Don't ants and termites have technoculture? Does our being "the/a global brain" imply that we destroy our lifebase and deplete our renewable and nonrenewable ressources? Doesn't our failure to address our most basic problems, like overusage, pollution, urban sprawl and agricultural soil loss, testify to our "brainlessness" and lack of insightful coordination, in spite of our new "global nervous system", the internet? It appears to me that your analogies are spectacularly anthropocentric and ignorant of even the most obvious. Richard Heinberg compares our collective global intelligence with that of a population of bacteria in a petri dish, its population collapsing after its food/energy base is depleted. Our food/energy bases now are soil and oil, and we are rapidly depleting both of them, incurring increasing environmental dammages. www.albartlett.org
I'm torn on that, but either way they don't have ratcheting technoculture, which is what makes us different from all other species. The Ratchet has not been demonstrated in any species (other than one study suggesting that New Caledonian crows have ratcheting culture). But even in that case their ratcheting culture would be very primitive (i.e., not very complex - 3-4 "steps"). No, quite the opposite. If we become a true global brain it will likely be a civilization based on solar (IMO). These are major problems that stem from the development of the industrial revolution. They are major concerns and will be critical to overcome in the 21st century. The technologies to accomplish this either A) already exist, or B) are in our not-to-distant future. The Internet will play a key mediating/communication role in allowing us to dynamically solve problems on a global scale. Remember the Internet is new and still evolving rapidly. We will become far better coordinating and cooperating globally in the 21st century (when compared to any other century, including the 20th). You would have to give me specific examples and tell me why they are anthropocentric. Most people would say the opposite, considering I believe humanity is the process of becoming a different higher intelligence (post-humans/transhumans). His comparison would make sense if we controlled for memes. Global humanity and bacteria share the same system pattern; however they differ in their primary information transfer mechanism. The reproduction and complexification of our "memesphere" or "memnome" will allow is to stabilize a global civilization because they are more flexible and can evolve to solve problems without replacing the agents themselves (i.e., humans or post-humans). We are obviously in the process of transferring to renewable energy sources. Our success as a global civilization depends on this happening - I believe we will successfully do this - if you disagree that's fine - but you are part of the problem if you aren't helping solve it.Don't ants and termites have technoculture?
Does our being "the/a global brain" imply that we destroy our lifebase and deplete our renewable and nonrenewable ressources?
Doesn't our failure to address our most basic problems, like overusage, pollution, urban sprawl and agricultural soil loss, testify to our "brainlessness" and lack of insightful coordination, in spite of our new "global nervous system", the internet?
It appears to me that your analogies are spectacularly anthropocentric
Richard Heinberg compares our collective global intelligence with that of a population of bacteria in a petri dish, its population collapsing after its food/energy base is depleted.
Our food/energy bases now are soil and oil, and we are rapidly depleting both of them, incurring increasing environmental dammages.
I'm trying to "help solving the problem" since decades. I keep writing to officials and I was sacked by www.sdc.ch for trying to increase transparency and end mismanagement, and by www.mzsg.ch for pestering the boss with "project proposals to save the world": "Milking problems" often is more profitable than solving them, and helping firms to do the wrong thing right and well pays better than telling them to do the right thing - especially when what is right is not yet known. But often it is, and we don't do it anyway: We know since 60 years that rational land usage is the first principle of building and agriculture, yet we are building more single family hoes than ever and are loosing enormous amounts of soil annually due ti destructive agricultural practices - supported by WWF through its RSPO and RTRS, just to name one of the most appalling examples of greenwash and sustainability illusionism. Whatever our memes are, we are destroying our life base already since tenthousands of years: Within 1'000 years of human appearance of Australia and the Americas 2/3 of these continent's megafauna disappeared (quaternary extinctions). I haven't quiet understood what you imply by "ratchet" but I wonder if it even matters. I don't mean to be an advocate of doom, it just looks as if we are donutting ourselves, taking down a large part of the planet's remaining megafauna with us. There is no substitute to oil in terms of EROEI and ease of handling. Environmental impacts of oil production are massively increasing, and in our efforts to substitute oil we are massively increasing our already massive overconsumption of nature. Hydrogen as power source would require an infrastructure we cannot afford with fossil fuels running out. Unless we find effective harmless ways of wireless electrical power transmission the environmental cost of electric drives, relying on batteries, might outweigh the fossil. That we are destroying our lifebase seems governed by laws of nature: Private short term interests (predatory exploitation) normally prevail over long term common interests (sustainable cultivation), as the profits the former generate can be used to overcome the latter. It doesn't look good. What do you propose to actually concretely make a real and effective impact?
I understand your frustration, the problems of our time are larger in scale than ever before. And there are an infinite number of examples where corporate interests and failure to take prudent risks towards sustainable energy production lead to ecological destruction. However, the push towards renewable energies is well under way. Many project that solar will be able to shoulder the majority of nation states energy burden before 2040. Obviously it would be ideal if it happened sooner than that, but it may be soon enough to prevent environmental collapse on a massive scale. I'm well aware of this, and have written about it extensively. Humans completely transformed the biosphere by restructuring it around ourselves. Throughout our evolutionary history we always eliminated the other megafauna that would have been the top competitors for energy. In the 21st century we should be trying our best to reverse the extinction trends that have followed from this epoch. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy but it seems like we will make good progress with this between now and 2100. The Ratchet is cumulative culture. Our species has the ability to stabilize cultural complexity and build upon it. All of human life is dedicated to this. For example, I've spent the past 6-7 years studying evolution (trying my best to acquire all of the human knowledge we have about the process)... with the hopes of now contributing to the literature and expanding our knowledge even further about human evolution. We all do this in our own way, whether it is with the environment, physics, government, business, you name it. That is The Ratchet in action. Our ability to produce complex technoculture that couldn't possibly have been produced in one lifetime... unless we were standing on the shoulders of billions of other intelligent agents who preceded us.Within 1'000 years of human appearance of Australia and the Americas 2/3 of these continent's megafauna disappeared (quaternary extinctions).
I haven't quiet understood what you imply by "ratchet" but I wonder if it even matters.
I much appreciate your thoughts and explanations, but they make me think of the Swiss Federal Councillor Willi Ritschard who said that the meeting of two optimists more often than not is cause for pessimism, as optimists typically tend to overlook the problem. I tend to think that my friend Helmut Lubbers (www.ecoglobe.ch) and Albert Bartlett (www.albartlett.org) share a realistic outlook. Yet we should all do our best to avert collapse. Nature, however, is cataclysmic, catastrophic, and humanity will be hit hard again sooner or later, be it as a consequence of shortsightedness or by events entirely outside our control, or both, most likely. Our ability to ecologically integrate economy and society has to evolve massively and quickly: How do you suggest we do that and what is your "action plan to save the world"?