Has the evolutionary process, by creating an organism that is expert at adapting to a changing environment and has the capability to bring about a rapidly changing environment, on a global scale, run its course? As this organism has a distinct adaptive advantage over other slowly adapting life forms, it will out compete them and survive in greater numbers, but, because it relies on those other life forms for food etc, will it ultimately bring about its own destruction?
Well, humanity, which is the only
organism to which this could possibly apply, is no longer competing with other
organisms for environmental niches, (for now, we even have virus' and bacterial disease under control ) but is still competing within it own population ie fighting wars and ideological clashes. Now, Human evolutionary pressures are competition between groups, and
perhaps, as the effects of climate change get more serious, we will start to split into those who can adapt
to climate change with stable or improved food sources and also stable reproduction rates, and those who can't,. ie the rich, technologically
advanced and philosophically flexible will prosper and the poor, or ideologically entrenched will not. However,
ultimately those rich, tech advanced societies will undermine their own
success,. as the other planetary species, upon which they rely, will also not be able to
adapt. and so even the rich societies will ultimately be deselected by the evolutionary
process that gives them the advantage within their population. This might appear to be total nihilist speculation, , but think about who is coping with climate change and who is not? Who is calling for climate change controls the most and who is not? Who will benefit from climate change and who will not?
If we don't use our knowledge of man made climate change and act wisely, will the evolutionary process of who is best adapted, and hence prospers, drive us to a very large
population followed by a population crash? Is climate change being weaponized? Will us smart human beings end up living on a barren rock of a planet having killed off all the competitors, but surviving because we have invented tech to make our own food and atmosphere direct from inorganic ingredients?
The evidence that sustainable policies are, thankfully, slowly becoming more prevalent means the above is probably not applicable to the world in which we live. But, I think humanity in general does not have the group intelligence or nature to solve climate change and we are destined to only slow the rate of warming, but not to a rate that is in balance with carbon sinks. If the second law of thermodynamics applies to the cosmos, it also applies to human behavior and this law says the most likely outcome of any system is the one that generates the most entropy, which in the earth system is for humanity to burn all the fossil fuels. (Renewables don't generate much entropy).
Hope I'm wrong, but looking at the evidence to date, I can't find any evidence to say I'm not. Humans are just guts and gonads that use our brains to get food and reproduce with the best genes we can. If you don't believe me, try not eating or having any form of sex for a period of time and then write down what dominates your thoughts. Or alternatively just look at any commercial break on TV - are the ads about food or related to status and sex?
I don't know how the above (if correct) will make the world a better place, perhaps I'm hoping for some form of "neo-enlightenment" of human knowledge that leads to some form of leap forward and a change in human behaviour. Looking at the world today, we definitely need it.
