The Environment - Is It Too Late?

yup..
i just think that gaia has a back up plan in store which is the volcanoes. when she really gets fed up with us humans she's just gonna let rip and cleans herself with apocolyptic explosions.
i'm not worried about the world.. she will be fine.. i'm more worried about human civilisation;
what will it take to make people change their way of life so that we can secure a future for our children.

 

Yes, that was an interesting article you posted Andy... it suggests volcanic activity may increase because of shifting pressures on the Earth's crust due to the melting of glaciers and the huge shifts in weight that will cause. In areas already prone to volcanic eruptions this might tip the balance. An interesting theory

 

To be honest I'd be more worried about sea levels rising by 20 feet That will directly affect billions of people ...

 

yup that would do it.. but the vocanoes is so gaia can fix herself.. the water is just her rinsing the lice from her hair.

 

James Lovelock has a lot to answer for! He did revise Gaia in the 80s to get rid of the wholly unscientific notion of intentionality and purpose

 

yes i have read the revenge of gaia.. and if my previous link is to be believed then the threat from volcanoes is not unscientific, and part of a much larger self regulatory system.

 

Yes but it's the teleological arguments which are often used when referencing Gaia which are completely unscientific... the idea that the world is intentionally or consciously acting in a certain way for a purpose because of certain things. What we are left with when we get rid of that is just that ecosystems and biospheres often balance themselves into a state of stasis as a result of purposeless, blind and random feedback systems

 

I too would be hesitant to look for a purpose behind the laws of physics and behind blind chance. That people do is up to them I suppose, a matter of belief, but it's not for me. Instead we should try to understand the way things work, why they work in such a way and how we are preventing them from working properly or, conversely, how we can interact with them to affect a positive outcome....

 

thats a nice reductionalist view of the world, leaves us as just dead souls floating on a rock in the infinate void of space... which is true.. but there is more... as chaos and quantum theory starts to blur the boundries between science and spirituality.. we are once again aloud to look beyond the tangible universe for answers...
we are all part of the universal conciousness.. it knows where its going, even if its taking a strangled route to get there. and as part of it, we are as integral to it as every tree and fish and rock. by beleiving that the earth there fore is also part of this and us part of the earth it helps us to have an empathy for it... and with the power of positive thought producing positive actions maybe we can convince the gaian part of the universal conciousness that we're sorry and maybe she'll believe us...

because unfortunate as it is... knowing we're fuck and doing something about it is two very different things. and science says we're fuck.. but really has nothing more to say.

 

The positive action needed to avert environmental catastrophe has to come from science too ... alternative technologies and more efficient uses of fuel sources are key to the changes that need to be made. Science doesnt actually say anything, its just a tool we use to understand how things work and to make changes. We can apply it any way we want

As for the universal consciousness stuff, thats fair enough if you want to be all fluffy, mystical and unscientific, personally that doesnt appeal to me at all, and if anything all that kind of stuff and the language of the Gaia theory gets in the way of whats really needed - which is urgent, practical action now!

 

Isn't the endpoint of arguing the gaia perspective the view that "this is how things are, this is what the world 'wants', and we are powerless to make any changes"? I've seen an interview with Lovelock where he seems to say just that.

Whereas the rationalist or the scientist might say "we can make changes x, y and z which will prevent billions of people suffering"?

In which case I know which path I would choose

 

sure science says we can change here here and here.. but until people develope an empathy with the earth and their environment, rather than struggling against it.. then they are likely to continue doing the things that are kiiling us and the planet.

knowing how to change is different to actually caring that we should.

 

science gives us wind power... lack of empathy gives us " dont want a wind farm there... it looks ugly"

 

Science can, however, give us pragmatism. I might not call the Earth 'mother' but I know it's the only rock that we are aware of that supports life, and it's the only home we've got. Without it we're in a lot of trouble, and so we must act practically to preserve it. From self-centred pragmatism can emerge an understanding and empathy, first with other humans, then other forms of life on the planet that share our situation. Understanding of others develops from an understanding of oneself....

 

Interesting debate by the way, I love science/vs faith debates. Hope we're not offending your views

 

Very true.

I care because I've taken the time to educate myself on the issues, if more people were made aware of the science and what we can do about it I think more people would care. The issues are pretty complex and abstruse, though, so maybe dumbing it down to "mother earth wants to get her revenge on naughty humans" is at least something easily understood and it works as a metaphor if nothing else. My main objection to that is that it leads away from an actual understanding of the actual issues of what's actually going to happen, and I have such a belief in the primacy of knowledge above all else that I really disapprove of childish oversimplifications...

 

if i seem to have dumbed it down to mother nature killing pesky humans.. then that was not my intention... i realise the issues involved are much more complex.. but to further the discussion we should probably hear from you what you believe defines conciousness.. and then we can proceed.

 

What defines consciousness? I don't really see what that has to do with an understanding of climate change or the societal changes that need to be made to avert it! Is that the problem? I see it as a practical problem with practical solutions, not really as a mystical or cosmic or spiritual matter at all...

 

Maybe a subject for another thread?

 

Definitely a good idea for another thread, would be interested to continue this debate