by BigTex » Fri 04 Sep 2009, 15:48:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', 'W')hatever comes out on the other side of this ecological bottle neck, you better believe they will be intelligent and have large brains.
That's certainly possible, but it's also possible that what will come out of this will be the cockroaches and the rats.
Overall, I'm not impressed with our ability to respond to challenges to our survival as a species when the solution would require a commitment spanning more than one generation.
I agree that being in a condition of overshoot is a type of victory in itself from a survival perspective--it suggests a very high level of success given a certain set of ecological conditions. The problem, of course, is that the process of overshoot ensures that those favorable ecological conditions will be temporary.
The whole thing is deeply counterintuitive because it asks people to see what they have traditionally viewed as success (i.e., conquering nature) as failure (i.e., maybe conqering nature isn't such a great idea).
I sometimes find comfort in reminding myself that I am not responsible for all of humanity or for the welfare of future generations. As Catton has said, it doesn't make people bad or humanity bad simply because we have done what every other successful life form that ever existed has done--grow our population and make use of available resources. That's sort of where the big brain critique comes in, though. In our case, our supreme cognitive ability has allowed us to express overshoot on a massive scale, which may express itself in an equally massive reversion on the other side of the spike.
It's all a little overwhelming at times. It's the big brain that allows one to perceive the potential design flaws in our particular big brain configuration, which is just an odd sort of thing to try to fully grasp (or to act upon).
Maybe the question, in the end, is this: to whom (if anyone) do I owe an ecological duty? Clearly I owe one to myself, because I need a place to live while I am alive. I probably owe a duty to my friends and family, because I care about them having a place to live as well. Beyond that, the duty begins to weaken as one moves from family, to tribe, to nation, to current members of species globally, to future members of species, to current non-species creatures, to future non-species creatures (you can re-order this list to suit your own situation).
The point is that the whole question of the degree of duty and to whom it is owed when talking about ecological questions is potentially hard to answer. Maybe that's part of the reason that historically people don't seem to have given a lot of thought to the idea that there would be an ending point to mankind's ability to grow its population and increase its scale of living, though the existence of such limits in a finite world is obvious.
OTOH, perhaps this matter has actually been addressed in great detail through mythology and the end of the world stories that pop up in virtually all cultures, which may be subconscious expressions of the basic insight that there is an endgame to humanity's adventures.
I think what many cultures may have gotten wrong is that it's not the world that will end, it will be civilized humanity's role in it that will end. The world will still be here, just like it was after the dinosaurs exited the scene.