Assume
that climate is changing and the agency for the change is the species Homo sapiens. Assume also that the
theory of evolution by natural selection is more than a theory and in its foundational
aspects, it is the truth. One further assumption – climate change creates new
environmental and ecological niches.
Now,
what does it say about the number of humans who have ever been born (or
conceived, if you are pro-life), not now, but at some long time in the future, say
a couple of millennia later? The time frame I am talking about in this regard includes
the possibility of further speciation of Homo
sapiens.
Homo sapiens
is the result of the latest event of speciation of the genus Hominid. So, when you are trying to
figure out how many humans have ever lived even as of now, we need to go back
some tens of thousands of years. This exercise has been carried out and I have
read that as many as 60 billion humans have been born since the last
speciation. I had posted on this in a different context [1], but here I plan to
take off on a different line of thought. Please stay with me.
Recently
I read that this number – the number of humans who have ever been born – has
been upped to 108 billion, counting from about 50,000 years ago as the date of
the most recent speciation giving rise to our species. In the deepest
discussions on biological evolution, there is a severe argument going on
whether evolution has stopped along the Homo
sapiens line. This is an interesting question that bears on how we think
about climate change and what it foretells for the future of human life.
The
evangelicals in the US have it easy, as they do not have to ponder over such
weighty questions. They have God’s promise to Noah after the floods (a
qualified omnipotence) – “Never again will I destroy all living creatures.”
[2]. Ergo, the doomsday scenario consequent upon climate change as sketched out
by the votaries of AGW is hocus pocus. But, in my humble opinion, they had not
cottoned onto God’s deviousness! I will come to it later.
But
for the others, the question boils down to who human beings are. Is what we
call, self-assuredly and vain gloriously, our level of self-awareness as the
ultimate and all that there is to being a human being? What if a species arose
that is more self-aware than we are? Is this possible, is self-awareness a
graded quality? I would imagine so as a newborn is not as self-aware as a grown
adult. It has got brain development as its crux.
We
do not know what will follow us, if anything. Please understand that the event
of a speciation is discernible only post
facto. We can assert speciation only by noting, long after speciation has
occurred, that the new species is not able to fruitfully mate with its
ancestor.
I
wish to argue that speciation should be the central theme of the discussions on
climate change. The climate change proponents implicitly argue for delaying
further speciation, which is inevitable if the environmental and ecological
niches that support human life change. The GREENS want human beings, as they
are, to survive for as long as possible.
It
is not just the matter of low lying lands being inundated, killing lot many
people. It is not just matter of more devastating hurricanes. It is not merely
deserts becoming arable lands and vice versa. It is that the warming of the
world that will create new niches for which we, the current Homo sapiens, may be ill suited. For
example, mosquitoes going places where they have not gone before. Some mutation
in the human genome will occur that would find itself in a better position to
exploit the extant conditions. This may go beyond the technological
capabilities of our species. Your geo-engineering can get you thus far, not as
far as evolution by natural selection.
The
above implies that there is a definitive upper limit to the number of human
beings who would have been born, through the course of history of evolution of Homo sapiens. This is an uncomforting
thought for those who worry about climate change.
Now,
coming to the evangelicals, please understand that God did not promise that
human beings will always be there. He was talking about life as such going extinct on the planet. He will not “destroy all
living creatures”. But, there is no implicit guarantee for Homo sapiens. Now, it appears that these evangelicals, who are also
opposed to the theory of evolution by natural selection, are not worried about
human life, as it is now, but are content with the knowledge that life will survive, as God promised.
My
argument must make evangelicals very uncomfortable, on two counts. One, God is
devious. Two, he gave a promise as lawyers do, hedging every which way! He
never promised that evangelicals will survive climate change. He merely
promised that life as such, with or
without Homo sapiens, will survive on
earth. It is for human beings to take care of themselves.
This
is what those who argue for mitigation and adaptation in the light of AGW argue
for. And, I am with them; indeed I am one of them.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
2.
Faith
and reason, February 22, 2014, The
Economist http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21597021-scientists-are-not-secular-people-think-faith-and-reason
2 comments:
may be
you are right..
I am just speculating, DS sir ...
Thanks.
RE
Post a Comment