Credit: iStockphoto
Almost on a daily basis we hear dire warnings about the future consequences of climate change, whether it be rising sea levels, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, or decreasing availability of food and water.
Such changes are a serious threat to humanity and place our civilisation at risk. So why aren't we taking action? I'm going to explore the nexus between our failure to tackle climate change and our genetic and cultural heritage.
Our behaviour is a product of the interplay between instinct or 'gut feeling', cultural, religious and political beliefs, and rational thought. We may understand the issues surrounding climate change in a rational sense, but I believe our instincts and culture are pulling us in the opposite direction, contributing to a sense of paralysis.
Our instincts were shaped by natural selection in our distant past, which favoured attributes that now put civilisation at risk. Most of our evolutionary history occurred before the advent of man, and 99% of mankind's evolution occurred while we were still hunters and gatherers.
Sustainability was rarely an issue; if resources became depleted in one area, tribes could often move to new areas or expand their home range. In situations where this was impossible, the genes that favoured aggression and acquisitiveness would have been beneficial.
Competitiveness and materialism may also have been selected as male attributes since they would have contributed to reproductive success in a society that valued males with influence and wealth.
As a consequence of this heritage, our instincts are to populate, to be competitive, acquisitive and to use resources with little thought for the future.
With the advent of farming and civilisation, these traits led to overuse of resources and environmental degradation. The results led to the demise of many civilisations, as detailed by Jared Diamond in his book Collapse. Since the industrial revolution the problems have been compounded by rising carbon emissions and now threaten modern civilisation.
Of course, human evolution also resulted in the ability to use language and to imitate and to develop cultural traditions. However there is a flipside to our tendency to respond to cultural beliefs and ideas. Firstly, many of these beliefs arose when sustainability was not an issue, and secondly, we are susceptible to negative cultural influences, including some aspects of politics, religion, consumerism and advertising.
Many of these maladaptive cultural beliefs reinforce genetic traits that are inappropriate with respect to long-term sustainability. Examples include the desire of many people to have large families and to achieve an excessively high standard of living, and the practice of living in the present without due consideration for the future.
So both our genetic instincts and cultural beliefs may work against our long-term interests and the values we need in a world of finite resources and finite capacity to absorb pollution.
Genetic and cultural evolution, progressing hand-in-hand, resulted in the evolution of modern man with an increased capacity for reasoning. However, the ability of individuals to reason will depend not only upon their intelligence, but also upon opportunity, education and the degree to which they are influenced by their heritage.
The question assumes too much
The question assumes that we already have all the necessary answers to pose the question to begin with. It puts us in a position to accept, without question, that current evolutionary theory is indeed scientific fact. From there, it maneuvers us (in this prepositional state) to answer another question based solely on theory: global warming. Finally, we are offered three choices in which to reply, each one assuming the previous two theories to be scientific fact.
In the clear and easy, that was a loaded question.
...
The horror
Visotor 29
Your pontificating and needless muddying of the waters cause me to suspect that you serve on many committees and like the sound of your own voice. When offered a medical treatment do you grill the doctor on whether any aspects of the treatment are based evolutionary biology? Which part of climate change do you find offensive?
Response to "visitor" comment:
I am sorry to tell you that both evolution and global warming have been proven an overwhelming amount of times through objective studies and counter-studies. Over 95% of scientists accept evolution, and over 90% accept global warming.
Just in case you didn't know -- the earth is round, the sun does not rotate around us, stars are bigger than they look, and snakes no longer talk. These wild theories were also once met with heavy resistance, largely from groups similar to ones you may or may not belong to.
And just to be clear, it is alright to have beliefs, but it is dangerous to mistake facts for the same. I am free to believe that smoking doesn't hurt my lungs -- however, to call the opposing evidence "theory" is fairly irresponsible. I would argue it is just as irresponsible to assume my religion needs me to believe in the health benefits of smoking. Religions, philosophies, and perhaps even politics, should be read metaphorically. If a detail is wrong (which it often is), it is not a diss on the idea. However, I should point out that this last paragraph is simply an opinion of mine. It can not be analyzed and studied the same way the earth, humans, and climate can be.
why do fundies always resort to a bastardised form of nihilism?
if you can make those to assumptions you basically can't say anything about anything. You can't concluded that gravity will continue to hold us to the earth or keep the planets in their elliptical orbits. You can't even reasonably predict that you wont fall off the earth if you walk in one direction long enough.
currently accepted theory is what we base all of our scientific reasoning on.
Stone Age instincts, modern emergency
The primitive traits of aggression and acquisitiveness are still prevalent in modern society. Interestingly, the people who exhibit those traits the most, apart from the extreme cases, are just as likely to "succeed".
D J Wray
...dream on.....
...all of this brain stuff is hard wired, unconscious and largely driven by group/social dynamics...ain't gonna change...wait!?....correction, it likely WILL change...it'll get worse!!.....the basic fallacy is mistaking speaking/verbal ability with conscious control over brain processes!!!???...ain't gonna happen...sorry...prove mi ideas wrong sleeprun@gmail.com
The Desperation of the Alarmists
Why is it that those on the Political Left (including the Warmists and the proponents of government-run healthcare) have to find ways to demean their critics that have nothing to do with the points raised by said critics? Of course, I am not assuming that Helen Camakaris is a Liberal, but her technique in this article is right out of the Leftist playbook.
1) The article assumes that the question of Anthropogenic Climate Change is settled. Perhaps in Ms. Camakaris' mind it is. And yet there are large numbers of knowledgeable scientists who disagree: Robert Felix, Richard Lindzen, the Pilke's, Roy Spencer, Bjorn Lomborg, Tim Ball to name just a few. For the Warmists to be correct, one would have to assume an "ideal" temperature for the Earth, a temperature that Nature seems to avoid at all costs, since the climate is in constant change, regardless of human activity. So what is that "ideal" temperature and why doesn't Nature maintain it?
2) Ms. Camakaris notes in her opening paragraph: "ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS we hear dire warnings about the future consequences of climate change, whether it be rising sea levels, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, or decreasing availability of food and water." Perhaps that is why few people pay much heed to the warnings. The boy has been crying wolf for so long, with no wolf in sight, that no one believes him anymore. Where are the rising sea levels, the famine, the droughts, the extreme weather patterns? They simply do not exist. There's no wolf there, despite the boy's constant cries.
3) Is a warming Earth a bad thing? Historical evidence says no. Remember the Medieval Warm Period? Those were the days that Europe was well fed and Greenland got its name. Oh, and the polar bears survived quite nicely, thank you. One thousand years ago, the climate was much warmer than most of the dire "predictions" of the Warmists, yet mankind had a pretty easy time of it. Why should things be different now?
4) Can someone name for me one species that ever appeared on the Earth that didn't change the environment, cause the extinction of some species, and create new niches for other and newer species to evolve and thrive? Why is Mankind considered an exception to this rule, especially since we occupy such a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface?
5) Can someone name for me one thing that humans do that Nature doesn't do, bigger, badder, and dirtier? Can someone point out to me Nature's throngs of white moon suited do-gooders who clean up after Nature's messes? How can anything Mankind does overwhelm the powers of vulcanism, cosmic rays, solar cycles, and ocean currents? Honestly, you Warmists are just full of yourselves with hubris and guilt: hubris to think that we are that powerful, and guilt for being human!
Doubters of the AGW and ACC dogma that Ms. Camakaris evinces is not due to Stone Age thinking. It is born of a healthy dose of humility and common sense. I've written enough for now. I'm going to put on a sweater since it's so cool here in New York in August!
The boorish deniers again
Climate change deniers like to brand themselves sceptics but we know the truth, don’t we? No matter how much evidence amasses for human-induced climate change, they focus on a chink here and there in the data and seek to amplify these beyond reason – all the time dismissing the extraordinary tapestry of deep evidence indicating otherwise.
It’s delusional behaviour akin to pursuit of religious or political dogma: both are impervious to evidence. They’re the ones spouting propaganda (to quote from the definition) “presenting facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or use of loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.”
It’s a very similar approach taken by creationists, known as arguing for “a God of the gaps” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps).
Creationists and climate change deniers have a lot in common. It's no surprise they travel together.
Wilson da Silva
Editor, COSMOS