From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re:  Destruction of Life?
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:43:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct27.154358.18343@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:

>>}    Anyway, I will repeat my theory to those who didn't catch the essence. It is
>>}a highly amusable theory which I have derived lots of pleasure from:
>>}    Psychologically the hypothesis: "Man will never destroy life on the earth" 
>>}is highly counterintuitive because man has always overestimated his abilities to 
>>
>>According to whose intuition?
>>
>Mass intuition. Things which is inherent in the human nature. Almost
>instincts. 

I think that you might have misunderstood me, but I'm not even sure.
You said that your hypothesis is "counterintuitive".  As I tried to
make clear in the post to which you were responding, it is *not*
counter to my intuition, nor (I suspect) to that of a lot of other
people.  However, I disagree with the rationale that you use to back
up your "theory", because it seems unnecessary at best, and downright
wrong at worst...

>> I agree that it is extremely unlikely that we will destroy all
>>life, but not because there are people trying to prevent us from doing
>>so. 
>I didn't say that. Generally, everyone will try to prevent everyone from doing
>so. It is as I mentioned, inherent in the human nature. But suspicious as we are
>we are precautious. It is obvious that to give one man control over nuclear
>weapons is risky. Therefore there is a gigantic security system
>connected to it.

The only thing I can see that resembles a distinction between what you
wrote and what I wrote (other than your use of "everyone" in place of
"people") is that you're talking specifically about people setting up
obstacles that would make it difficult for one person operating alone
to perform an act.  I was speaking more generally about obstacles
being put in place.  If anything, I think the way that I wrote it is
more easily defensible than the position you're espousing here.
However, I still think the point is moot.

>No single man today is able to start a nuclear war on own desire. Why not?
>Because we are afraid that it might happen. And as I said, therefore it won't
>because we are precautious. In general I would say that with technology follows
>the morals on how to handle it.

I *highly* recommend that you read Michael Crichton's novel _Jurassic
Park_.  I don't recommend that you wait for the movie, because
although I'm sure it will be quite entertaining, the point at issue
isn't likely to be hit quite as strongly as it is in the book.  I
suspect you'll really like the book because it champions the
importance of non-linear systems and chaotic dynamics.  But I
digress...

Do you really think that we developed the morality to handle nuclear
weapons at the same time that we developed them?  Do you really think
that the million people that died in and around Hiroshima in August of
1945 would agree with you?

>>However, it is easy to foresee us changing the earth to
>>the extent that we'll wipe ourselves out, and easier to see us
>>changing the earth to the extent that giant pandas, blue whales,
>>spotted owls, chimpanzees, golden frogs, etc. etc.  are wiped out.
>>I'm actually quite partial to golden frogs, and I'd like them to be
>>around for at least the rest of my life.
>
>The muman race is a quite new arrival on the evolutionary scene and a state of
>equilibrium has not yet been reached. 

What, pray tell, makes you think that now is somehow more special than
any other time in terms of "equilibrium"?  Please define what sort of
"equilibrium" you're referring to as you answer the question.  This
sounds like your other thermodynamic gibberish to me at the moment.

>We have probably caused the extinction

"Probably"?  Is there anything that you're more certain of than the
fact that humans have caused extinctions?

>of loads of species and more is probably yet to come. And that will surely settle
>after a while.
>But to extrapolate this to extinction of the human race is perhaps a bit rushed. 
>It is quite normal that some species goes extinct because other, more successful
>species evolve. 

You apparently haven't picked up David Raup's _Extinction Bad Genes or
Bad Luck?_ yet.  It's not necessary that species get extincted by the
evolution of other species.  In fact I'd guess it's not even likely
that this is the probable mechanism of most extinctions.

>Sure, some species goes extinct because they are too specialized. 
>But this is an external reason. 

Excuse me?  If "becoming too specialized" is "an external reason",
then what to you is an internal one?

>They do not cause their own destruction, I
>pressume. They simply are not able to adapt when the environment in which they
>thrive, changes.

You seem to be missing a major point.  We are currently changing the
global environment in a variety of ways.  It is not at all hard to
imagine that we will not be able to adapt to some of the changes that
we are creating. 

Going back to "In general I would say that with technology follows
the morals on how to handle it." I feel compelled to ask if morals
helped us to recognize the link between chloroflourocarbons and ozone
depletion.  How many tons of CFCs did we release before we realized
there was a problem?  What other problems might we currently be
creating without anybody yet realizing it?

>During the history of life no species have destroyed all life. Why should humans
>be any exception? 

Try to keep the discussions straight.  You said that we can't destroy
all life.  I agree, but for completely different reasons.  

As evidence that your reasons are correct, you pointed to the
environmentalist movement.  I replied that people don't want to
preserve the environment because they fear the destruction of all
life--rather they fear the destruction of particular subsets (be they
geographically or biologically defined).  You also claimed that we
can't destroy ourselves because of the second law of thermodynamics.
I think that claim is vacuous, and would like to see you draw a
connection between thermo and our self destruction.

Finally, the better question to ask would have been 'during the
history of life no species has destroyed itself (so far as we know)
[though I might quibble with the over-specialization case].  Why
should humans be any exception?'  To that I'd answer that we have some
very unique abilities.  So far as we know, no other animal has learned
how to refine natural resources and combine them into machines that
can be used to manipulate and move around the environment in the ways
that we have and do.  No other species has created general purpose computers
that allow them to communicate with individuals they've never actually
encountered.  What makes you think humans aren't so special?

>Onar.

Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)