Of course it's not human extinction, it's just extirpation on this branch of time-lines.
Somewhere (in fact infinitely many somewheres) in the quantum multiverse, there are other timelines where humanity has taken a different route, or maybe the same route but not so far advanced. How do you think our species survived all the previous bottle-necks, pandemics, and nuclear stand-offs? History is written by the (most x most likely) survivors.
If you were a human born in the year 3000, you'd likely arrive in a time-line with a high weight (ie probability) multiplied by human population. Many time-lines will get into space and cross the galaxy, but any such timelines arising from this one are looking pretty skinny.
As a person who spends likely way too much time thinking about existential threats to human existence (actually, I loved the book Children of Men!), I sure loved this post! And I have found some less anthropocentric views that are not-so-nihilistic in concepts like shamanism and animism (in an anthropological sense)—concepts that view humanity within a greater context and in connection with the more-than-human world. And if I follow those views for a while through a logic in which humanity and the world co-create each other through a highly entangled network of complex relationships, the sting of our possible extinction seems somehow softened, to me.
DNA instructs humanity's yearning for meaning. That and our far-too-large brains required for survival. If meaning never existed for the billions of species that have come before humans why should we think that it somehow has sprung from nothing solely for our benefit? Human purpose is a tautology.
"around 99% of (vertebrate) species have gone extinct." That implies we got to the present day vertebrate diversity from the most primitive vertebrate in no more than 200 species-steps (assuming a triangular-shaped tree) - but a lot less if there are side-branches.
200 spp over 518 million years means they survived 2 million years each, or 4 million years if you assume 50% were dead-end side-branches.
This begs the question of how much change you permit while still calling it the same species.
The tricky thing with these calculations is that the variance around the 2-4 million years can be quite large (though I'd have to look into it to be sure).
Likewise, the change permitted is not easy to assess. For many species, there's only fragmentary fossil material to go on. Molecular clocks can help, but here too, only estimates, and not easy to assess how that would translate into intra- vs interspecific differences. Add that evolutionary change rarely always happens at a steady pace, and all we can do is guesstimate as well as we can.
My gut feel is that evolution (genetic algorithms) couldn't have achieved what it did without help from the quantum world (effectively a quantum computer to produce living diversity), and that (with observer selection) might allow our own emergence. But it would not bring about the immense diversity of invertebrates, so I have to reject that line of thought.
At least, biological diversity proves we aren't living in an ancestor simulation.
Human extinction is not in itself bad. It's inevitable! What does it mean be the cause our own extinction and that of countless other species? That's a different question and I think we need a word worse than bad. Like the worst possible thing ever? I don't know. Something worse than that.
I’ve been thinking about this for days but I cannot find the words to aptly describe the crime of intentionally failing to stop the annihilation of life which you have unintentionally but knowingly caused as a consequence of a way of life which itself caused horrific suffering for all but a small minority of humanity which was incidentally incapable of joy.
Of course it's not human extinction, it's just extirpation on this branch of time-lines.
Somewhere (in fact infinitely many somewheres) in the quantum multiverse, there are other timelines where humanity has taken a different route, or maybe the same route but not so far advanced. How do you think our species survived all the previous bottle-necks, pandemics, and nuclear stand-offs? History is written by the (most x most likely) survivors.
If you were a human born in the year 3000, you'd likely arrive in a time-line with a high weight (ie probability) multiplied by human population. Many time-lines will get into space and cross the galaxy, but any such timelines arising from this one are looking pretty skinny.
This is a great comment!
I didn’t bring in the multiverse, but agree with what you wrote.
Nature is neutral. Life will continue until the Earth is swallowed by the sun. Whether humans are around will be up to us.
Agreed
I always appreciate your posts, Gunnar. Thank you for sharing your work here.
Thank you so much, Annie!
As a person who spends likely way too much time thinking about existential threats to human existence (actually, I loved the book Children of Men!), I sure loved this post! And I have found some less anthropocentric views that are not-so-nihilistic in concepts like shamanism and animism (in an anthropological sense)—concepts that view humanity within a greater context and in connection with the more-than-human world. And if I follow those views for a while through a logic in which humanity and the world co-create each other through a highly entangled network of complex relationships, the sting of our possible extinction seems somehow softened, to me.
Sounds like something you should write about! 😉
I’d be interested in reading it for sure.
You’re on.
DNA instructs humanity's yearning for meaning. That and our far-too-large brains required for survival. If meaning never existed for the billions of species that have come before humans why should we think that it somehow has sprung from nothing solely for our benefit? Human purpose is a tautology.
Extinction? Memento Mori.
Agreed. I certainly think our big brains have a lot to do with it, whether we like it or not.
Thanks for reading, Dave!
We are the only species that can anticipate our own extinction and perhaps that explains our existence?
Perhaps…
"around 99% of (vertebrate) species have gone extinct." That implies we got to the present day vertebrate diversity from the most primitive vertebrate in no more than 200 species-steps (assuming a triangular-shaped tree) - but a lot less if there are side-branches.
200 spp over 518 million years means they survived 2 million years each, or 4 million years if you assume 50% were dead-end side-branches.
This begs the question of how much change you permit while still calling it the same species.
Another great comment, Malcolm!
The tricky thing with these calculations is that the variance around the 2-4 million years can be quite large (though I'd have to look into it to be sure).
Likewise, the change permitted is not easy to assess. For many species, there's only fragmentary fossil material to go on. Molecular clocks can help, but here too, only estimates, and not easy to assess how that would translate into intra- vs interspecific differences. Add that evolutionary change rarely always happens at a steady pace, and all we can do is guesstimate as well as we can.
My gut feel is that evolution (genetic algorithms) couldn't have achieved what it did without help from the quantum world (effectively a quantum computer to produce living diversity), and that (with observer selection) might allow our own emergence. But it would not bring about the immense diversity of invertebrates, so I have to reject that line of thought.
At least, biological diversity proves we aren't living in an ancestor simulation.
Human extinction is not in itself bad. It's inevitable! What does it mean be the cause our own extinction and that of countless other species? That's a different question and I think we need a word worse than bad. Like the worst possible thing ever? I don't know. Something worse than that.
Existenciacide?
I’ve been thinking about this for days but I cannot find the words to aptly describe the crime of intentionally failing to stop the annihilation of life which you have unintentionally but knowingly caused as a consequence of a way of life which itself caused horrific suffering for all but a small minority of humanity which was incidentally incapable of joy.
Well that’s actually a serious question and I need to think about it ha