After watching the two videos in class and reading Weisman's oft-dreary outlook on how the world would function or exist AH or "After-Humanity", I've come to the conclusion that such a scenario or series of events could never truly be fathomed. Of course, Weisman goes into a myriad of possibilities for the reasons humans simply cease to be, but can we ever really contemplate such a fate? Take for example the movies and stories we discussed today in class.
In the movies "I am Legend", "The Day after Tomorrow", and even in "28 Days Later" we find that though the world is now in some apocolyptic state or most of humanity has been killed off in some way, there is always one person, a single individual left or even a single group of individuals. Though we as humans can describe in very vivid details, as Weisman does, our perceptions of a world AH it is nearly impossible for us to let go of the prospect of hope. Hope that "someone" survives; that it is in our very nature and instinctive pattern to survive. Darwin proclaimed, it why can't we accept it wholeheartedly? Though to many of you this idea of a world after humanity is not only scary but disturbing, Weisman seems to detach himself from the typical theme of survival to one of preservation. What I mean by this is Weisman's interest in what we leave behind on this great Earth of ours - "And what of our finest creations-our architecture, our art, our many manifestations of spirit? Are any truly timeless, at least enough so to last until the sun expands and roasts our Earth to a cinder?"
I therefore pose this twist to the puzzle. Should we as a society, a civilization, a human species be seeking an escape route from ourselves? If the event/scenario/object of our self-destruction is inherently limited to this planet, this Earth, should we not be focusing all of our attention on unlimiting ourselves and breaking the barriers of our time? I bring to your attention a recent article I read by Elon Musk, an entrepreneur out of California who was not only the co-founder of PayPal but also the founder of SpaceX, the only private company currently launching rockets into space.
As he writes, "It [making humanity multiplanetary] would also serve as a hedge against the myriad-and growing-threats to our survival. An asteroid or a supervolcano could certainly destroy us, but we also face risks the dinosaurs never saw: An engineered virus, nuclear war, inadvertent creation of a micro black hole, or some as-yet-unknown technology could spell the end of us. Sooner or later, we must expand life byeond our little blue mud ball-or go extinct" (Esquire, October 2008 p.124).
Do you agree with Elon? Are we as a species in jeopardy of extinction merely by limiting ourselves to the only home we've ever known? What would Weisman say about not just leaving Earth but moving elsewhere, would the danger still be the same? Are humans simply a virus of their own contruction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
First, if a black hole were able to swallow the Earth, I'm pretty sure it would swallow all the planets nearby too. In any case, it's clear that the best method for the longest survival of the human race is to spread out. It's like the saying "Don't put all your eggs in the same basket." Though I think Ridwan makes a point about humans having perfectly evolved to live on planet Earth, if we have the technology to live on another planet, we will surely have the technology to regulate light and other factors that would make this new planet almost exactly like Earth.
The end of humans is immanent and because we do not know what will cause our downfall, we cannot prevent it, so I think we should stop kidding ourselves we can. The World Without Us was alluding to the insignificance of humans. Humans are just a speck in the story of the universe. We are vulnerable and weak and not as all powerful as we like to think. The universe isn't about us and no matter how hard we try we will make no mark. We are ephemeral, inconsequential, and purposeless.
"Sorry, this is difficult for me to answer because I got the sense that Weisman was more concerned with what happens after we disappear rather than how we can I avoid it. I might be wrong though since I'm such an inattentive reader."
Indeed Weisman was more concerned with what happens after we disappear, however I simply pose the question of his likely response to the concept of humanity not only disappearing from Earth but reappearing elsewhere? Will the same fate befall us there? Hence my last question of a "virus of our own construction." An unbreakable ironic pattern of survival and self-destruction...
I think that a large part of The World Without Us was to call attention to, not only the insignificance of humans, but also to the changes and damage that we have done to the plant. I also have to agree that as we have seen with other species, the human race will come to an end eventually. If we were to venture to some other planet, that would not guarantee our survival. Life on another planet could provide new challenges and an environment upon which the human race may not thrive and fall even faster. In the end, I think that it all comes down to the fact that we are currently on this planet, but no matter how powerful we feel, how much we build, or how much we change, we will be at one point be gone from this planet. When this point does come, the world that we have built will slowly waste away and the planet will recover, and to some extent, it may be difficult to even know that at one point our race was even here.
I agree with the saying, "Don't put all your eggs in the same basket." Space programs have been researching the possibility of life on Mars. Scientists seem to have already thought about the what if's and are researching ways to reduce our chances of extinction. By spreading out to other planets, the possibility of human extinction is greatly reduced.
I think that all good things come to an end and so our race will eventually fall. The pattern of history can show us that eventually our race will cease to exist.
I also think that in the reading "The World Without us" Weisman shows the reader what could happen to us. We are left to do whatever we want with his opinion of what will happen after our extinction. Weisman leaves the question on the table, "What will happen?" and we are left to ponder this and create our own theories of what will happen. Weisman includes his own opinions to give an example of what could happen. Ultimately the question can't be answered. Everybody is going to have their own theories but no one will know for sure until that disastrous day comes.
As humans we distinguish ourselves from animals in that we are conscious. Consciousness allows humans to do a number of things other creatures cannot—our works of art, literature, philosophy, religion, and science attest to this fact. Most imortant to Weismans’ argument, I suppose, is our ability to manipulate our environment. Instead of adapting to our surroundings, we change them, thus cheating Darwin’s game of survival.
We seem to like living outside the natural rules that govern other species, so I do not doubt that at least some portion of Earth’s population will try to escape iminent disaster. If we create the disaster that forces us to leave, it seems unlikely that we would create a similar situation. In whichever planet we decide to colonize. Since we have existed for so long without adapting to our environment. When we colonize new places we bring every technological comport we deem desirable.
Wherever we are, we will act in our own self interest. If that means preventing global warming, we will find a way. If that means escaping an Earth we’ve doomed to suffocation, we will escape if we can. The reason Weisman’s article is so interesting and unique is that it removes human whim from the equation. I think that a world without humans is not necessarily impossible for us to contemplate, it is merely irrelevant to how we live. I say this because we will always act in such a way as to preserve our species. Weismain’s thought experiment will remain a very interesting approach to human impact on the Earth, but will not change the way we relate to our world.
If in fact humanity is a modern King Midas, we at least are not of our own creation. Consciousness has given us the ability to manipulate our environment. It is what we do with that power that could necessitate escape from ourselves.
Although this question poses an interesting perspective on the what the world without us could mean, I think that again we're falling prey to our human egos to respond to it. How much further could we go to "break the barriers of our time"? Instead of focusing on leaving this planet we've so unconsciously destroyed, how about we aim to fix it? The only escape route we have is to fix the mess we are already in. By the time we "break the barriers" to supplant our civilization on a different planet, I doubt there will be any life form left on Earth due to the destruction we generally cause with our grandiose scientific advancements. So no, I do not agree that we should be aiming to in someway circumvent the problems that persist in the world we inhabit. When will we accept our humanity with all its limitations and faults? When will we face it?
I think Weisman would agree that leaving the Earth is not the answer to our current crisis of humanity. I believe his purpose in writing The World Without Us is to raise awareness on Earth, not to incite a fleeing of our planet. What purpose would his intricate explanation of mother nature healing herself have if he just wanted us to abandon it all together? His extensive research, beautiful imagery, and deep analysis are of the planet we currently inhabit. Fleeing the source of life as we know it and abandoning the roots of our human history will in no way improve our quality of life. We will simply bring our nuclear experiments and mini-black holes with us to wherever we move. Our problem exists within ourselves, not our planet.
Technically speaking we are not limiting ourselves so much as the Earth is limiting us. Obviously we could break free from this limitation. We could colonize the Moon or Mars and expand further out to other solar systems such as the one that surrounds the Alpha Centauri star system. However, I doubt Weisman would approve if we simple left the Earth. We haven't destroyed the Earth per se, but there admittedly are problems with it that we've caused. What we do need to do is to expand from the Earth to a place (or places) from which we can fix the Earth. Then we will learn from our past mistakes (hopefully, though we all know that history repeats itself), and be able to better maintain the colonies we build.
At the same time, though, I think Weisman would approve if we simply left. That is the entire premise of his novel: to see the world flourish and survive when we are gone. But in doing so, we cannot continue to do that to every new home we find. We cannot keep screwing things up to the point before the point where it becomes irreversible. We, instead, can learn to coexist in our future habitat. Thereby, we can thrive not in our world, but in the Universe with whatever other species that arises or we encounter.
As much as anything else, it is the Earth that makes us human. To leave this rock would be to leave behind some of what we are, some of who we are. It is one of the few universal similarities, that all humans live on this planet together. Another such similarity is our shared mortality, and whether it is separately from various causes or all simultaneously from a catastrophe, we all share death.
Perhaps, though, leaving Earth would make us no less human than moving overseas would make us less American. But then again, what exactly is it to be American, or Italian, or perhaps Jewish. It is a culture and heritage, sure, both of which could travel with us to space, but is something not lost after leaving one's ancestral home. I am very much "Italian", yet I hardly know the difference between Alfredo and fettuccine. Perhaps moving into space to avoid hardships is simply a natural progression of that same trip made my our ancestors as immigrants to this land. And perhaps, after we leave, after thousands of years, things will revert back to a prehuman state as in The World Without Us. Upon that time we could make return in a Wall-Eesque fashion and repopulate our once upon a time home.
When I was reading this piece by Weisman, I was reminded of one of my favourite books, Ishamel by Daniel Quinn. The message that Quinn had and Weisman had are similar. That is-- that humans are only a part of the community that makes up our Earth, and humans were not meant to 'manipulate' our environment as we do now. Without us, the Earth will eventually, for the most part, return to what it was like--therefore, humans were not meant to be the masters of our environment--we are not gods that should be controlling everything.
As Ishamel put it: " 'Man's destiny was to conquer and rule the world, and this is what he's done--almost. He hasn't quite made it, and it looks as though this may be his undoing. The problem is that man's conquest of the world has itself devastated the world. And in spite of all the mastery we've attained, we don't have enough mastery to stop devastating the world--or to repair the devastation we've already wrought. We've poured our poisons into the world as though it were a bottomless pit--and we go on gobbling them up. It's hard to imaging how the world could survive another century of this abuse, but nobody's really doing anything about it. It's a problem our children will have to solve, or their children.
I do believe that humans are simply a virus of their own construction. How our society has developed, our culture has progressed--it is difficult for us to turn back now. If we were to leave our Earth and inhabit another planet is certainly a novel idea that many have not addressed. I am unsure if that actually would solve any problems facing humanity. Furthermore, I do agree with the sentiment that the Earth is a part of being human. I am unsure, and unable to fathom what life would be like not on our planet. Whether we do stay on Earth for the rest of our existence, or if we inhabit another planet--humanity still has to come to a realization that we are all a part of the bigger world, and as Weisman tells us--humans were not meant to be around forever, not meant to control our environment and certainly not meant to take that environment for granted.
Post a Comment