Posts
Both Dmitry Orlov and Doomstead Diner have been surveying people about their thoughts about near-term (or otherwise) extinction.
My own perspective is that it is a rather odd pastime - especially asking how comfortable people feel about extinction (what normal person would feel COMFORTABLE with the idea?!)
I agree that it is a healthy thing for people to exhange their feelings about the possibility, but this is CRAZY!
I am with Guy on this - "ask a silly question and you will get a silly answer"
If you look at the sum of scientific knowledge and look at all the evidence it is very hard to escape the logical conclusion that this species of smart ape is headed for near-term extinction. However, there is a high degree of uncertainty (except with the general principle) and I would never, with any degree of honesty, venture to answer any of the questions included below.
I'd be talking through a hole in my head.
I will endeavour to stick with WHAT IS.
It has a lot to recommend it.
---Seemorerocks
The
Extinction Survey
Dmitry Orlov
Dmitry Orlov
26
May, 2015
There
is a survey currently running on the Doomstead Diner, which asks
people to make specific, numerical estimates about the timing of
human extinction. It is inspired by the work of Guy McPherson, who
has amassed much scientific evidence that points to very major
climate disruption occurring over the next 2-3 decades, caused by
multiple runaway positive feedback effects, such as Arctic methane
release. Guy's conclusion is that these changes will mean that the
Earth will no longer provide a habitat for humans, leading to
near-term human extinction. His reasoning, as far as I have been able
to piece it together, rests on a supposition of time-invariance: the
planet will be warmer than it has ever been in human experience;
therefore, no humans will survive. This is far short of a proof.
I
see two ways to provide a proof.
The
first is based on proving the existence of an extinction mechanism.
For example, humans don't function well when atmospheric CO2
concentrations exceed 5000ppm, which cause dizziness, fainting spells
and asphyxiation. Right now they are around 400ppm, going up by 2ppm
every year. If that stays on track, this gives us 2300 years.
However, there is not enough fossil fuels to keep burning at the same
rate for another 2300 years. I am not aware of any straightforward
bit of math that would conclusively demonstrate the impossibility of
our continued existence.
The
second is to make an inventory of all possible human habitats, and
lifestyles to go with them, and then demonstrate that none of these
habitats will be available in just a few decades. This is tricky,
because it's so easy to pass over some small niche that may remain
survivable far into the future, and all it takes is one of these to
narrowly avoid extinction. An examination of mitochondrial DNA showed
that at one point the human population dwindled to just a handful,
yet we are still around—numbering in the billions! Extermination is
hard—ask any exterminator—and extinction is even harder.
Still,
my personal feeling is that most of us will go extinct by this
century's end. Some will have no choice: when the Himalaya stops
producing the requisite amount of snow melt to irrigate much of
southeast Asia, and when the monsoon fails, that will be the end for
a few billions of us. In other cases, it will be a matter of not
being given a choice: many people would be able to leave death-trap
cities behind and filter out into the countryside, where they could
fend for themselves, but the countryside is marked "Private
Property" and "No Trespassing," and so they will stay
in the cities and die. (However, there are effective, proven methods
of disabusing people of the notion that "this land is their
land," and city people can be quite resourceful.) But there are
many of those for whom extinction will be a matter of cultural
preference. Like the Greenland Vikings, who could very well survive
by emulating the Inuit rather than trying to exterminate them, many
people will refuse to survive because the sort of survival that is
possible will be below their high cultural standards. In the best
traditions of the British navy, they will prefer to "drown like
gentlemen" rather than grab a piece of flotsam, wash up on some
wild shore, and quietly go native.
Back
to the survey on the Doomstead Diner: Guy found it disagreeable. Here
is his take on it:
I’ve
not responded to the survey, nor will I, for two primary reasons:
1.
Ask a stupid question, and you’re likely to receive a stupid
answer. In this case, stupid responses prevail. A relevant question
would focus on habitat for humans. Such a question might produce
rational responses, even from academics.
2.
Science does not depend upon, and is not heavily influenced by,
democratic principles. Our votes have no bearing on the outcome.
To
this I would add the following. Finding out people's guesstimates on
exact numbers they have no way of calculating amounts to two things:
1.
a better way to "market" human extinction (creepy as hell,
if you think about it); and
2.
feeding the confirmation bias of a bunch of self-selected "doomers,"
who can then all agree with each other about things they don't know
anything about.
But
I am very interested in the topic of voluntary extinction: the idea
that large groups of people, who could theoretically have a choice in
the matter, will go to their doom voluntarily, because they are
unwilling to relinquish various standards and expectations which are
becoming maladaptive.
And
so, as a first thing, I thought I'd do a survey myself, to see where
my readers' comfort level is in discussing the subject. A low comfort
level would be indicative of an unwillingness to entertain thoughts
of breaking cultural taboos and embracing choices that "civilized"
people find distasteful. If the average score turns out to be low,
then there is no reason to proceed. But if it is reasonably high,
then the next step is to ask which cultural adaptations elicit the
most discomfort, and which the least.
I
am not interested in marketing extinction to a bunch of "doomers."
The "doomers" are doomed by definition. I am interested in
proposing cultural adaptations and small-scale technologies that
might prevent extinction.
And
so, without further ado, here is my survey (which is now closed, so
here it is in text form).
1.
How comfortable are you with the idea that Homo Sapiens, just like
every other species, is doomed to eventual extinction?
2.
How comfortable are you with the idea that the human species may go
extinct in the not-too-distant future?
3.
How comfortable are you with the thought that many coastal cities, in
which much of the global population lives, will be underwater by the
end of the century?
4.
How comfortable are you with the thought that reduced snow-pack and
glacial melt will wipe out entire farming regions, on which billions
of people depend?
5.
How comfortable are you with the reality of national boundaries
dissolving under the influx of political, economic and environmental
migrants?
6.
How comfortable are you with the idea of overwhelmed health care
systems leading to much higher disease loads, widespread mortality
from currently preventable causes, much higher infant mortality and
much lower life expectancy?
7.
How comfortable are you with the thought that, due to shortages of
nonrenewable resources of all kinds, dense population centers will
not be maintainable, turning cities into death traps?
8.
How comfortable are you with the prospect that unstable and extreme
weather will make farming and kitchen-gardening unreliable, forcing
the few survivors to revert to a nomadic lifestyle, gleaning what
they can when and where they can, then moving on?
9.
How comfortable are you with the prospect of civilized, urban
humanity going extinct, being survived by widely dispersed, feral
populations of hominids that eventually evolve into different hominid
species?
For
each question, the answers were:
Extremely
uncomfortable
Somewhat
uncomfortable
Indifferent
Somewhat
comfortable
Perfectly
comfortable
...
Update:
between 3am and 8:44am I've collected more than enough data—a few
hundred sets of responses. But unfortunately I used a service called
SurveyMonkey, which allowed me to put up a survey for free, but then,
unannounced, decided to hold the results hostage unless I pay them
$300, which I won't do. After some email back-and-forth, they
admitted that I own the data, and then refused to give it to me. So,
don't use SurveyMonkey unless you want your data stolen. I managed to
scrape the first 100 results off their web site (they won't let me
download any results unless I pay up) but they are interesting and
significant in any case. In short, I got the data I was looking for.
Here is how they break down.
1.
How comfortable are you with the idea that Homo Sapiens, just like
every other species, is doomed to eventual extinction?
6
12 21 13 47
This
was a calibration question, to get the dirt out of the data. People
who are uncomfortable with the age and size of the universe, and our
utter insignificance on the scale of things, aren't ready to discuss
near-term human extinction. The 6 "Extremely uncomfortable"
and the 12 "Somewhat uncomfortable" responses on the left
are skewing the data. To adjust for this skew, I subtract 6 from the
"Extremely uncomfortable" column, 12 from the "Somewhat
uncomfortable," and add 18 to "Indifferent" (because
indifference cuts both ways, you know).
0
0 39 13 47
The
data that follow have been adjusted accordingly. Ah, much better! We
will all go extinct eventually, and if you are uncomfortable with
this, please seek help elsewhere. Yes, this does mean that 18% of the
audience won't benefit from this exercise, but I think we should
proceed for the sake of the remaining 82%.
2.
How comfortable are you with the idea that the human species may go
extinct in the not-too-distant future?
17
16 33 11 22
Now,
this is very interesting indeed, because the data is split very
evently: 1/3 uncomfortable, 1/3 indifferent, and 1/3 comfortable.
Now, it doesn't seem all that normal to be perfectly comfortable with
everyone you know and their children going extinct in the next few
decades. Some amount of emotional discomfort seems normal, given the
subject matter. And look at the spike over on the right! I believe
that at least some of the 22 "Extremely comfortable"
respondents answered the wrong question: not whether they are
comfortable with it, but whether they believe in it. This is another
sort of skew, but let's hope that it is confined to this question.
3.
How comfortable are you with the thought that many coastal cities, in
which much of the global population lives, will be underwater by the
end of the century?
2
7 37 19 33
This,
I would guess, is the result of the story of rising ocean levels
being endlessly repeated: people have become comfortable with the
idea, in the sense of their senses having been dulled. But this isn't
something to be comfortable or complacent about.
4.
How comfortable are you with the thought that reduced snow-pack and
glacial melt will wipe out entire farming regions, on which billions
of people depend?
11
19 30 12 27
But
this one hasn't been talked about quite so much. Yes, the California
drought is a big story, and Lake Mead which feeds Las Vegas is drying
up, but the full scale of the disaster globally hasn't quite sunk in
yet. So this is a gap in coverage that is worth addressing.
5.
How comfortable are you with the reality of national boundaries
dissolving under the influx of political, economic and environmental
migrants?
7
6 28 16 42
This
is interesting, because there is a supermajority of people who are
comfortable with the traditional nation-state going away. It would
appear that most national politicians who try to make use of
immigration as a "hot button" issue are in fact quite far
behind the curve on this one. Since my work is very much
international, not in terms of nation-states but in terms of ethnic
nations, this result makes me happy.
6.
How comfortable are you with the idea of overwhelmed health care
systems leading to much higher disease loads, widespread mortality
from currently preventable causes, much higher infant mortality and
much lower life expectancy?
9
18 27 12 32
Here
we have a clear multimodal distribution, its two peaks representing
resignation (in the middle) and indifference (on the right). I don't
think that this is a particularly helpful result. It is very hard for
a society that has had the resources to be compassionate to embrace
austerity and to ration treatment, limiting it to those who are
either productive or promising to become so. Coming to terms with
this transition is quite a task, and this is another area that needs
much more attention. If it did, people might be a bit less
comfortable with it.
7.
How comfortable are you with the thought that, due to shortages of
nonrenewable resources of all kinds, dense population centers will
not be maintainable, turning cities into death traps?
7
10 27 16 39
Same
multimodal distribution, but overall leaning even more heavily toward
"comfortable." It would seem that, in light of all we see,
many people have lost hope that there will still be prosperous urban
islands, with the help of advanced technology perhaps. (If you study
the data, bauxite, used to smelt aluminum, will be the only
nonrenewable industrial input that will still be abundant by
mid-century; but the energy to smelt it won't be.) The demise of
megacities is another subject worth tackling, and it is clear that
there is an audience for it.
8.
How comfortable are you with the prospect that unstable and extreme
weather will make farming and kitchen-gardening unreliable, forcing
the few survivors to revert to a nomadic lifestyle, gleaning what
they can when and where they can, then moving on?
12
9 33 20 26
The
surprise here, if any, is the lack of strong sentiment on the issue:
the majority is either indifferent or only somewhat comfortable with
the idea.
9.
How comfortable are you with the prospect of civilized, urban
humanity going extinct, being survived by widely dispersed, feral
populations of hominids that eventually evolve into different hominid
species?
10
-5 35 18 42
Bottom
line: extremely comfortable. The -5 is the result of a few people who
were far out in left field in question 1. lurching even further to
the left. The subject of feral humanity should also be on the menu.
Thank
you for your responses. This has been most enlightening!
Here is the ongoing survey of the Doomstead Diner
You can still take The Human Extinction Survey and be Counted
Orlov writes "For example, humans don't function well when atmospheric CO2 concentrations exceed 5000ppm, which cause dizziness, fainting spells and asphyxiation. Right now they are around 400ppm, going up by 2ppm every year. If that stays on track, this gives us 2300 years."
ReplyDeleteIt's solid denier reasoning: Human extinction is impossible because humans haven't gone extinction before. I bet he'll be the life of the party at whatever death camp he ends up in.