The Need for a New View of Humans in the Cosmos

In my last post I finished by saying:

"As is normally the case, the geoengineering "result" is seen as a response to "failure". Instead, let us see the result as a cause for celebration, as the outcome which life has been seeking to attain for a very long time!"


Yesterday an article was published in The New Yorker concerning the question of whether there is a plausible technological fix to global warming. This article reinforces the point I was making; it also contains some material which concerns me:


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter?currentPage=all

Here is an excerpt:

Until recently, climate scientists believed that a six-degree rise, the effects of which would be an undeniable disaster, was unlikely. But new data have changed the minds of many. Late last year, Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, said that current levels of consumption “put the world perfectly on track for a six-degree Celsius rise in temperature. . . . Everybody, even schoolchildren, knows this will have catastrophic implications for all of us.”

The growing realisation of what we have done, what we need to do in the immediate future to rectify this (regulate the temperature of the atmosphere), and that this is a good thing for life on Earth, is the core of the position that I have been outlining in my books since Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in the interests of life was published in 2010.


This excerpt from the New Yorker indicates that we have now entered the state of "growing realisation". This stage will be followed by the second stage: "growing acceptance of the need for the active regulation of the temperature of the atmosphere". The third stage: "the widespread realisation that this is a good thing for life on Earth", seems to be still a long way off. Indeed, in the article, Professor Hugh Hunt (Trinity College, Cambridge) who is working on geoengineering solutions for regulating the temperature of the atmosphere states:

“I don’t know how many times I have said this, but the last thing I would ever want is for the project I have been working on to be implemented...If we have to use these tools, it means something on this planet has gone seriously wrong.’’ 

I understand why people have this view - they are "behind the curve". This view pervades contemporary thought. But this view is wrong. It is unhelpful. It is dangerous. If we don't replace it with a New View of Humans in the Cosmos the consequences for life on Earth, and for the human species, could be tragic.


It is our destiny, our purpose, the very reason we came into existence, to deploy/implement the technologies which Professor Hunt is working on. The deployment of such technologies would mean that everything on this planet has gone seriously right. The time of implementation would be a time of great ecstasy and excitement for life on Earth! Yet those developing the solutions which life so badly needs do so with a sense that what they are doing is a 'last resort', something done out of desperation, something done with a sense of regret! How nice it would be if these people, and the wider public, could appreciate that these people are the saviours of life on Earth. They should be treasured. They should be proud of what they are doing.


Those that are 'way behind the curve' are a danger to the survival of life on Earth. As the New Yorker article reveals:

Last fall, the SPICE team decided to conduct a brief and uncontroversial pilot study. At least they thought it would be uncontroversial. To demonstrate how they would disperse the sulfur dioxide, they had planned to float a balloon over Norfolk, at an altitude of a kilometre, and send a hundred and fifty litres of water into the air through a hose. After the date and time of the test was announced, in the middle of September, more than fifty organizations signed a petition objecting to the experiment, in part because they fear that even to consider engineering the climate would provide politicians with an excuse for avoiding tough decisions on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Opponents of the water test pointed out the many uncertainties in the research (which is precisely why the team wanted to do the experiment). The British government decided to put it off for at least six months.

“The scientist’s focus on tinkering with our entire planetary system is not a dynamic new technological and scientific frontier, but an expression of political despair,” Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, has written.

“When people say we shouldn’t even explore this issue, it scares me,’’ Hunt said.

These "50 organisations" believe they are doing the right thing; they clearly believe that they are acting on behalf of all of the wonderful life forms that have arisen on the Earth. How wrong they are! How deluded! How 'behind the curve'! In the future they will see the error of their ways. I am fairy sure that their actions will not have tragic consequences for the future of life on Earth. But if they could come to embrace the New View of Humans in the Cosmos, then we could move forwards more quickly, and speed is of the essence. The sooner that we can learn how to effectively fulfil our purpose the better.

As, Professor Hunt realises: these organisations, and their views, are "scary".


Let us embrace the New View of Humans in the Cosmos:


Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in the interests of life


An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship between Humans and their Surroundings: Geoengineering, the purpose of life & the nature of the universe


Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth


What Does it Mean to be 'Green'?: Sustainability, Respect & Spirituality

 

The Need for a New View of Humans in the Cosmos

Ahead of the Curve

The debates between those who believe that geoengineering the temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth is an inevitability, and those who believe it can be avoided, seems set to intensify in the near future.

The philosophical view that I have been developing is a broad view which sees the current epoch of technological development as a particular stage in the evolution of a 'successful' life-inhabiting planet. By taking such a broad approach, and by seeing that this stage is actually in the interests of the totality of life on Earth, I have been able to provide a particular perspective on these debates. It is clear to me that life on Earth is currently in a great state of excitement as it brings forth the technological armour which will help to ensure its future existence. To cut straight to the conclusion, this means that the existing geoengineering debates can be seen from a different perspective. The 'inevitability' of geoengineering should not be seen, as it traditionally is, as a 'last resort', as something which is a bad thing, as something which only has to be resorted to because of the damage that humans have done due to their 'selfish ways'. For sure, all this might be true. But there is a bigger picture, and in this picture we can see the cosmic inevitability of the outcome. We can see that this 'inevitable outcome' is a 'good thing' which is in the interests of life.

The geoengineering debate is typically framed in terms of how human societies, and their environmental impacts, could change in the immediate future. Some might assert: "we can change, we can reduce our future impacts to such an extent that geoengineering can be avoided". Those who are pro-geoengineering reply that: "this is exceedingly unlikely". The debate is thus framed around how much human societies can change their future environmental impacts. In my books I have tried to convince the reader that geoengineering the temperature of the atmosphere is the goal which life has striven for for millions and millions of years. From this perspective it is an inevitability. The only question is when people en masse realise that this is so. My different perspective on the debate seems to be 'ahead of the curve'. I am glad to see a gradually increasing realisation of the inevitability. Hopefully, soon there will also be a growing realisation that such an outcome is not something to be undertaken with regret, but that it is an outcome which is a cause of celebration for all life on Earth.

Here are some examples of the growing realisation of the inevitability:


1   In the recently released Tulsa Law Review (Volume 46, Spring 2011, No. 2) Jay Michaelson gives a paper entitled: "Geoengineering and Climate Management: From Marginality to Inevitability".


2    In May 2012 there is to be a conference at the University of Oxford (Institute for Science and Ethics) entitled: "Geoengineering: Science, politics and ethics". This is the conference introduction:

"With the failure of international negotiations, global greenhouse gas emissions are now on a trajectory that is worse than the worst-case scenario. As a result, climate scientists are beginning to contemplate a response to climate change that has previously been taboo, geoengineering—the intentional, enduring, large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate system. This series of six lectures will cover the broad range of issues raised by the emergence of climate engineering as a response to climate change."


As is normally the case, the geoengineering "result" is seen as a response to "failure". Instead, let us see the result as a cause for celebration, as the outcome which life has been seeking to attain for a very long time!

Ahead of the Curve

Some Objections and Misinterpretations

In my last post I provided the outline for my latest book:


Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth


Today I would like to briefly outline some common misinterpretations and objections which have arisen from this outline.


1   How can you claim that the idea that "the rest of the planet's biodiversity can do very well without us" is completely and utterly wrong, given that life did just fine for 4 billion years without us?


My reply to this is as follows:


Consider a human who is presently existing without food (a 'hunger strike'). I assert that "this human cannot exist without food". You say (quite correctly) "this person hasn't eaten for 3 days. You are wrong. They can exist without food." This isn't going to convince me. I'm still going to believe that "this human cannot exist without food". It is a claim not about the past, but about the non-immediate future.



2   Humans are 'obviously' a destroying species. Thousands of species are driven to extinction through human activities each and every day.


My reply to this is as follows:

I don't deny this. However, it is also obvious that that the human species is a 'saving' species; consider all of the conservation efforts which are currently going on around the world. Some human activities are 'destructive activities' and some are 'saviour activities'. The important question is which is the most fundamental activity and which is the most superficial activity.

In other words: Is the human species fundamentally destructive and superficially 'saviour'? Or: Is the human species fundamentally 'saviour' and superficially destructive? I don't deny the 'obvious' destruction; I make the case that it is 'superficial'.


3   Geoengineering is not necessary and is too dangerous.


My reply to this is as follows:

Many people seem to be 'scared' by the term geoengineering. In my early writings I did not use the term. Now I only use the term to refer to one particular type of activity; an activity which seems to be required if the human species and other complex life-forms are to have a 'long-term' future. This activity is simply to take intentional actions to counterbalance past 'unintentional' actions.

In other words, the human species has made massive 'unforeseen' changes to the biogeochemical cycles of the Earth. These changes have lengthy time-lags. The effects of the changes that have been made have barely become manifest yet. For example, a massive amount of the carbon which was previously stored 'safely' under the surface of the Earth has been moved, by humans, to a temporary storage area in the oceanic thermohaline circulation. The time-lags involved mean that almost all of the carbon which has been moved since the start of the industrial revolution has not made its way out of the thermohaline yet. When it does - from between around the years 2050-2150 the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is likely to shoot upwards to a level which is not conducive for the existence of either the human species or other complex life-forms. For more on this see:


An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship between Humans and their Surroundings: Geoengineering, the purpose of life & the nature of the universe


The damage has been done. No 'traditional' responses can stop this from happening. By 'traditional' responses I mean things such as:

Sustainable Development

The 3 R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Sustainable Retreat

Even a complete halt on all human activities would not stop this from happening. What can stop this from happening?

The human species can take intentional actions to counterbalance the unforeseen effects of its previous activities. These activities were to release carbon from its underground storage areas to the thermohaline, and soon to the atmosphere (as it leaves the thermohaline). So, at its simplest, these intentional actions entail taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We are already making good progress at working out how to do this effectively. This ability to offset the changes that we have unintentionally made would mean that when the carbon emerges from the thermohaline that we will be able to maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and thereby control the temperature of the atmosphere. In so doing we would both be saving ourselves and saving a plethora of non-human life-forms.

This is geoengineering. The future of the human species, and these other life-forms, seems to depend on it; it seems to be necessary. And it doesn't seem to me to be particularly 'scary', something we should be terrified about. This is not to say that it a very simple thing to do. However, simply counterbalancing what we have already done is not so 'dangerous' and 'complex' as many make out. Indeed, the danger has already been created; this is the solution. Compared to some of the things that we can do, such as sending technological creations to the planet Mars, such counterbalancing measures seem relatively simple.

Looking further into the future, this ability to regulate the temperature of the atmosphere will enable the human species to save itself, and other complex life-forms, from the main threat to the existence of life on Earth in the future. This threat is the phenomenon of non-human-induced global warming. The solution to the immediate threat of human-induced global warming is also the solution to the longer term threat of non-human-induced global warming (arising from the increasing output of the Sun). However, other more-ingenious technological solutions are likely to be required in the distant future, such as 'blocking' some of the solar input before it is able to enter the Earth's atmosphere.

As we imagine the Earth in the future, a planet on which life is flourishing - thousands of years into the future, hundreds of thousands of years into the future, millions of years into the future - we can see that all of the wonderfully interesting and complex life-forms that exist owe their existence to their technological saviour: the human species.

Some Objections and Misinterpretations

Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

My latest book is now available. Here is the book description:

"There are many ways in which humans can conceptualise the relationship between their species and their surroundings; these 'surroundings' can be taken to be the rest of the life-forms which exist on the Earth, or everything non-human that exists in the universe. In this book I focus on various possible relationships between the human species and the rest of the life-forms that exist (and those that have existed, and those that will exist in the future) on the Earth. Is there no deeply significant and meaningful relationship? Or, is the human species superior in some way? Or, is the human species inferior in some way?

If you are familiar with my previous work you will be aware that I am particularly interested in how the relationship we are exploring relates to the 'environmental crisis'. I have suggested that the human species is superior in some way, and that the environmental crisis/human-induced global warming are positive events which indicate that the human species is fulfilling its role as saviour of life on Earth.

I take this book to be a valuable addition to my previous writings. In it I consider at length the opposing view that the human species is an 'inferior destroyer' of the rest of life on Earth. I also outline the whole range of ways in which it is obvious that technology is in the interests of life on Earth. I also develop the view that the universe is a 'feeling universe' whose movements/evolution is directed by all parts of the universe seeking to move to higher states of feeling; and I explore how this plays out in the day-to-day lives of individual humans as they seek to live more happy and fulfilling lives. Furthermore, I describe how we live in an epoch which can best be described as a 'birthing process'; life on Earth is bringing forth the technological armour which will ensure its future survival. This is a birthing process, which like almost all births, entails a lot of pain and suffering. I suggest that this process will come to an end when the temperature of the atmosphere is being successfully technologically regulated. Finally, I outline the serious environmental problems that we face on the surface of the Earth and urge that we take both technological and non-technological actions to address these problems. If we can successfully do this then we can forge a sustainable and harmonious future for all life on Earth."


Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth


At the start of Chapter Two I quote an all too familiar view:

"The lesson we need to learn urgently is this: we cannot do without the rest of the planet’s biodiversity, but it can do very well without us."

My objective in this book is to make it clear why this contemporarily fashionable view is completely and utterly wrong. This view has been forwarded and propagated by a wide range of intellectuals, academics and environmentalists. I hope that through this book, and the rest of my writings, that these people will come to see where they have gone wrong. Some components of the view that I forward in the book are open to debate. However, that the human species is the saviour of life, rather than the destroyer which the rest of life on Earth "can do very well without", is so obvious that it shouldn't be one of these debatable components.

Saviours or Destroyers: The relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth

The first book critiquing ITHSS

In my last blog entry I quoted some text from the first journal article (that I am aware of) which refers to my work. The first full-length book responding to my work has now appeared. The book is written by Peter Xavier Price who is based at the Sussex Centre for Intellectual History. Price provides an interesting critique of my first book:

Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in the interests of life

His book is entitled:


'Human Specialness': The Historical Dimension & the Historicisation of Humanity


Here is some of what he has to say:


"What is it about humanity that places it far above other life-forms? Why does it often perceive itself to be so unique when the natural world is teeming with biological anomalies? Perhaps even more tentatively, can humans truly claim to be the remedial agents destined to solve the current global environmental crisis? In Neil Paul Cummins' recent book, Is the Human Species Special?, the author sets out to address these very questions by speculating that mankind is indeed special because it represents the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. Employing a radical thesis which bears a remarkable resemblance to the infamously distorted dictum of the Vietnam War (i.e., that of 'destroying the village in order to save it'),  Cummins suggests that mankind has reached a paradoxical stage in its development, whereby its imminent downfall may suddenly prove to be the means of its ultimate redemption. Thus, in this swashbuckling interpretation of the human response to environmental uncertainty, Cummins paints a picture of the human condition as seemingly analogous to the closing act in a grand, teleological narrative of biological endeavour and primordial purpose. 'Could it be', he speculates, 'that in order to fulfil its purpose and be the saviour of planetary life … humanity had to believe that it was potentially the destroyer of planetary life?'. 

From the outset, it is important to note that Cummins' publication is an accomplished work – at once entertaining as it is erudite. The author clearly exhibits the full depth and range of his innate interdisciplinarity as he weaves seemingly disparate strands from his economic, environmental and philosophical background into a tightly argued and well-constructed piece. But what, we may be entitled to ask, are the inherent pitfalls to the bold thesis that he has constructed? Indeed, some may even believe that it falls short at the first hurdle. For how, they might argue, can the wiping out of a whole village constitute any sort of liberation for its inhabitants? Yet, as valid as this criticism may appear to be on the surface, it should be acknowledged that Cummins does in fact cover his tracks in this respect when he proposes that it is the imminence of the environmental disaster (rather than the purported disaster itself) that will ultimately ensure the planet's survival. Therefore, as far-fetched as the overarching argument may appear to be to some, it is simply wrong to accuse the author of outright contradiction.

This essay, then, is in large part an attempt to sketch out a far more convincing alternative to Cummins' arguments; but not, as may be expected, to what is essentially the central argument contained therein. In doing so, it aims to redeploy Cummins' ideas and to use them as a catalyst for further discussion; though, perhaps, in a direction that he mostly neglects or even ignores. At this initial stage, and in the interests of brevity, we may wish to describe this endeavour 'an assessment of the relative absence of history in Cummins' idiosyncratic account of human specialness'. For, appositely, this essay also seeks to highlight the importance of recognising humanity's unique sense of its own historicity – and, by extension, the decisive role that this must surely play in any adjudication of what it is to be an exceptional species. It is hoped, therefore, that we have already gone some way towards accounting for the choice phrases (i.e. 'historical dimension' and 'historicisation of humanity') which both comprise the frontispiece to this work. Nonetheless, what they mean in precise terms should become increasingly transparent as the essay develops. Suffice it to say that, having achieved this, we will then be in a much better position to review the suppositions undergirding Cummins' work."


"Indeed, Cummins' shortcomings are even further compounded by his exploitation of a number of schemes within his thesis which, as we have shown, are demonstrably historical, and yet do not appear to be historically accounted for. For it surely cannot have escaped notice that Mandeville’s early account of wealth-creation, via the paradox of 'unsocial sociability', bears more than a passing resemblance to the author's bio-evolutionary (or even quasi-eschatological) account of the potentially redemptive qualities of 'fallen' man. A similar case may even be inferred by his adoption of decidedly Malthusian concepts, about which, again, there appears to be no acknowledgment at all.  Yet, even more significantly, Cummins' account of what he calls the 'trajectory of human evolution from hunter-gatherer to technological society' —indeed, the very thread upon which his whole argument is based—appears, in truth, to be little more than the eighteenth-century Scottish 'four-stages-theory', albeit in slightly modified form. Had Cummins acknowledged this interesting fact, he might even have reached the conclusion that we may now be entering (or already find ourselves in) a quinquennial, climatical phase of a potential 'five-stage theory', replete with its own conundrums and challenges. Since he does not, it is with deep regret that the author seems so unable to construct a thesis containing greater reference to, and perhaps greater reverence for, crucial historical antecedents. For, if he had done so, it certainly would have been that much more difficult to dispute so many of the arguments contained therein."

I particularly like the suggestion that my work extends the Scottish 'four-stages-theory', and that we are now in a: "quinquennial, climatical phase of a potential 'five-stage theory', replete with its own conundrums and challenges."

The first book critiquing ITHSS

The GreenSpirit Journal Comments on ITHSS

I thought I would share with you some comments which were made concerning my first book:


Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in the interests of life

in a recent edition of the GreenSpirit Journal (2011, 13:3). The book was mentioned in an article entitled "A New Fire, a New Mind" which was written by June Raymond. Here is what she had to say:

"Another thing that left me thinking was a book I read recently which asks some very challenging questions about what we as a species are doing here on this planet. It deals with some very deep and radical questions about our role in creation and in the future of the Earth. The proposal that the author makes is that we were put here so that when the Earth becomes too hot, because of the sun's heating up, we will be able to save our planet through our technology; for example we might be able to create satellites with mirrors which could reflect the sun's heat away...And so to return to the question, 'Does the human species have a purpose? and if so what is it? Is it to rescue life on planet Earth and if so how? The conclusion, that Earth created us to rescue it when the sun becomes too hot, and the present global warming is going to help us get our act together in preparation for this, is in terms of the best modern scientific thinking, not unreasonable."


I consider the view that I outline in ITHSS - that the environmental crisis and human-induced global warming are positive events in the evolving cosmos - to be quite radical. These events are almost always, well ALWAYS (apart from me!), portrayed as negative events. So, I am happy that I have seemingly been able to present the view in a way that makes it seem "not unreasonable" and compatible with "modern scientific thinking". That was my actually my primary objective in writing ITHSS - to make the view seem at least plausible ("not unreasonable") to people. The next stage is to persuade people who are already open to the remote plausibility of the view, that the view is actually the most plausible view.

By the way, if you haven't read ITHSS yet, an ebook/kindle version has just become available on amazon. I am also told that within a week or so people will be able to 'search inside' the book on amazon for free.

The GreenSpirit Journal Comments on ITHSS

Links between my work and the Buddhist theory of atoms

I have just been scanning through some of my favourite books and I rediscovered a passage which is in close accord with one of the more audacious claims I make in :

An Evolutionary Perspective on the Relationship between Humans and their Surroundings: Geoengineering, the purpose of life & the nature of the universe

In the above book I consider how the qualities of humans are different from the qualities of everything in the universe (to put it rather crudely). By 'everything in the universe' I have in mind things such as the basic constituents of the universe ('atoms', 'ultimates', 'BC'... there are many more names we could use to refer to these constituents!) and everything that these constituents form when they come into particular arrangements - things we call 'stars', 'tables', 'oranges', 'seagulls', 'submarines' and 'humans'.

Humans are clearly part of 'everything in the universe' but do they have qualities which 'everything in the universe' does not (to be clear - to talk of everything is to talk of every thing...no thing lacks this thing. This might not actually be clear, for: What is a 'thing'? For now, let us say that 'things' are things such as 'atoms', 'stars', 'tables', 'oranges', 'seagulls', 'submarines' and 'humans'). If humans have quality B*, but 'everything in the universe' also has quality B*, then humans are clearly not distinguished from 'everything in the universe' through B*.

From the Evolutionary Perspective I make the case that humans only have 2 senses which distinguish them from 'everything in the universe'. Compare a human with an atom and consider the 'senses'; what distinguishes human from atom? The human has 2 senses (seeing and hearing). What are generally considered as the other three human senses (touch, taste, smell) are also qualities of the atom. Humans are distinguished from 'everything in the universe' because of the possession of 2 senses.

So, to the passage which I rediscovered ('The Universe in a Single Atom' by the Dalai Lama, 2006, p. 55):

"The early Buddhist theory of atoms, which has not undergone major revision, proposes that matter is constituted by a collection of eight so-called atomic substances: earth, water, fire and air...and form, smell, taste and tactility..an 'atom' is seen as a composite of these eight substances, and on the basis of the aggregation of such composite 'atoms', the existence of the objects in the macroscopic world is explained."

So, according to the Buddhist theory of atoms, it is the case that 'everything in the universe' is smelling/touching/tasting. In terms of the senses, humans are distinguished from 'everything in the universe' through the possession of two senses. This is a hard thing for many to make sense of. Indeed, in the above work the Dalai Lama claims:

"Personally, I have never understood the idea that qualities like smell, taste and tactility are basic constituents of material objects". (p.58)

and, therefore that:

"this aspect of Buddhist thought...must now be modified in light of modern physics' detailed and experimentally verified understanding of the basic constituents of matter in terms of particles such as electrons revolving around a nucleus of protons and neutrons." (pp. 58-9)

I am personally greatly saddened that the Dalai Lama should feel the need to abandon the long-standing Buddhist theory of atoms on the basis of modern physics. For, modern physics has nothing whatsoever to say on the issue of whether or not 'everything in the universe' smells/touches/tastes. Indeed, as I urge, the Evolutionary Perspective (which is partially grounded in modern science) gives us good reason to believe that the Buddhist theory of atoms has been right all along!

Links between my work and the Buddhist theory of atoms