A Flatland View of The Human Future

In an article published last year in Scientific American, Caleb Sharf, the director of Columbia University's Astrobiology Center, talks about The Unstoppable Extinction And Fermi’s Paradox.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the evidence that we are currently within a period of mass extinction, the kind of event that will show up in the fossil record a few million years from now as a clear discontinuity, a radical change in the diversity of life on the planet. This Holocene extinction (or sixth extinction) seems to have started around 10,000 years ago with the disappearance of mammalian megafauna, and appears to be continuing - or restarting - in modern times, with theoretical estimates of as many as 140,000 species currently going extinct per year.

That this all coincides with the 'rise' of modern humans and our measurable impact on the planet - from rapid climate change, to our severe re-sculpting of the physical, chemical, and biological structure of the planetary surface - strongly suggests that this extinction event is causally related to our activities.

It's sobering, guilt inducing, and rather depressing. But it also brings into focus some rather profound questions about the nature of the survival of a species, and the notion of preserving or maintaining the 'natural' status quo...

So far, so good! Unfortunately...

... Caleb continues like this.

In particular, when we talk about the long-term future of humans the discussion tends to branch into two directions (neither of which are necessarily actually separate).

One is the 'stewardship' route. Here the emphasis is on how we should learn to become good stewards of the planet, not just for our own survival, but also for a rather nebulous greater cause; not upsetting the natural cart, allowing the Earth to maintain a more stable balance in terms of climate and biodiversity. A balance perhaps more representative of the long-term state of the environment without a short-term perturbation like ourselves.

The second route doesn't necessarily obviate the need for home stewardship, but it looks beyond the Earth.

One of our biggest talents, and one of our biggest problems as a species, is that we thrive on expansion. We're resource and space hungry. But instead of trying to curtail ourselves, we have the option of spreading beyond, to the vast and untapped wealth of the solar system. Call it the ultimate manifest destiny if you will, except that it also offers the possibility of preserving our homeworld by altering the fundamental equation of our existence, by outsourcing many of our material needs.

Those are the options, Caleb? Good stewardship or leaving the Earth?

What about Door #3? What about the unfortunately fact that Homo sapiens is hell-bent on destroying the biosphere, and in so doing, taking themselves down in the process?

Caleb does say something about this possibility ... sort of.

Of course, this cosmic pathway could go wrong. We could start altering the environmental state of Mars and mess that up. Or, without care, we could risk destabilizing our global economy and balance of power. After all, we seem to be barely capable of managing 196 recognized countries, adding more offworld states is unlikely to help.

But on a grand scale, for the ultimate preservation of the species, the solar system may be our savior. There's only one surefire way to avoid extinction by asteroid impacts or supervolcanoes, or sheer overcrowding. Put some of us somewhere else.

We might carelessly "risk" destabilizing the global economy and the balance of power. And that's it?

Caleb, you started off with the Holocene (Sixth) Extinction. How did you get from a human-caused mass extinction to "destabilizing the global economy" in only five paragraphs?

Let me show you something. These graphics are from a recent study of climate change economics called Energy Darwinism II — Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn’t Have to Cost the Earth.

The keen observer will notice that the first graphic predicts that global GDP in the year 2060 will be:

$260,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

Currently, global GDP measures $80,000,000,000,000 (trillions).

The second graphic indicates that if the Earth's surface temperature is on average 4.5°C warmer in 2060, the change in global GDP, assuming a 0% discount rate, will be:

-$72,000,000,000,000 (trillions)

Subtracting one from the other, global GDP will be still be $188,000,000,000,000 when the Earth will be effectively uninhabitable by big-brained bipedal hominids like us.

In this case, where there is 4.5°C of warming by 2060, there are two possible outcomes. Homo sapiens will be totally extinct (unlikely) or human populations will be very greatly reduced, or well down that road (very, very likely). 

Caleb Sharf is blind to any scenario in which one of those two possibilities occurs.

And so my question is this:

Is it possible that an "intelligent" species so blind to its own nature and the consequences of its actions will not destroy itself eventually?

I think you know the answer.

Read the rest of Caleb's article to see how his blindness relates to Fermi's Paradox. If you don't know what Fermi's Paradox is, review these DOTE essays/posts.

Are We Alone In The Milky Way?

Is There Intelligent Life In The Universe?

We Don't See Sentient Extraterrestrials Because They Don't Exist (or they're very rare)

Comments

[Jim]

Also, the $260 trillion GDP by 2060 would have to represent a slowdown in current world GDP growth. Besides the recession, and ignoring faulty data and possible padding, world GDP has grown at 3-4% for longer than the last 15 years. That puts us at about $160 trillion by 2035, $320 trillion by 2055, and somewhere around $400 trillion by 2060 if the current rates kept going.

We'd have to not just 'decouple' carbon use from GDP growth at that pace, we'd have to sever it. Pure fantasy. (Or, we could go to Mars!)

By the way: "We could start altering the environmental state of Mars and mess that up." What environmental state? It's a rock with no biosphere at all! Clueless.