Do humans lack the necessary intelligence to adapt to climate change?

Tuisceanch

Humans are not remiss in lauding their own intelligence and presume that this intelligence will be sufficient to ensure that, as a species, we will be able to adapt and survive the challenges of climate change. But has our intelligence being overstated and perhaps diminished by our technological society and are we no longer fit to survive?

Unless specified otherwise quotes are from the following article: https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_1/tsc_20_1_cairns.shtml

Intelligence is defined as a general mental capability that involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn. It can also be defined as 1.the ability to acquire and apply information from the environment to modify behavior. Intelligence, including 2.adaptability, has provided survival value to the genus Homo for 2 million years and for the sole surviving species Homo sapiens for approximately 200,000 years. This intelligence was adequate when humankind was spread thinly over the planet in small tribes.

Estimates are that humans share the planet with over 30 million other species. Major climate changes have added stress to the survival of all these species, and the probability is high that conditions will worsen in the foreseeable future. With such formidable competition and worsening conditions in an increasingly alien planet, how can humans survive? The predictable answer is intelligence.

In the early part of the twenty-first century, both the global financial meltdown and the deleterious effects of climate change raise the question of whether intelligence has survival value for huge populations living mostly in urban areas and effectively isolated from the natural systems in which Homo evolved and survived.

In brief,wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to not heed the warning of scientists and agitate that governments prioritize action to mitigate the risk and to develop strategies to allow us to adapt to our changing circumstances. How this can be achieved effectively though is not clear and complicated by the fact that this is a global problem with many actors. Discussion on this aspect is especially welcome.

dalyboy

Hopefully within 5-10 years this pseudoscience backed fairy tale that you pre-suppose actually exists will be something we all laugh at and is embarrassingly and rightfully forgotten about.

is_that_so

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Humans are not remiss in lauding their own intelligence and presume that this intelligence will be sufficient to ensure that, as a species, we will be able to adapt and survive the challenges of climate change. But has our intelligence being overstated and perhaps diminished by our technological society and are we no longer fit to survive? Have we in fact become one of the dumbest animals to have ever wandered this earth?

https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/05/23/humans-are-fundamentally-stupid-creatures/

Amusing that they include the internet, given where it's published! That sounds like a best selling book of "startling new evidence" with that well-worn approach of assembling a mountain of unconnected ideas as evidence of something that actually doesn't exist.

is_that_so

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well that's a possible yes to the question posed.



Alternative and more substantive responses are also encouraged. As a guidance it might be useful to mention that the framing of a question for debate does not necessarily presuppose the opinions of the author as they like every other interested party also have a participatory role in the debate. Focusing the debate on such presuppositions using tiresome and predictable ad-hominem could be considered evidence in support of the motion.

You haven't exactly made much effort on the substantive responses yourself!:D

jaxxx

Intelligence? No. Integrity? Yes.

Tuisceanch

jaxxx wrote: »

Intelligence? No. Integrity? Yes.

I can go along with that but perhaps its not so simple as that:

People generally find it hard to act on knowledge that contradicts their everyday experience. The experience must come first, even if it is second-hand; hence all the support groups for people who want to change their lives or habits.

I think most people can relate to a certain inertia inherent in our nature that makes us reluctant to act even when it's in our best interests. Often it is the stimulus of external events or the cajoling of other people that forces us to act. We are also accustomed to a certain economic orthodoxy which has not changed,for many of us,in our lifetime,and so we cannot envisaged an alternative structuring of society.

Perhaps it is difficult for a people that attempt to quantify every kind of risk in terms of monetary value to think about a type of risk that can only be compensated for through accepting a different living arrangement....

In a sense we are stuck in a paradigm that considers any criticism of the current status quo as heresy as in the example of the American dream:

America’s national mythology makes it anathema to think of collective failure. All failure is to be regarded as individual failure—something that happens to somebody else, or to you, but only if you happen to be unlucky or do not try hard enough.” In short, the status quo is unsustainable but changing the collective lifestyle to arrest global climate change is unthinkable. Individuals who cling to an unsustainable paradigm clash with those who are persuaded by scientific evidence that a new paradigm is needed.

The previous quotes are from the following article: https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_1/tsc_20_1_cairns.shtml

AlekSmart

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well that's a possible yes to the question posed.

Alternative and more substantive responses are also encouraged. As a guidance, it might be useful to mention that the framing of a question for debate does not necessarily presuppose the opinions of the author as they, like every other interested party, also have a participatory role in the debate. Focusing the debate on such presuppositions, using tiresome and predictable ad-hominem, could be considered as evidence in support of the motion.

But you did pose TWO questions.

But has our intelligence being overstated and perhaps diminished by our technological society and are we no longer fit to survive?

And,to be fair,the poster "dalyboy" was brief and to the point.

Tuisceanch

If intelligence means using scientific evidence as the basis for changing human lifestyles, to be congruent with natural law, is it fair to say that humankind is not displaying much intelligence given the propensity by many, to describe the increasing call for real action by prominent scientific bodies and industry, as hysteria or fanciful and to deride anybody who says otherwise.

Many arguments that support this notion that the media is creating hysteria around the subject seem to be oblivious to our very recent history.

https://theconversation.com/food-security-how-drought-and-rising-prices-led-to-conflict-in-syria-71539

In 2015 the Welsh singer and activist Charlotte Church was widely ridiculed in the right-wing press and on social media for saying on BBC Question Time that climate change had played an important part in causing the conflict in Syria.

From 2006 until 2011, [Syria] experienced one of the worst droughts in its history, which of course meant that there were water shortages and crops weren’t growing, so there was mass migration from rural areas of Syria into the urban centres, which put on more strain, and made resources scarce etc, which apparently contributed to the conflict there today.

Between 2007 and 2009 Syria increased its annual imports of wheat and meslin (rice flour) by about 1.5m tonnes. That equated to a more than ten-fold increase in importing one of the most basic foods.

In 2008 the global price of food increased dramatically. This increase was the result of a complex set of issues including historically low global food stocks, drought in Australia following production lows in several other areas over the previous few years, and speculation and an increase in biofuel production in North America.

Many it seems are of the opinion that the hysteria around climate change is synonymous with 'Day after tomorrow scenarios' but the reality is far more mundane than that. The issue of migration has come to prominence in western nations and has influenced the politics of our nearest neighbour as well as our European partners. Is it intelligent to deny any causal link between certain aspects of migration and climate change?

dalyboy

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Well he expressed hope for the future on the basis that he believes that the world outside his window is a fairy tale so I don't know if he answered either one of the questions. I think for now I'll mark it down as disinterested which is curious because why bother answering in the first place.

Yes I 100% believe what I see outside my window. It’s called weather. We have had it for thousands of years. It’s always been changeable. I genuinely do not want to sound patronising however have you ever heard of the scientific method ? If you have then explain how science has come to the conclusion that climate change is (a) actually happening (b) man has a role to play in its existence. Don’t forget to tell us how they are manipulating their independent variable in the test (this is imperative when conducting a scientific experiment, otherwise it’s pseudoscience FACT) . If you can satisfy this request I’ll donate €100 via PayPal to your favourite charity. GO ....

Tuisceanch

dalyboy wrote: »

Yes I 100% believe what I see outside my window. It’s called weather. We have had it for thousands of years. It’s always been changeable. I genuinely do not want to sound patronising however have you ever heard of the scientific method ? If you have then explain how science has come to the conclusion that climate change is (a) actually happening (b) man has a role to play in its existence. Don’t forget to tell us how they are manipulating their independent variable in the test (this is imperative when conducting a scientific experiment, otherwise it’s pseudoscience FACT) . If you can satisfy this request I’ll donate €100 via PayPal to your favourite charity. GO ....

Ah come on. That suggests then that the whole of scientific studies on the subject dating back to 1896 is bogus. You can't seriously believe that? I can understand scepticism on the extent because that is uncertain. The models are used to refine the understanding and that's standard practice. Through that process they gain a better understanding of the climate drivers. You can't seriously state that you're more qualified than a myriad of scientists across many disciplines over a span of decades. That,without meaning to be rude,sounds delusional. Also I've read many of the papers on the subject and even logic dictates that they are correct.

If you could link a scientific paper and explain your reasoning why it's fabricated then that would be useful in order to more clearly understand your position because as it stands I don't think it holds much water.

To be honest I could provide links to detailed reports from Goldman Sachs, the insurance industry, Multinational Conglomerates and wait for it, BP and Shell https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/it-is-impossible-todays-big-oil-companies-adapt-climate-change-jonathon-porritt - http://www.proyectomilenio.org/documents/10156/43639/Shell+Energy+Scenarios+2050+-Signals+%26+Singposts-.pdf?version=1.0, none of which in any way,shape,or form support your position. So how in the name of God could they all be wrong and you're right. Makes no sense whatsoever. Even Richard Muller, a noted sceptic, does not deny AGW. In fact I can't think of anybody that does and I have researched that side of the argument quite extensively. Richard lindzen also doesn't deny AGW.

But as I said this is also part of a project so your feedback is helpful.

dalyboy

Everyone of those companies, banks etc you mentioned have vested interest in futures trading on carbon credits / trading etc. Papers , reports , drivers etc etc are NOT scientific method observed. They are examples of conjecture , a kind of observe a phenomenon and declare a cause and effect. Empirical science is the only science I take seriously. It involves the following .....

Observe a natural phenomenon and define a question about it
Make a hypothesis, or potential solution to the question
Test the hypothesis
If the hypothesis is true, find more evidence or find counter-evidence
If the hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again
Draw conclusion

So climate change hypothesis cannot be tested as you would need a spare earth to test your hypothesis.

There is not one REAL scientist in the world who would challenge the media , the banking backed agenda or the whipped up hysterical public on the topic of climate change. They would be at this stage be risking their career and families long term safety. The scientists who back the climate farce are benefiting financially.
Believe me or not but the science is on my side on this topic , not yours.

Tuisceanch

dalyboy wrote: »

Everyone of those companies, banks etc you mentioned have vested interest in futures trading on carbon credits / trading etc. Papers , reports , drivers etc etc are NOT scientific method observed. They are examples of conjecture , a kind of observe a phenomenon and declare a cause and effect. Empirical science is the only science I take seriously. It involves the following .....

Observe a natural phenomenon and define a question about it
Make a hypothesis, or potential solution to the question
Test the hypothesis
If the hypothesis is true, find more evidence or find counter-evidence
If the hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again
Draw conclusion

So climate change hypothesis cannot be tested as you would need a spare earth to test your hypothesis.

There is not one REAL scientist in the world who would challenge the media , the banking backed agenda or the whipped up hysterical public on the topic of climate change. They would be at this stage be risking their career and families long term safety. The scientists who back the climate farce are benefiting financially.
Believe me or not but the science is on my side on this topic , not yours.

Well I'm afraid your word on the subject is an unconvincing argument. It would be absurd to even suggest it is. Observations of Venus,for example,facilitate insights into the phenomenon of the Greenhouse effect:https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets.
Also https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/scientists-study-venus-atmosphere-through-transit.

Paleoclimatology has also demonstrated the relationship beteen co2 and temperature and extensive study of the PETM has provided great insights as to what the effect of our emissions will have on the climate drivers and as I mentioned previously,the science is not new and is actually linked to fundamental principles of Physics.Think Fourier (1768 – 16 May 1830). Are you going to tell me he was pressurised into formulating his theories? Also Scientists,from right across the Globe are involved in the research of Climate Change and they operate under different regimes so what you suggest would be a global conspiracy.

If you have a link to a scientist that supports your position you refer to then that would help me understand your position better. It would also help if you provide some rationale as to why you think a spare earth is required to test the Hypothese.

Here for example is a link to a climate sceptic I previously mentioned from 2012:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Here is the reaction of one of the co-authors

Other members of the Berkeley Earth science team include Nobel Prize winner Saul Perlmutter and climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

However Curry expressed her discontent with the findings and told The New York Times she had declined to be listed as a co-author on the latest paper.

"I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don't think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming," she was quoted as saying.

"Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

Here is a another statement from Curry

Climate science communication hasn’t been very effective in my opinion. The dominant paradigm seems to be that a science knowledge deficit of the public and policy makers exists, which is exacerbated by the Koch-funded climate denial machine. This knowledge deficit then results in the public failing to act with the urgency that is urged by climate scientists.

So as I said I've researched both sides extensively but I have been unable to find anybody who supports your position. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and it isn't that you dismiss AGW out of hand but rather you are sceptical of the predictions and consider them alarmist. To that I can only repeat the models represent our current best understanding of the impact but there is still much uncertainty regarding the processes underlying the climate drivers but unfortunately that uncertainty is not at the moment in our favour. I don't know what else i can say on the subject as I'm not motivated to convince anybody of my side of the argument. It's just that you have not provided any evidence.so far,to support your position. As I said if you want me to post links in support of my argument,I can,but it doesn't seem that you do as you have already dismissed them out of hand as being politically motivated out of a sense of fear.

Tuisceanch

dalyboy wrote: »

Everyone of those companies, banks etc you mentioned have vested interest in futures trading on carbon credits / trading etc.

Actually this is a very interesting point which I haven't seen discussed much, although I'm not a regular on Boards, so I imagine it has. However I would like to pick up on it.As energy companies and companies,in general, their raison d'etre is to maximise their profits otherwise their shareholders would seek better returns elsewhere. Naturally they will have diversified their products to include such things as you mentioned as well as investments in renewable energies. However,their main assets are still oil and gas. In respect of that I would like to refer to the following article to explore the risk that climate change exposes them to:

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/march-2017/oil-companies-and-the-financial-risk-of-climate-change/

Oil companies used to deny that the product they sell causes climate change; now they deny what climate change means for future sales of their product — or, at least, some of them don’t want to talk about it to their shareholders

In the 149 pages of financial and shareholder reports Imperial Oil sent to its shareholders in advance of its 2017 annual general meeting, the words “climate change” appear only twice and “greenhouse gases” only three times. The section on climate risk to the company’s business model is short and vague:

International accords and underlying regional and national regulations covering greenhouse gas emissions continue to evolve with uncertain timing and outcome, making it difficult to predict their business impact. Imperial’s estimate of potential costs related to possible public policies covering energy-related greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with those outlined in ExxonMobil’s long-term Outlook for Energy, which is used as a foundation for assessing the business environment and Imperial’s investment evaluations.

This statement stands in sharp contrast to Chevron’s most recent filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has a long section beginning, “Regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could increase Chevron’s operational costs and reduce demand for Chevron’s hydrocarbon and other products.” Climate change regulation “could have the impact of curtailing profitability in the oil and gas sector or rendering the extraction of the company’s oil and gas resources economically infeasible,” and the company noted that “increasing attention to climate change risks has resulted in an increased possibility of governmental investigations and, potentially, private litigation against the company.”

Based on a short reading of the article and the underlying facts it does not seem credible that the Oil industry is compelling Scientists to exaggerate the claims of AGW, in fact the opposite, as dictated by logic and facts, seems the more likely scenario.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Full Disclosure: I intend using the feedback as a source for a project I'm involved with on the role social media plays in dampening the debate on climate change.

Interesting. I would suggest social media has the direct opposite effect on the debate on climate change. But no matter.

You may wish to revisit your poll OP design - it does seem somewhat limited and appears to conclude that humans lack intelligence if you agree with the proposition ...

Poll:Do humans lack the necessary intelligence to adapt to climate change?

• Yes
• No

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Tuisceanch

gozunda wrote: »

Interesting. I would suggest social media has the direct opposite effect on the debate on climate change. But no matter.

You may wish to revisit your poll OP design - it does seem somewhat limited and appears to conclude that humans lack intelligence if you agree with the proposition ...

Poll:Do humans lack the necessary intelligence to adapt to climate change?

• Yes
• No

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

Yes you're right about the poll, in a way, as it excludes the proposition that climate change is not an issue. However the argument was never intended,and doesn't in fact,entertain that proposition,so the limitation of the poll to a binary choice serves accurately the purposes of the survey. However I did subsequently give some thought to the proposition you mention, mindful that it is,in my opinion based on observation, the nature of chat forums that contrarian views have a tendency to first make their voice known and tend to be more initially reactive than thoughtful in their responses, as they have a natural default position, which it is difficult to shift them from,and it is difficult to convince them that not every mention of climate change in a thread is an invitation to discuss the legitimacy of the scientific position, as that has been done to death already. However it doesn't seem possible to amend the poll once it has been created.

gozunda

Tuisceanch wrote: »

Yes you're right about the poll, in a way, as it excludes the proposition that climate change is not an issue. However the argument was never intended,and doesn't in fact,entertain that proposition,so the limitation of the poll to a binary choice serves accurately the purposes of the survey. However I did subsequently give some thought to the proposition you mention, mindful that it is the nature of chat forums that contrarian views have a tendency to first make their voice known and tend to be more initially reactive than thoughtful in their responses, as they have a natural default position, which it is difficult to shift them from,and it is difficult to convince them that not every mention of climate change in a thread is an invitation to discuss the legitimacy of the scientific position, as that has been done to death already. However it doesn't seem possible to amend the poll once it has been created.The mention of the project is simply to make people aware that the thread content and to a much lesser extent the poll acts as source of data for that study,so the other information is implicitly being gathered anyway.The subject of the project,however is not the actual subject under discussion here. Thanks for your feedback though as your observation regarding social media has been noted.

Ahh ok though my comment above referred soley to the mention of intelligence. Not whether climate change or any relevant topic is accepted or otherwise btw.

Regarding contrarian views - again I think you may have taken me up wrong. Populist issues such as climate change bring up strong emotions and reactions on all sides and do not dampen the discussion as you postulated imo.

Best of luck with the project btw

KyussB

It's not a matter of intelligence - people have the full ability to understand the nature and urgency of the problem, there are just impediments to this understanding becoming widespread - and we are witnessing those impediments crumble fairly quickly, now.

As for what to do about climate change, again, it's not a matter of intelligence - we already have the big-picture outline of the solutions that are required, we just need to do them - but again, there are impediments to people understanding that it's actually possible to undertake those solutions - and those impediments are far bigger, have lasted far longer, and are far more pervasive than those which hold back understanding the basic nature/urgency of climate change.

As understanding in the former paragraph enters the mainstream (it already has - it's just solidifying its position, now), understanding of the latter will necessarily follow - it is inevitable, now, because the public are actually motivated to understand and get to the bottom of the solutions, and the solutions are entering mainstream consciousness now - but it will take bit more time.

As to why the impediments exist at all: Worth reading about Agnotology, and books/films like Merchants of Doubt - there are fairly extensive propaganda networks, which work very very hard to 'capture' and restrict the public/political narrative, where it affects their businesss interests.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

It's not a matter of intelligence - people have the full ability to understand the nature and urgency of the problem, there are just impediments to this understanding becoming widespread - and we are witnessing those impediments crumble fairly quickly, now.

As for what to do about climate change, again, it's not a matter of intelligence - we already have the big-picture outline of the solutions that are required, we just need to do them - but again, there are impediments to people understanding that it's actually possible to undertake those solutions - and those impediments are far bigger, have lasted far longer, and are far more pervasive than those which hold back understanding the basic nature/urgency of climate change.

As understanding in the former paragraph enters the mainstream (it already has - it's just solidifying its position, now), understanding of the latter will necessarily follow - it is inevitable, now, because the public are actually motivated to understand and get to the bottom of the solutions, and the solutions are entering mainstream consciousness now - but it will take bit more time.

As to why the impediments exist at all: Worth reading about Agnotology, and books/films like Merchants of Doubt - there are fairly extensive propaganda networks, which work very very hard to 'capture' and restrict the public/political narrative, where it affects their businesss interests.

OK,duly noted and perhaps the poll should have included such an option as indicated by another poster. However,since it's not possible to amend the poll I am inclined to interpret that answer as being a 'No', in that we don't lack the intelligence ,but rather,reliant as we are on the competence and integrity of our political leaders and their ability to co-operate globally in a coherent and co-operative manner,to formulate and present credible and effective solutions, tailored to each countries particular circumstances,there has being a spectacular failure on their part to carry out their duties. (This interpretation is solely for the purposes of reporting on the poll as it stands as data collected based on the content and substance of arguments put forward and against will be considered and incorporated into a revised poll).

However,if I understand you correctly,this is not a failure in the actual intelligence of the species but rather a product of the venal and unscrupulous interests of an insignificant % of the population whose unhealthy influence on decision makers, vastly disproportionate to the sway of an average individual,has acted as a brake on the dissemination of information and delayed the discussion and implementation of solutions.

Thanks for your valuable contribution. I am proposing to formulate my argument in support of the motion,although your input has now given me pause for thought, and I hope you have the time to contribute further to this discussion. I am also trying to solicit input from other interested parties.

Tuisceanch

KyussB wrote: »

As for what to do about climate change, again, it's not a matter of intelligence - we already have the big-picture outline of the solutions that are required, we just need to do them - but again, there are impediments to people understanding that it's actually possible to undertake those solutions - and those impediments are far bigger, have lasted far longer, and are far more pervasive than those which hold back understanding the basic nature/urgency of climate change.

So are you stating here, that the argument that asserts that Anthropogenic Global Warning is unproven, no longer carries much weight with the public and has no meaningful effect on impeding the discussion of the various solutions proposed and how they might be implemented? Is this something you could assert with high degree of confidence, based on your experience of discussing the subject on social media sites, or do you find that there are still significant number of people who have yet to be convinced of the legitimacy of the AGW argument? If the latter, do you think they are representative of the population at large or does social media distort their relevance?

KyussB

Well, in that bolded bit I was referring to economic/political impediments, to undertaking the solutions for dealing with climate change - economics (macroeconomics) in particular, has been in a poor state academically for a very long time, across the entire planet - and the changes in economic views needed to deal with the challenge climate change poses, have been impeded/held-back significantly, for many decades.

As for denial of AGW, stating that AGW is unproven - I think we're at the watershed moment now, where denial is exiting mainstream acceptability, and ya, will no longer have a meaningful effect on impeding discussion of solutions.

I'd absolutely state with high confidence, based on discussion in social media, that this is the case. Before the last year, it was already a losing argument for someone to deny AGW - but there were still a lot of people who could validly be skeptical of it, out of not knowing or out of ignorance - but now, today, the public discussion and awareness has grown so much, and reached a political watershed, that nobody now can claim to not know of the problem, or to be wholly ignorant of it - and so I think it's not going to be politically acceptable anymore, to deny it.

In other words: The Overton Window has shifted significantly, pushing climate change denial out, and is in the process of bringing solutions to climate change to the center of attention.