8/2/2019 Global Environment VK

1/3

The global environment:

Stop the destruction or adapt to change

V. Karlin

School of Forensic and Investigative ScienceUniversity of Central Lancashire

What is the global environment?

According to the Global Environment Forum-KANSAI1

the term global

environment (GE) refers to all factors influencing human habitat, such as climate,

quality and pollution of the air, land and water, etc., and is similar to the concept of

the biosphere.

Is the global environment changing because of human activities?

The facts of change in the GE are irrefutable, but whether they are due to human

activity is not yet completely certain. Scientific research reveals that the majority ofcritical environmental parameters like the average temperature of the atmosphere and

oceans, carbon dioxide content, etc., are still far from the extreme values they once

reached on our planet in the pre-Anthropocene past. These extremes happened

because of volcano eruptions, comet or asteroid strikes and variations in solar activity.

Thus, the resolution of the debate on whether humans are responsible for current

changes in the GE is not as important as an appreciation that extreme values of basic

GE parameters reached on our planet in the past are well beyond those suited for

human civilization to thrive. Assuming it is us who are changing the GE towards a

catastrophic limit, we can unite to stop and possibly reverse the changes. However,

what if at the end of it all, when we are dining on oysters and sipping champagne in

celebration of Judgement Day postponed, our planet is struck by a huge asteroid or aYellowstone eruption, propelling us into the world of Mad Max? According to the

philosopher Bostrom, these events constitute a constant global terminal risk2.

Improving the GE is a laudable activity, but far from the only one humanity needs to

do in order to ensure its long-term survival.

Is human survival desirable?

In other words, what is the meaning of human life in general? From the point of view

of most religions, everything is simple. Those who did not contribute to the

destruction of GE will go to a kind of paradise, others - to hell. Everything is deeply

personal and there is nothing we can do about it.

More constructive philosophies state that the only internally consistent sense of

human life is in the progressive development of complexity, both personal and social3.

The first conclusion upon accepting this position is that we should not prevent GE

changes at the expense of the spiritual or technological evolution of society. Instead,

humanity should change itself, both personally and socially, in order to survive not

1http://www.global-kansai.or.jp/e/index.htm

2 http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html3 Beginning with Vladimir Vernadsky

(http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/The_Noosphere.pdf ) and Teilhard deChardin (e.g. see http://www.webcom.com/gaia/tdc.html), to the modern day apostles of the

technological singularity (http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1)

8/2/2019 Global Environment VK

2/3

only the changing GE but also all possible geological and cosmic catastrophes,

including the death of our Sun. We do not envisage this as a Star Trek style galaxy

hop in a big spaceship, but rather as the capability to replicate human software and

collective knowledge remotely on a planet in another star system. Surviving another

Big Bang should become our ultimate mission within the limits of our modern

knowledge, this would be the ultimate complexity humanity could reach as a result ofevolution to fulfil the aim of its existence.

How are we to adapt to changing GE?

Of course, it is possible to build self-sustained underground or underwater complexes

in which modern humans can exist unharmed. This external engineering is seen as the

simplest and most obvious way of adaptation. However, they will be not sustainable

once the geosphere, space debris or us ourselves comprehensively wreck the currently

existing biosphere. Eventually, their contribution towards complexity of the system

would be limited (although this approach can be used as a stop-gap measure).

According to the theory of evolution of life forms, Nature provides numerous

examples of gradual adaptation of living organisms to changing conditions. Theseinternal developments are the natural defence mechanism against the changing

environment. The only drawback of natural evolution is its unacceptably slow pace.

How can we accelerate it? Via genetic and biological engineering!

A few successful clonings and achievements in medical applications directed towards

transplantation operations and regeneration of living tissues are promising.

Theoretically, modification of genes in plants, animals and ourselves to a level at

which they could effectively function at elevated and depressed temperatures seems

feasible. A further challenge might be to sustain human life in an atmosphere with

low oxygen content and high concentrations of chemicals harmful to unimproved

humans. This research would create a fundament for further systematic improvements

in human physiology on a larger scale. In particular, work could be directed at

strengthening human bones (especially backbones), increasing resistance to

atherosclerosis, improving memory, etc. Even the development of auxiliary gills in

humans, so that we can weather a Waterworld scenario, does not look unrealistic.

Positive Feedback!

The looming end of the hydrocarbon era threatens to destroy the current level of

complexity of our global civilization4. Sustainable solutions to the problem are

obvious, firstly renewables and ultimately controlled thermonuclear synthesis, yet

progress is stymied by short-sightedness and a relative lack of intellectual resourcesdevoted to it. Genetic and maybe bioengineering research on improving the

intellectual abilities of humans may pay back and produce a new breed of

intellectually enhanced humans who will tackle the challenge. Later on, those

enhanced humans will further contribute into research on improvement of intellectual

abilities of humans, and so on in a virtuous circle. Step-by-step, humanity will master

the mysteries of the Universe and will learn how to survive the Big Bang.

In conclusion.

4 Tainter, Joseph A. (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38673-X.

8/2/2019 Global Environment VK

3/3

Today there are many publications on the necessity of urgent measures to cut carbon

emissions and save the planet5. Some progress (e.g. Kyoto agreement) has already

been achieved. However, all measures proposed so far are actually half-measures at

best. The principles we formulated above are the only ones consistent with the global

ethics of humanity and they would definitely lead to success if acted on in good time.

Understandably, they might be shocking for conservatives. Laypeople are likely toimagine this as white-coated technocratic scientists planting silicon chips in their

brains and will not be happy about it. Realization of the deeper problem on the

governmental level and systematic educational campaigns aimed at the general public

will certainly bring about the desired results. Leadership should and will be taken by

those countries oriented towards spiritual and technological progress, instead of

preoccupied with stagnant religious dogmas. In our opinion, Japan belongs to the

former category, and we would be happy to see it leading not only the Kyoto process,

but also venturing into more drastic measures to secure the survival of the human

spirit.

5 E.g. see IPCC site (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm)