An Astrobiologist Asks a Sci-fi Novelist How to Survive the Anthropocene

[n2doc]

BY DAVID GRINSPOON

Humans will have a chance to prove their adaptability as the Earth undergoes unprecedented challenges in the Anthropocene, an era named after our impact on the biosphere. To learn what it takes to survive far into the future, astrobiologist David Grinspoon interviewed Kim Stanley Robinson, a writer regarded as one of the most important science fiction and political novelists alive today. Robinson’s recent book, 2312, permits humans to survive near-extinction and populate the solar system over the course of 300 years.

We decided to kick off the conversation with a 2312 excerpt from the chapter, “Earth, The Planet of Sadness:”

“Clean tech came too late to save Earth from the catastrophes of the early Anthropocene. It was one of the ironies of their time that they could radically change the surfaces of the other planets, but not Earth. The methods they employed in space were almost all too crude and violent. Only with the utmost caution could they tinker with anything on Earth, because everything there was so tightly balanced and interwoven.”

David Grinspoon: Humans in 2312 can transverse the universe, but they could not save the Earth from environmental devastation. Do you think our intelligence just isn’t adaptive enough to learn how to live sustainably?

Kim Stanley Robinson: Human intelligence is adaptive. It’s given us enormous powers in the physical world thus far. With it, we’ve augmented our senses by way of technologies like microscopes, telescopes, and sensors, such that we have seen things many magnitudes smaller and larger than we could see with unaided senses, as well as things outside of our natural sensory ranges.

more

http://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/an-astrobiologist-asks-a-sci_fi-novelist-how-to-survive-the-anthropocene

[truebluegreen]

1. Adaptive, yes, but adaptive enough? Soon enough?

My gut (an entirely unscientific prognosticator) says no.

[n2doc]

2. Humans have lived sustainably in the past

In fact for nearly all of our existence. We will do so again, the difference being that it will be a trashed, toxic world with a lower carrying capacity, and there will be no other choice other than extinction.

[truebluegreen]

3. Sustainable up until we developed agriculture, I think.

Once we did that, our ability to increase our production led to increased population, which led to the need for more production, which led to more population and more demand on the planet's resources, and so on, ad infinitum. Because of our adaptability we have few natural controls on our growth, but of course continuous growth is not possible in a finite system. And now our species faces not only a less hospitable world, but also a loss of the skills necessary to survive in it. Too many of us are too far removed from "the land" to cope with what I guess will be a catastrophic collapse. There will not be time to adapt.

I'm grateful that I do not have children.

[Igel]

6. Sustainable until we had sufficient technology.

Those marine species driven to extinction by innovative harvesting methods weren't farmed. And this was centuries BC on the American SW coast.

Able to get more food, population increases, harvest more food, then the "fishery" (mostly molluscs and crustaceans) collapsed. You see some shells in the early layers of the trash heaps, then the trash heap layers are mostly those species, then they thin out and vanish. And the species are only known from the fossil and "trash heap" record, otherwise gone.

Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

A parallel maxim: Never attribute to virtue what can be adequately explained by weakness or incapacity.

[politicat]

4. Of all the current near-futurists, I'm glad they chose KSR.

His Science in the Capitol series built a possible, sustainable scenario, but it's going to take massive commitment. Enormous.

The trilogy works because the insurance industry got tired of the massive payouts due to climate disasters, and invested in mitigation. (And until that happens, I can't see it being possible, though I know that at least one re-insurer is spending their lobby money on mitigation support.)

There are some very pie in the sky bits (though I love the idea of rehydrating the salt flats and deserts) and I'm not a fan of one of the protagonists, but as a series of ideas, it's a very hopeful series.

[ladjf]

5. Circumstances in our past have caused Humans to evolve into personality types

that in earlier times were no significant threat to the environment Globally. But, as the population exploded exponentially,
so did the consequences of our carelessness. My guess is that as many as 10% of all humans are already aware of how dire the situation is and are giving serious thoughts as to the remedies. But, that 10% is not part of the ruling class and therefore seem to have little or no influence.

Wrest control from the current decision makers and there may yet be time to reverse the awful course of annihilation.

[truebluegreen]

7. Re: "evolution and personality types" I would add "abilities".

I don't think human-type intelligence is a survival trait in the long run.

Remember how we were taught that the dinosaurs died out because their brains were too small (not true, as it happens). I think ours are too big.