Discussion about this post

User's avatar
A Frank Ackerman's avatar

I received this comment in email from Elise Cox:

I've been reading "The Uninhabitable Earth" by David Wallace Wells. What is even more shocking/disturbing than the book is the fact that it was written in 2017, and all we have been able to do as a species is accelerate the path toward a mass extinction event. We in the age of the last generations. Mike and I made the decision not to reproduce, and I hope others join us. Voluntary abstinence from reproduction might be able to do what international accords cannot. It sounds extreme, I know, but we have pushed the planet beyond its limit to support life within the boundaries that the global population requires. So many smart people I speak to are engaging in magical thinking — that AI or a Chinese nuclear program will somehow make up for our individual abdication of responsibility. In the meantime, they continue to talk about the children or grandchildren they are looking forward to rearing. Good actors/bad actors -- it all becomes irrelevant as the global average of CO2 continues to climb. Our lives are too comfortable to change. Right now the question, I think, is how quickly the effects of climate change can destabilize society enough to promote severe and drastic change in emissions versus how much damage we will do to the atmosphere before that happens.

A Frank Ackerman's avatar

I received this comment in email:

why do you think its axiomatic that the origin of consciousness is physical, when science has traced the origin of consciousness back to microtubules in the brain that interact with quantum fluxuations on the brain (let's remember the quantum fluxuations have been almost completely proven to be nondeterministic, eg not the result of the physical universe only). Isn't that in essence a circular reasoning fallacy where you're assuming consciousness has a physical origin in order to prove that it has one?

Garrett Lang

24 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?