafrost to melt,
and so on.
In
the near term, earth's climate will change 10 times faster than
during any other moment in the last 65 million years.
While
McPherson's perspective might sound way-out and like the stuff of
science fiction, similar things have happened on this planet in the
past. Fifty-five million years ago, a 5-degree Celsius rise in
average global temperatures seems to have occurred in just 13 years,
according to a study
published
in the October 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences. A report
in the August 2013 issue of Science revealed that in the near term,
earth's climate will change 10 times faster than during any other
moment in the last 65 million years.
Prior
to that, the Permian mass extinction that occurred 250 million years
ago, also known as "The Great Dying," was triggered by a
massive lava flow in an area of Siberia that led to an increase in
global temperatures of 6 degrees Celsius.
That, in turn, caused the
melting of frozen methane deposits under the seas. Released into the
atmosphere, those gases caused temperatures to skyrocket further. All
of this occurred over a period of approximately 80,000 years. The
change in climate is thought to be the key to what caused the
extinction of most species on the planet. In that extinction episode,
it is estimated that 95 percent of all species were wiped out.
Today's
current scientific and observable evidence strongly
suggests
we are in the midst of the same process - only this time it is
anthropogenic, and happening exponentially faster than the Permian
mass extinction did.
We
are likely to begin seeing periods of an ice-free Arctic by as soon
as this coming summer, or the summer
of 2016
at the latest.
Once
the summer ice begins melting, methane releases will worsen
dramatically.
Our
current extinction event is already greatly exceeding the speed, and
might eventually even exceed the intensity, of the Permian mass
extinction event.
We
are currently in the midst of what most scientists consider the sixth
mass extinction in planetary history, with between 150 and 200
species
going extinct
daily - a pace 1,000 times greater than the "natural" or
"background" extinction rate. Our current extinction event
is already greatly exceeding the speed, and might eventually even
exceed the intensity, of the Permian mass extinction event.
The
difference is that ours is human caused, isn't going to take 80,000
years, has so far lasted just a few centuries and is now gaining
speed in a nonlinear fashion.
Is
it possible that, on top of the vast quantities of carbon dioxide
from fossil fuels that continue to enter the atmosphere in record
amounts
yearly, an increased release of methane could signal the beginning of
the sort of process that led to the Great Dying? Some scientists,
McPherson included, fear that the situation is already so serious and
so many self-reinforcing feedback loops are already in play that we
are in the process of causing our own extinction. Worse yet, some are
convinced that it could happen far more quickly than generally
believed possible - even in the course of just the next few decades.
Truthout
caught up with McPherson at the Earth
at Risk
conference in San Francisco recently to ask him about his prediction
of human extinction, and what that means for our lives today.
Dahr
Jamail: What are some of the current signs and reports you're seeing
that are disconcerting, and really give you pause?
Guy
McPherson:
I've been traveling, so I'm out of date for the last 10 days. But
starting with the snowstorm in Buffalo, New York, that was the
biggest snowstorm ever recorded in Buffalo, at 6 feet 4 inches in 24
hours. It's the largest one ever recorded in the United States.
Australia,
meanwhile, is on fire. I just came back from New Zealand, and spring
had just turned there because it's the Southern Hemisphere. The whole
time I was there people were commenting on how hot it was, and "how
far into summer we already are," and it was early to mid-spring
when I was there.
So
there's all kinds of observational evidence.
"It's
hard for me to imagine we make it into the 2030s as a species."
We
triggered another self-reinforcing feedback loop, number 40, just
about two weeks ago; then just a week ago there was a [scientific]
paper that came out
indicating that for every 1-degree temperature rise, there is 7
percent more lightning strikes. So that contributes to a previously
existing self-reinforcing feedback loop, that of fires, especially in
the Northern Hemisphere, and especially in the boreal forests. So, as
it gets warmer and drier, there are more and bigger fires, and that
kicks more carbon into the atmosphere, which of course contributes to
ongoing, accelerating climate disruption.
So
lightning is yet another piece of that. As there is more moisture in
the atmosphere and more heat going into the atmosphere and warming
the planet, we have more lightning. The whole atmosphere becomes more
dynamic. So, those are things that come to mind.
From
your analysis, how long do you think humanity has before extinction
occurs?
That's
such a hard question, and we are such a clever species. It's clear
that abrupt climate change is underway. Methane has gone exponential
in the atmosphere. Paul Beckwith, climate scientist at University of
Ottawa, indicates we could experience a 6-degree Celsius temperature
rise in the span of a decade. He thinks we'll survive that. I can't
imagine how that could be. He's a laser physicist and engineer, so I
think he doesn't understand biology and requisite habitat that we
need to survivо.
So
it's difficult for me to imagine a scenario where we'll survive even
a 4-degree Celsius [above pre-industrial baseline] temperature rise,
and we'll be there in the very near future, like by 2030, plus or
minus. So it's hard for me to imagine we make it into the 2030s as a
species.
But
when I deliver public presentations I try not to focus on any
particular date; I just try to remind people that they are mortal.
That birth is lethal, and that we don't have long on this planet even
if we live to be 100, so we might want to pursue what we love,
instead of pursuing the next dollar.
A
more micro-look from that question - what do you see happening in the
US, if Beckwith and other scientists who are predicting that rapid a
rise of temperatures in such a short time frame are correct?
The
interior of continents heats at least twice as fast as the global
average. So a 6-degree Celsius rise in the global average means at
least 12 degrees Celsius in the interior of continents - that means
no question there is no habitat for humans in the interior. So you
would have to be in a maritime environment.
"It's
difficult for me to imagine a situation in which plants, even land
plants survive, because they can't get up and move."
I
think even before we get to 6 degrees Celsius above baseline, we lose
all habitats. We lose all or nearly all the phytoplankton in the
oceans, which are in serious decline already as the result of an
increasingly acidified ocean environment. It's difficult for me to
imagine a situation in which plants, even land plants survive,
because they can't get up and move. So without plants there is no
habitat.
At
a 6-degree Celsius temperature rise in the span of decades, there's
no way for evolution by natural selection to keep up with that.
Already, climate change - which at this point has been pretty slow
and what we would call linear change - already climate change is
outpacing evolution by natural selection by at least a factor of
10,000, so I don't see any way the planet is going to keep up.
We're
clever. We'll be able to move around. And if somebody has a bunch of
food stored they might be able to persist on that for awhile, but
climate change leads to social breakdown, or maybe social breakdown
contributes further to climate change . . . in any event, when we
stop putting sulfates into the atmosphere, even at the level of the
US or Europe or China, that's going to cause a very rapid global
average increase in planetary temperature. According to journal
literature, a reduction of 35 to 80 percent in sulfates causes a
1-degree Celsius temperature rise. And in a matter of days, maybe
weeks. So when the system comes down, that means we're above the
ridiculous, politically constructed target of 2 degrees Celsius,
which has never been a scientific target despite what Michael Mann
and other allegedly premier climate scientists say. One degree
Celsius has been a scientific target since the UN group on measured
greenhouse gases established that as a scientific target in 1990.
Well,
it gets worse. According to David Spratt, in a presentation delivered
recently, 1 degree Celsius was ridiculous, .8 degrees Celsius
apparently was a more reasonable target, and by his estimation .5
degrees Celsius was the Rubicon we should not have crossed. Well, we
crossed that Rubicon a long time ago, half a century ago, and he
points out that we've passed all these tipping points, all these
self-reinforcing feedback loops, and that 1 degree is nonsense, and
that half a degree is more like it, and that's in the rearview
mirror, and has been for a long time.
What
would you say to young couples now who are having children, or are
trying to get pregnant?
We
have means of preventing that. [McPherson smiles and pauses]
I
try to encourage people to pursue their passion, to do what they
love, and apparently some people love having children.
"I
think our social responsibility is to live here, now, and contribute
to joyous lives for those around us. It's as if we're in a hospice
situation."
Obviously
I think that's a terrible strategy, given how little time we have on
this planet as a species, but who am I to interrupt somebody else's
reproductive rights?
So
if you love having children, have children and love them, and no
matter how long their lives are, try to make them be joyous years. I
think that goes for all of us, and if that means you want to bring
children into the world, who am I to stop you from pursuing what you
love? That's what I try to encourage people to do.
Given
that we've already gone over the cliff, what is our social and
spiritual responsibility to ourselves, and to one another, and to the
planet, as our extinction approaches?
I
think our social responsibility is to live here, now, and contribute
to joyous lives for those around us. It's as if we're in a hospice
situation. I think we should be serving as witnesses to our own
demise, as well as to the demise of the many other species we are
driving to extinction.
In
addition, I believe we have an obligation to not keep making things
worse for every other species on the planet. It appears that we've
thrown ourselves into the abyss, but we don't need to drag every
other species on the planet down with us.
So
that's why I so much appreciate what is going on here, at Earth at
Risk, because it keeps the focus on species beyond ours, and the
focus on cultures and societies beyond ours. We think it's all about
us, whatever "us" is, and from a cosmological perspective
our species just showed up really quite recently, and yet we think
it's all about us.
So
maybe we could, for a change, make it not about us, for starters.
Do
you feel that the reality of how far along we are with ACD, the
reality that you've been talking about for years now, is beginning to
enter mainstream consciousness?
In
a very limited way. Every now and then I see an article or a report
in the mainstream media indicating that we may be ahead of some
tipping point. So you see reference to the western Antarctic ice
shelf falling into the ocean in the not so distant future. You see
something about Greenland and the ice melting there very quickly.
"We
have a corporate media, and we have a corporate government, and what
Mussolini defined as fascism."
But
we don't have a 24-hour news cycle; we have a 24-second news cycle.
So those things come and go very quickly and then boom, we are back
on the Kardashians again; we're back on some aspect of celebrity
culture.
And
so it's hard to get this culture focused in any meaningful way on the
topics that matter for any period of time.
Why
is the discussion about ACD not louder and more widespread? It should
be the central conversation we're all having . . . the entire planet
should be basically saying, "What in the hell are we going to
do?" and acting on those questions . . . but it isn't. Why not?
It's
a corporate media. There are a handful of corporations that control
more than 90 percent of the media in the country, and to only a
slightly lesser extent, the world. So we have a corporate media, and
we have a corporate government, and what Mussolini defined as
fascism.
There's
no financial benefit to pointing out that people's lives are short.
Instead, there's financial benefit to selling products that people
don't need, can't afford and just contribute to further lining the
pockets of the CEOs of the corporations. So I think it all comes down
to the corporations exerting such profoundly strong control over the
messages we are receiving everyday.
Your
prediction of near-term extinction is, needless to say, controversial
to most people. What do you say to people who call you extreme for
talking about this?
I'm
just reporting the results from other scientists. Nearly all of these
results are published in established literature. I don't think
anybody is taking issue with NASA or Nature, or Science, or the
Proceedings of National Sciences . . . the others I report are
reasonably well-known and come from legitimate sources like NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], other NASA sources
etc. . . .
I'm not making this information up. I'm just connecting a
couple of dots, and it's something many people have difficulty with.
For
you, what now and why bother? What keeps you going?
I
can't help myself. When I was 6 years old I came home with a Dick and
Jane primer, showed it to my 4-year-old sister, pointed to a page,
[and] said, "What's that?" She said, "That's a dog,"
and in total disgust I said, "No, that's Spot." I was
already outraged because she didn't know the answer. I turned the
page and said, "What's that?" She said, "That's a
cat." In a disgusted tone of voice I said, "No, it's Puff!"
I was teaching when I was 6. It's not what I do; it's who I am. I
can't seem to help myself.
So
serving as a witness, giving this information out, connecting ways
that the mainstream media have given up on seems to be what is within
me.
And
what's next is moving the next step beyond uber-geek, left-brain
science guy presenting the information and reminding people that
their lives are short, and instead moving into the heart space, or
what some people call the spiritual space of how do we deal with
this? What do we do now? How do I act as a human being? What kind of
my humanity comes up as a reminder of the fact that our lives are
short? Maybe we ought not focus on materialism at the expense of
everything else.
So
that's what's next. And that's what's been going on for the last
several months, and I'm trying to refine and hone that message and
get it out more broadly, and engage with more allies to get that
message out, because it's the most important message left to our
species.
Have
you seen, through your work, a shift from your going out and
presenting all the facts and showing people where we are as a
species, to more into what you just described?
Yes,
absolutely. And there are a couple of things that are going on there.
One, when I started delivering this information, I was the medical
doctor with poor bedside manner.
So
I would show up in the exam room, looking through my charts, barely
making eye contact with the patient, tell them, "It looks like
you have six weeks to live; be sure to pay the receptionist on your
way out, and I've got a golf game to catch, so see you next week,
maybe, if you're still alive then."
And
then I'd just leave.
So
that was me when I'd deliver a presentation. And people pointed out
to me along the way that that's really, really inappropriate
behavior, and for this left-brained science guy that was a difficult
pill for me to swallow, but I see that now.
And
it was very helpful that a little less than a year ago I participated
in a grief recovery workshop, and I realized that what I was
experiencing was grief, and specifically anticipatory grief. So the
next step is to try to scale up the notion of anticipatory grief, and
have it reach more people as well as pointing out that this is what
is. That we can't be stuck any more in what "should be," we
can't be bogged down by the world of "should."
Instead,
as Byron Katie points out in her latest book, we need to love what
"is." And what "is" is reality. So let's embrace
that, and love this living planet, even as we cause it to become a
lot less lively. And experience and bring moments of joy to those
around us.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.