Lovelock: "Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change."

[skeptical cynic]

Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.

It follows a tumultuous few months in which public opinion on efforts to tackle climate change has been undermined by events such as the climate scientists' emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit.

"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

****************

I don't know if we're too stupid, but we certainly seem to be short-sighted and lacking collective will to overcome avarice and nationalism.

Western culture is a bit like the Titanic: Lots of inertia, undersized rudder, and leadership without the best interests of the passengers in mind.

[maxsolomon]

1. when it becomes a crisis, we MIGHT do something

but it has to be a crisis in Murka or it isn't real.

[Incitatus]

3. Right, not too stupid. Too greedy, selfish, and lazy. nt

[wroberts189]

2. That about sums it up... nt/knr

[Jennicut]

4. Lovelock is also a big supporter of nuclear energy and says alternatives will take too long to work

and make a noticeable difference. I am very interested in Lovelock but I wonder how many agree or disagree with his thoughts on nukes.

[bananas]

11. Disagree - see my sigline.

"The full solution to global warming, from Climate Progress"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826

[bananas]

13. Lovelock predicts we will stop global warming

In another Guardian interview:

“What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236251&mesg_id=236281

[abelenkpe]

5. No, more than half are smart and ready to take up the challenge

the rest? Well, they are in the way.

[NeedleCast]

6. This is the Gaia dude who believes most of humanity will die in the next few decades?

[Birthmark]

7. I, too, questioned "stupid."

But after thinking about it, there really isn't a better word or phrase to describe it. You said, "...we certainly seem to be short-sighted and lacking collective will to overcome avarice and nationalism." I agree, but "stupid" sums that up pretty succinctly, no?

Here's what I see happening: The fossil fuel industry will continue it's relentless "FUD" campaign with fair success for two to four decades. After that time, the problems will become undeniable and grow in severity and scope. Droughts, floods, and famines will escalate. It is only when these begin to have moderate to drastic effects that we will take action. (The Arctic ice cap is an abstraction to most people. They just do NOT care if it's there or not.)

Because of our inability to deal with AGW now, future governments worldwide will have to become more oppressive in order to deal with both the natural and societal problems brought on AGW. Unless we're lucky, even their draconian efforts will fail. In 150 years, civilization will be a very local and small affair. Billions will die between now and then.

So, imo, humans won't be wiped out, but civilization is a goner. No more America, no more Russia, no more China, Japan, Brazil, etc. Just scattered small settlements, mostly with subsidence economies. There'll be one or two exceptions, probably, but it will be generations before a real reorganization can begin.

Have a nice day! :)

[Bragi]

16. I think you're timeline is off

I think generalized desperation will set in within the next decade.

[Birthmark]

18. It's possible

But I'm already well out in front of anything supportable directly by the peer-reviewed science. Obviously, I think that indirectly I have adequate support...but that's opinion and not fact.

That said, I don't think your statement is "alarmist." I'm just not comfortable agreeing, based on the science I've seen. I fully recognize that how things play out has no obligation to fall within my comfort level. :)

[skeptical cynic]

19. The "generalized desperation" will probably be a function of

unsustainable resource utilization and unsustainable (unlimited growth-based) economic models.

Consider the numbers: The US is 5% of the world's human population; we consume about 25% of it's resources and produce about that proportion of pollution. Conflict will arise as the developing world begins to use resources and the cost of those resources rise, reducing the standard of living in developed nations. (I think it doesn't take much imagination to see that very scenario operating in its early stages in the U.S. right now.

When the entire human population lives the U.S. lifestyle, which can never happen, it will take the natural resources and waste-sink capacity of five planets (25% of planet's resources/5% of human population = 5 planets' resources for the human population). Assuming we cut resource utilization in half by increasing efficiency or reducing our standard of living, we'll still need more than two planets.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. You can't even talk about overpopulation on DU without people losing their fucking minds.

So yeah, we're done. :shrug:

[skeptical cynic]

10. Lifestyle + Population

US citizens about about 1/20th of the world population, but we produce about 1/4th of the pollution. As the rest of the world develops, and if they develop on the "Western" model, then population and lifestyle will be a destructive combination.

I see a lot of argument about the amount of land available for farming, but no mention of the real limiting resource for food production--water. People frequently point out that much farmland in the US midwest is uncultivated, but fail to mention that the aquifer is so stressed that there are already limits on new wells for irrigation.

Human population is critical. Aversion to discussing it impedes a solution, but does nothing to challenge what can be demonstrated with simple mathematics.

[amborin]

15. +10000

[ladjf]

9. In addition to stupid, add greedy and lazy. nt

[flvegan]

12. Not too stupid, too selfish.

"I don't want to." comes into play far, far too much.

[Karmadillo]

14. If I can't torture & eat animals or drive my car wherever I want, what's the point of survival?

nt

[G_j]

17. "lacking collective will"

that is it, IMO.

[skeptical cynic]

20. "Anthropocene"

is a relatively new term that some in the scientific community are now using. The Holocene ended and the Anthropocene began when humans entered the industrial age and the human population gained the ability to change the face and the future of the planet (e.g. through anthropogenic climate change). It makes sense to me, so I use it.

[greyl]

25. That's a culture-centric term.

Some humans entered the industrial age. Others kept on doing pretty much what humans had been doing for a few million years. Our culture does not represent humanity at large.

[skeptical cynic]

26. I don't think that matters

Regardless of which culture dominates, the dominant culture has created a new situation in which humans impact and shape the environment in a major way. In terms of climate change, for example, it doesn't matter whether the excess greenhouse gases come from a few concentrated sources representing a third of the population, or from diffuse sources representing the entire population. Neither did it matter to whale populations whether whalers represented all of humanity or just parts of it.

The greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts are human-caused (anthropogenic). "Anthro-" has nothing to do with specific cultures, or percentages of the entire population, it just means humans (1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 3/4 or all of them) are affecting the environment.

Put another way, it doesn't matter how many humans entered the industrial age, only that the industrial age is a human endeavor, and that the industrial age triggered the end of the Holocene and the beginning of the Anthropocene.

This debate has an interesting side debate. I have a Republican friend that objects to the use of "Anthropocene" simply on the grounds that the term hasn't been endorsed democratically. I ran this objection past a cultural anthropologist friend at our university museum, who responded, "The public doesn't get to pick and choose scientific terms, scientists do. Neither does the public get to determine what scientific conclusions are acceptable, that is for scientists to decide via peer-reviewed literature and the process of science. Tell your friend that he and his Conservative friends are going to have to confine themselves to forcing creationism into the K-12 curriculum and preventing good science from becoming good policy. Science isn't their turf; it belongs to scientists and educated, open-minded members of the public."

[Odin2005]

21. We are so, so fucked.

Lovelock is lucky he will not live to see the horrors to come.

[MellowDem]

22. Too selfish, not too stupid nt

[Naturalist111]

23. Also smarter than the animals to cause it don't ya think?

;-)

[eShirl]

28. yeah,we're freakin geniuses at causing it

I tells ya

[Subdivisions]

24. Climate change ain't the only thing humans are stupid about. I've posted two

very important developments on the status of world oil production in the past week and got a grand total of 2 responses. The thing is, dealing with that problem would help us deal with climate change. But humans are too goddamned stupid to understand oil is a finite resource. And doing anything to reduce our addiction to oil means a disruption of business-as-usual. People, stupid as they are, will drive right over the oil depletion cliff at full speed rather than give up anything to prevent it.

[skeptical cynic]

27. I see this all the time

I'm an environmental engineer, and I routinely get emails from people complaining about environmentalists locking up the endless oil reserves in North America. Complete fantasy, but not surprising in a country where about half the population believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. If you don't believe in the processes that produce petroleum, how can you understand the limited resource?

Ignorance is the problem. The majority of the population suffers from it, and the PTB benefit from it.

[Subdivisions]

29. Good point, thanks for posting. And, welcome to DU. Your experience is

badly needed here. I hope you will find the time to participate regularly here.

:hi:

PS: Check your inbox.

[tedk_355]

30. yep

[Quantess]

31. Humans are pretty intelligent but not quite smart enough.

I'm sorry to say that I agree with this OP.

[alfredo]

32. Can we adapt fast enough to survive?

I have my doubts.

[Swamp Rat]

33. Welcome to DU!

:hi: Many in 'Western culture' still cling to the Ptolemaic model of the universe.