(no subject)

[fajrdrako]

The human race's prospects of survival were considerably better when we were defenceless against tigers than they are today when we have become defenceless against ourselves. - Arnold Toynbee

Comments

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

tigers are not mass killers.
I do believe we (=humanity) have been more than once threatened with extinction by a mass killer. Not killers with intention but ice ages and climate changes due to vulcanic actvity. When there are few humans around, and especially if they life in small communities, than there is a distinct risc that such events bring human population below the survival treshold.
How big the chances are that we will kill ourselfs, I find it hard to say. It could be in a bang (atomic warfare) or slowly (by polution). In the latter case, I have my doubts whether it will lead to extinction. Especially not if it is a slow process.
BTW I can't say I would mind if we would become extinct.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

tigers are not mass killers.

I think Toynbee was using it as a metaphor for man vs. nature, particularly invividual man against individual bits of nature. Not mass threats to humanity, but symptomatic of mankind's fears.

there is a distinct risc that such events bring human population below the survival treshold.

In the past (including historical times) that has led to mass movements of populations. We don't seem to have places left to move to, now there are so many of us.

I don't worry about extinction particularly - I'm more worried about individual suffering in the short term. I also believe that every age has its monsters that we believe may doom us - plague, ices ages, famine, the Hand of God, pollution, warmongers, alien invasion, global warming, sea monsters - we're no slouches when it comes to envisioning threats to our survival. So far we've always muddled through. I think we have more resources than we have ever had to survive - since we have a greater understanding of the environment, and the interactions of one thing with another. This doesn't mean we will survive, but it means we can.

I think the place Toynbee is misleading is in believing that we ever had defenses against ourselves. We never did. This is actually an optimistic thought. We survived ourselves tens of thousands of years ago; we can do so again.

[wijsgeer.livejournal.com]

I agree about being more worried about individual suffering than mass extinction.
About no more places to move to, when I said I didn't think pollution would lead to extinction, certainly not if it was slow enough. I was certainly thinking that there is a big chance of mass death along the way (I think more due to sealevel rise and desertification and other climate change issues than true pollution) but that will not end the species.
But yeah, so many species die out (most before we evolved BTW) so why not us.

A friend answered 'because no one will read the books or hear the music' and I have no arguments against that.

What made you quote Toynbee?

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I came across the Toynbee quote and found it interestingly thought-provoking. I am interested in theories of history, and the way human psychology interacts with forces of nature, sociology, and chance to create evolution - by hwich I mean cultural as well as biological evolution.

I don't have all the answers, but I like to ask the questions.

I see no objective reason our species should not die out - but there are plenty of subjective reasons, books and music among them, and I don't think these things are trivial. Our love of our own existence as a species is a force of reality as much as anything to the contrary. Sometimes I think of our existence as a big intelligence test - to pass it is to survive, depending on how inventive we can be. And part of the test is to figure out what the test actually is, and how to deal with it. Can we think our way through global warming, clashing religions, pollution, and a shrinking ozone layer? I'd like to think so, but new threats will take their place. Some of the threats are always illusory, or problems which solve themselves - but facing them is always scary. The future is always a step into the unknown. Can we see it as an adventure, and surmount the obstacles with humour, courage, and dignity?

I'd say our success rate to date is about 50-50.