Slashdot Mirror
Why Our Brains Can't Process the Gravest Threats To Humanity
merbs writes: Our brains are unfathomably complex, powerful organs that grant us motor skills, logic, and abstract thought. Brains have bequeathed unto we humans just about every cognitive advantage, it seems, except for one little omission: the ability to adequately process the need for the whole species' long-term survival. They're miracle workers for the short-term survival of individuals, but the scientific evidence suggests that the human brain flails when it comes to navigating wide-lens, slowly-unfurling crises like climate change.
Folks, I submit to you evidence #1
Somehow, I have a hard time putting "slowly unfurling" and "crisis" together in a meaningful way.
Crisis sort of suggests something that needs to be dealt with Right The Fuck Now, not in twenty or thirty or forty or fifty or one hundred years.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Well, the problem is that the premise of this article is that the author somehow is superhuman and sees threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities.
The idea that brains might be better at detecting direct threats to the individual rather than the herd isn't that controversial and further studies on the subject could be interesting.
Claiming that one is exempt from the effect and that everyone else is wrong starts to sound a lot like claiming that the governments mind control ray doesn't affect me since I only drink recycled urine to avoid the chemicals added to the tap water.
Feel free to research how the brain works. Don't skew the results to push your agenda.
Oh no? I don't believe what you do? I must be stupid. And I don't like being stupid.... Maybe I should believe what you believe?? Then will you stop making fun of me?
Homo sapiens survived them, sure. Human civilization has yet to pass that test.
I think we'll do all right, personally - we've got the technology to deal with most of it. It's the change in the weather patterns and the economic effects from that (think farmland becoming unusable due to drought, industries having to relocate, sea levels rising above the level of coastal cities, etc.) that we'll have the hardest time with. I highly doubt we'll have a dark age, but a prolonged economic depression in parts of the developed world will change things quite a bit.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping. There are plenty of skeptics who simply think the scientists involved have no good idea how to model the climate and that their attempts are crude at best, dismal at worst. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but it doesn't take much to prove that. Everything else is half-baked, IMHO. Do we need to take drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy? Probably not.
Most people in support of drastic intervention fail to grasp that we have no real alternative to fossil fuels in the pipe. Furthermore, renewables research isn't moving fast enough for their sensibilities, and they tend to overestimate the possibility of an imminent solution. A very common aversion to nuclear power alongside global warming extremism just puts in the last nail. We should go nuclear. That would fix carbon emissions. Most warming interventionists don't want that either.
Still, I'm glad the renewables research is happening. Fossil fuels are decidedly finite. So is nuclear. We need a means to survive, I'm just doubtful that we need to flail about with solutions that may cause more harm than good.
Sincerely,
Not anti-science, not a creationist, never owned a gun, am very good with math, and independent as far as political leanings go. Don't stuff me into your box. Thanks.
Are you suggesting that the only threats we should see as real are those that can be perceived by common plebs with inferior mental capabilities?
Anyone who has ever had to remove a virus from someone's computer after they clicked a link in an email from "support@microshaft.com" knows first-hand what it means to see threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Highly evolved animals such as humans have a pretty impressive track record when it comes to seeing into the future. The problem does exist that some if not all of us have evolved enough to plan adequately into the long term.
Highly evolved animals such as humans ALSO have a pretty impressive track record when it comes to constructing money- and power-grabbing scams, and detecting such scams when they're being perpetrated upon them.
Unfortunately, the Global Warming Solution Advocates, regardless of the merits of their concerns, used something that has the form of a gigantic scam when promoting their proposals, and promoted proposals that involve massive transfers of wealth, increases in government intervention in private lives and businesses, and reductions in standards of living. This has created substantial skepticism (which moneyed interests that would be harmed by the proposed actions have, of course, gleefully promoted). The failure of the climate to follow their predictions and discoveries of their fudging of the data doesn't help their cause, either.
There are a number of steps between "I think the weather is getting warmer, and people are causing it." to "We must drive the developed world's population down to third world standards RIGHT NOW, to prevent a couple degrees increase in world average temperature, or we're ALL going to DIE!"
Because it looks like a scam, about all they've gotten any substantial traction on is that the temperature is changing a bit (as it has for all of geological time - we ARE coming out of an ice age, after all - and whether the change is actually human-caused is immaterial beyond indicating that we could change it the other way if we tried). But they haven't convinced the population that they have a correct model.
And they haven't even STARTED on the NEXT of several steps: Is global warming, bad, indifferent, or even good? (The geological and historical record seems to indicate that substantially warmer than what we have now - by more than the amount they're concerned about - is actually better for both civilization and life in general.)
With the population unconvinced that there IS a "Grave Threat To Humanity", it's premature to assume that "Our Brains Can't Process" it.
But speaking as if the thing to be proven is already proven IS another technique of scammers. And making such a claim is an obvious prelude to a move by governmental people, who believe "their brains ARE capable of processing it", to go ahead and impose wealth-transferring, power-grabbing, population-impoverishing solutions, "for their own good", whether the populations want to be reduced to serfdom (rather than be killed by what they perceive as the allegedly falling sky) or not.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just because this big rock we're on can survive doesn't mean we will. Climate Change will happen. We'll adapt or die. The rock will keep spinning. So... the "its happened before" argument is irrelevant... we know we've caused the recent one by increasing CO2 by 40% and measured its affects.
What's hard to predict - and trust - are other people's future projections. We don't trust politicians. Too many scientists have too many private grants (indirect bribes). TV doesn't have anything factual on it any more. The only thing we can really trust - and affect - is what's right in front of us.
On the case of the article most humans have difficulty planning to the next pay cheque let alone their retirement and they don't give a crap what happens to the future after they die they are only self interested. So its not that they don't see threats they are either desensitised or simply don't care due to self interest and trying to survive to the next day
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
we are profoundly foolish to think that our impact has been significant - it has not.
Worldwide fossil fuel usage, which is has grown approximately 44% in the last decade, is more than 41 million tons per day. Human dry biomass is only about 100 billion tons. In other words, if all humans were dried out to be burned as fuel, we would supply our own energy needs for about 2.5 days (if we paradoxically had energy needs after being dried out to use as fuel). Total annual production of plant and animal biomass is estimated at about 275 million tons per day. At the rate fossil fuel use is increasing we could be at that point of burning more fossil fuel than that in just over 50 years. That seems like naive curve fitting, except that it seems to work perfectly well historically and we have no reason to believe that increasing population and industrialization won't lead us to that point. Any events that would prevent that from happening other than a wholesale switch to alternative sources would pretty much have to be horrible tragedies.
The amount of oxygen required for burning fossil fuels varies from as little as twice the mass in oxygen required for methane to as much as 14 times the mass. Let's just settle on 4 times the mass. So, we can say that the fossil fuel burned in a day at present uses about 164 Million tons of oxygen per day. There are about 1 quadrillion tons of oxygen in the atmosphere. So at just the present rate, that's 0.0000164% of the oxygen in the atmosphere a day, or .00596% a year, or .0596 a decade or .1197% over twenty years, or .2993% over fifty years. Except that, if usage does continue to grow at current rates, in fifty years, the usage rate will be high enough that it would be 2% of the atmosphere over the next fifty years after that if usage levels remain steady.
Of course, the oxygen in the atmosphere isn't static. It's constantly being replenished. About 1.37 billion tons of it is made every day on Earth. So, using 164 million tons of it a day for combusting fossil fuels, we're only using 11.9% of daily production. Not a problem! And if we actually reach that 50 year projection, we'll only be using 80% of the oxygen produced in a day (at least at current levels, the vastly increased C02 would increase oxygen production from plants a little, but wouldn't affect the total that much). Surely Not a problem. It's not over 100% after all. Even then, we wouldn't actually start dying en masse of asphyxiation for a good 1000 years or more, so who really cares, right?!
Ok. After that little exercise, I feel a lot better and I have to concede to you that someone would have to be a truly profound fool... in fact, a total moron, to think that we couldn't, uh, I mean could, have any impact on the atmosphere.