Follow this blog:
RSS

Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming

By | February 24, 2010, 4:00 AM PST

What’s to blame for our slow reaction to the threat of global warming? Andrew Shatte, an expert on resilience and a research professor at the University of Arizona, says our evolutionary tendencies make it all but impossible for us to fear — and act on — climate change.

When we spoke last week, Shatte explained why many Americans believe global warming is a serious issue that requires immediate action, but few have taken major steps to curb it.

Why haven’t most people changed their habits when it comes to staving off global warming?

We have evolved several traits that push our behavior down certain pathways that even we consider somewhat irrational. Some of these evolutionary aspects provide limitations on how well we can respond to a threat like global warming. And others of these evolutionary forces distract us. Evolution isn’t Santa Claus. It doesn’t give us everything we want. It gives us only what we need to survive. When our sensory system was being shaped three or four million years ago, we were reacting to some pretty specific threats. The concept of evolution is that whatever gives you greater reproductive success, it’s going to be kept in the gene pool. The things that were selected were things like our ability to spot a lion in the grass.

We never developed a capacity to detect carbon dioxide because we never needed to. For us, carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, until it reaches proportions where it’s lethal. Our sensory system never developed a way to detect it because it was never a threat. We never needed to detect the elements that comprise global warming and so we haven’t. We also don’t detect things at a distance. From where you’re sitting in the Northeast in the middle of a snowstorm, it’s really difficult to even entertain the concept of global warming as a threat. Those people who are closest to the front line of global warming, on the Arctic Circle seeing melting ice day in and day out, they are much better responders because their sensory system is detecting a threat. My tagline is, “What we don’t detect, we don’t sweat.” You can tell me all the time about global warming, but I’m not seeing it, I’m not smelling it, I’m not tasting it or touching it or hearing it, and so it’s less meaningful for me.

Human beings will respond with alarm only to those things they fear. Take a look at the list of [some of the top] killers in American civilization: heart disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, injury, diabetes, influenza and pneumonia, Alzheimer’s. [By contrast, our top fears are] animals, insects, heights, enclosed spaces, driving a car, water, storms and blood. There’s almost no crossover between the two lists. Psychologists have a theory that says the phobias we developed are based on what were threats a couple of millennia ago. Our modern genes haven’t caught up with our modern realities. Whenever it comes to evolution, it’s important to realize that we’re constantly playing catch-up. We’re fearing spiders when we really should be fearing cardiovascular disorders and potentially global warming. Everything about the evolution of our fears works against us being afraid of global warming.

To what extent does this become an extinction-level threat?

I’m not a climate scientist. I’ve read the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. I know what the academies of science in most developed countries say. And what they’re suggesting is that man-made global warming is real, that we have contributed to the warming of our globe and that there will be some pretty serious consequences of global warming if it goes unabated. Climate change can cause drought in some areas, floods in others, loss of crop. Whenever we have a loss of crop and we don’t have enough food to feed the world, then we have to seriously consider the concept of war. I don’t know what the consequences will be, but we’re not really in a very fit position to respond to the threat. And if the threat is not an extinction-level event, then it probably doesn’t matter. But if it is an extinction-level event, then we really need to take stock because everything about evolution has pushed us away from being able to mount a challenge.

Coming tomorrow: Shatte talks about how to beat the evolutionary forces that hinder our fight against global warming.

Photo: Courtesy of Andrew Shatte

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

About Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood is a contributing writer for SmartPlanet.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Contributing Writer

Christina Hernandez Sherwood has written for the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Diverse: Issues in Higher Education and Columbia Journalism Review. She holds degrees from the University of Delaware and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in New Jersey.

Follow her on Twitter.

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

Christina Hernandez Sherwood

In the unlikely event that Christina has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

31
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Wow. Those blogs are just so convincing. Not. Reading a bunch of denialist blogs using really bad science and ignoring the overwhelming majority of climatologists and organizations like the AGU and AIP just doesn't count as "educating yourself". Meteorologists aren't climatologists, largely haven't studied the disciplines necessary to do meaningful research in that field and still have a high opinion of themselves when it comes to the subject.
Posted by JimSatterfieldW
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Blaming evolved intelligence for our slow response to global warming.
This is probably the stupidest article I have ever read. You guys should rename your blog sight ?SmartPlanet-Ignorant Writers.?

Why not start with the fact that humans did evolve to deal with carbon dioxide...we breath it out (and in) so that plants way live since planets use the energy of sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and oxygen in a process called photosynthesis. This is so because plants and fungi evolved before humans or other land mammals. Thus we evolved to adopt to them and the atmosphere they helped influence. This symbiotic relationship meant that by helping the planet and fungi we were helping ourselves. Of course we do not breath in pure oxygen. Our atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, 0.03% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Life o this planet evolved to be in sync with each other however this does not mean there are not tornadoes or earth quakes or volcanic eruptions or ice ages followed by extremely warm periods which results in death and destruction. We all fight to survive. We eat other spices as some of them eat us. This does not mean the world will end because of it. An algebraic equation merely reflects a fundamental fact of life on this planet, left=right, nothing is created or destroyed just transformed. Thus the system is always in balance on the macro since in the micro is balancing itself out naturally. Man can destroy all life on this planet, however that usual requires much effort. Wars have proven to be very effective and efficient means of delivering that destruction. If anyone at ?SmartPanet? is convened about saving life on this planet why not blog about stopping US military or the weapons it supplies to despots from fighting wars which are killing innocent children, women, elderly, men, plant life and poising the atmosphere we all breath?

Why not make you next blog ?how we can change Americas addiction to its military industrial complex and war?? I guess that trying to affect real change is much harder to do therefore take the cowardice way out and talk about ?climate change.?
Posted by mario@...
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
That's a bunch of BS. If you look at history the climate has been changing from cold to hot to cold long before we even had a chance to do anything. How about the little Ice Age. It was here for awhile then it went away. There are deserts were there once were forest and swamps. I've been to the petrified forest in the desert of California. There were glaciers down in the US a long time ago. It must have wormed up quite a bit because there not here now.

I think it is arrogant to think we little humans are changing the climate of the entire earth.

Global warming or Climate Change as there calling it now is all about political power and money.


Jeff
Posted by JefferyS_TheTech
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
one problem...
...mankind stopped evolving a long time ago.
Posted by wmlundine
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Another problem
Mankind didn't evolve. I've run the numbers and realized how utterly absurd the whole evolution thing is.

Evolution does allow people to swell up with pride and explain their existance without having to acknowledge the existance of a creator. Which is probably why this failed theory still attracts even PhD types.

Consider for a moment what evolution implies about human beings. Without assistance from demonic inspiration, we concieved of Vlad the Impaler, Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet purges that killed 50 to 80 million Russians, Mao Tse Tung and his purges that killed 80 to 100 million Chinese, plus all the Ted Bundy type serial killers and all the child molsters. In otherwords, if there is no heaven and hell, no God or demons, then mankind is soley and inexcusably responsible for our record of abuse to our fellow human beings. It means we are so depraved that we inevitably will unleash the worst type of evil imaginable on the universe if we make it to the stars.

No, long ago I realized how pathetically assinine evolution was and gave up on it.
Posted by LarryPTL
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
you gotta be kidding
This is one of those articles that frustrates me to no end. It should never have been written. It is built around a predisposed conclusion that "climate change" IS the result of human activity, that "climate change" is something humans NEED TO react to, and that "climate change" can be RE-ENGINEERED - for better or worse - by humans. Wow, you guys really enjoy the Kool-aid. It is generally accepted that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that it has undergone MANY ice ages and MANY warming trends, all without human intervention and LONG before human industrial capability. To suggest that we have in our comparatively short industrialized history CREATED a climate change and that we have the scientific and industrial capacity to REVERSE said climate change is nothing short of politically-correct ignorance. Natural processes have always changed Earth's climate and will continue to do so without our approval. Perhaps someday we will have technology to terraform planets, to engineer giant solar collectors in Earth orbit, to steer ocean currents, to halt continental drift, and to control Earth's spin. Until then, we have no choice but to sit back and enjoy the ride. Let's stop the ignorance.
Posted by RaySand
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
you gotta be kidding
This is one of those articles that frustrates me to no end. It should never have been written. It is built around a predisposed conclusion that "climate change" IS the result of human activity, that "climate change" is something humans NEED TO react to, and that "climate change" can be RE-ENGINEERED - for better or worse - by humans. Wow, you guys really enjoy the Kool-aid. It is generally accepted that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that it has undergone MANY ice ages and MANY warming trends, all without human intervention and LONG before human industrial capability. To suggest that we have in our comparatively short industrialized history CREATED a climate change and that we have the scientific and industrial capacity to REVERSE said climate change is nothing short of politically-correct ignorance. Natural processes beyond our control have always changed Earth's climate and will continue to do so without consent. Perhaps someday we will have technology to terraform planets, to engineer giant solar collectors in Earth orbit, to steer ocean currents, to halt continental drift, and to control Earth's spin. Until then we have no choice but to sit back and enjoy the ride. Let's stop the ignorance.
Posted by RaySand
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
POLITICS BEHIND CAP & TRADE

THE RICH WILL GET RICHER
Cap & Trade is being imposed on the world because it creates a multi-trillion dollar commodity market for hot air. The beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading the new commodities market.

But citizens will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along.

TROUBLING IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS
How many CO2 credits will be distributed world wide? $13 - 15 trillion? How will the process be audited to prevent outright fraud?

Who gets to decide how many CO2 credits each business or person should receive?

Should sovereign nations or the UN tax this new one world currency?

If a business in California closes and sells CO2 credits to a company in England, will a new California company be required to purchase credits before opening?

Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? Or will people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought thousands of acres to be left unexploited to acquire carbon sequestration credits.

Does a growing population mean a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotments for each new person or business?

Should children be allowed to inherit their parents CO2 permits? Should couples be limited to two children?

CAP & TRADE ENSURES THE STATUS QUO FOR OPEC AND TERRORISM
Isn?t the timing interesting? With the world in recession and US unemployment figures hovering around 10% the EPA exceeds its authority and determines CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.

But America has natural gas and coal in abundance and could eliminate dependence on foreign oil and stop sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.

And it is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 jobs lost. Washington could keep money, technology and jobs in the US by reducing the trade imbalance. FYI: during the decades America enjoyed great prosperity; no concern was expressed for the plight of the uninsured.

The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975

In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]

"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC?s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"

A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration] Read sections 10 and 11]

WHAT ENTITY SHOULD DETERMINE EARTH?S CO2 CARRYING CAPACITY
I prefer the God of my Fathers decide rather than scientists seeking government grant money.

Genesis 9:7 As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.

Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,

Job 15:7 Were you the first man to be born, Or were you brought forth before the hills?

Psalm 104:5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.

Proverbs 8:29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!







IS MAN CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING
If so how do you explain the age of dinosaurs? Fred Flintstone must have had one hell of a fleet of Hummers!

But according to science, Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages. So historically isn?t global warming a cyclical event more affected by sun spot cycles?

And NASA says oceans are cooling since 2003.

Furthermore, the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?

COMMON SENSE
I am against Cap and Trade in the best of times but it is national suicide to implement this costly new program when America's economy is teetering on the brink! The only sustainable Cap and Trade is handing their Caps to politicians who vote yes on the issue and trading them for new representatives!

Poverty is the worst form of pollution. Otherwise, why are the undeveloped nations in Copenhagen demanding redistribution of wealth from the developed nations? And who will these nations turn to when America is destroyed?
Posted by Repeal
24th Feb 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
The Real Solution
OK, it is time to come to grips with all the worlds problems with a "unified theory of all solutions". Take a look at the social pshyci that that has endowed the great leaders in all fields in our time. For them, we humans have created all the bad things in the world and caused all the bad things that happen to other humans. We are irresponsible, dumb (except for some), greedy, cowardly,murdering, etc. This leaves us just one possible solution to saving the world. Since we are the problem we must all die. Yes, people will mess up all the other solutions, it is our destiny, it is in our DNA. So world just kill us all and put us out of your missery.
Posted by MikeBytes@...
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Ann Smith
Well actually global warming had been recognized in the 1950's, and basically up today we've known about it, and lived with it. It's hard to say that what we haven't detected can't scare us therefore triggering a slow response in this case, because global warming may not be a danger that we can respond too. Perhaps this global warming we see is not man-made and is just the natural occurrence of things. Nature does have it's mind-blowing ways and I think it's arrogant of us to think and fear that we can change it. I must agree, however, that I believe people fear detected danger.
Posted by Ann Smith
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
The responses so far prove the theory
So far every response has denied Andrew Shatte's theory, most by claiming that the Earth has had warming and cooling for billions of years. Quite correct. What they don't take into account is precisely the eons involved.

The great Permian extinction about 250 million years ago was caused by global warming of an average 10 degrees. This killed all plant life, resulting in the extinction of ~95% of all species (including marine species, caused by methane hydrate deposits on the ocean floors thawing, further contributing to global warming).

This period of global warming (which was started by massive lava-flows in Siberia) occurred over a period of ~100,000 years.

Since the invention of the internal combustion engine, there has been enough carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to raise the average temperature worldwide by 2%. The same rise in temperature by natural means during the Permian Extinction would have been about 20,000 years. I haven't heard of any great volcanic events on the scale of the Siberian lava-flows, let alone events 1000% greater. The only difference between now and then is us. Humans. Humans burning fossil fuels continually and at ever increasing rates; enough to warm the planet 1000 times faster than natural events ever did, barring asteroid strikes, which were not a causative agent during the Permian Extinction.

In short, open your eyes and look around you. The Chinese are bringing online 2 new coal burning powerplants every week. And you still deny that we are responsible. Blind, the lot of you.
Posted by aspir8or
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Humans (and other animals for that matter) are evolved to deal with immediate threats, not long range ones. It is our intelligence that allows us to see and respond to the long range threats. Reading comments like some of those here makes me wonder about our intelligence though.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is easily demonstrated in the laboratory. That the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by nearly 40% since 1830 has been measured. That the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due primarily to human burning of fossil fuels is easily proven. The rest is just details.

Oh, and Larry, the human race has also produced people like Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King Jr., Luciano Pavarotti, Leonardo da Vinci etc. I'd say it's a mixed bag.
Posted by riverat1
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
US military role in affecting climate on this planet:
Please see these links and research for yourselves.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1362
http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/VirtualClassroom/HAARP/haarp.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html
http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/haarp.php

Please read some links from an earlier blogger which were delete
http://davehatter.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/global-warmingclimate-change-is-the-greatest-scam-in-history/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

A satirical spoof on a not so satirical event in history however the parallels are unfortunately similar, the quest for global power and dominance, while the masses are enslaved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hENJlWwrg_4&feature=related
Posted by mario@...
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Finally an intelligent response from "aspir8or". Frankly, I find this article insulting. It is only directed to the US. According to Ms Hernandez, the US is less evolved than the rest of the developed Nations. The debate is over for the rest of the world. Climate Change is a widely accepted fact in the rest of the developed nations. It is only US arrogance that denies these facts. We've been herded like cattle by big industry and politicians to believe Climate Change is not real, or its not our fault. Why, because adapting to climate change is expensive and it doesn't make money. It has nothing to do with evolution. While Ms Hernandez has a few valid points about evolution, I find it hard to believe that her article wasn't commissioned by politicians or big industry. Wake up U.S. and look beyond your own backyard. It's time to catch up to the rest of the world.
Posted by greeva@...
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Dear aspir8or,

Perhaps you do not live in a part of the word which experiences 4 seasons. Where I live there is all four and sometimes in one day! That means that temperature rises and falls by and average of 10-20 deg C in that one day. Imagine that. It is normal and have been occurring for many years even before the native Americans arrived. Guess what happens to the plants, animals and humans...they do not die, THEY ADAPT! That is correct life on this planet evolved or leaned to adapt to the change in climate which can range from +30 in the summer to -25 in the winter all within one year every year.

I am not a climate scientist nor a botanist, although I hold a BSc degree. Irregardless, I do employ some degree of though and intelligence to what I attempt to understand in world around me and have leaned to apply the scientific method when approaching problems to solve. Realize that societies are not all knowing gods but people with little information which like to project themselves as such with that little information they posses until they are proven wrong however even then they tend to beat the drum of superiority. I would suggest you get out live and see for yourself. Use your evolved brain to deuce for yourself when someone is saying something which is illogical.

P.S. is the warmer climates exits the most vegetation which feeds man, other animals, insects and plants.
Posted by mario@...
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
deniers deny
The deniers sure spend alot of energy ignoring Facts. The huge body of research is in agreement that pollution from fossil fuels has and is causing climate change. The problem isn't just that climate is changing (do YOU want to live in another ice age?), it's the rate at which climate is changing. Instead of thousands or MILLIONS of years, this process is occurring in less than a hundred years.

Deniers deny logic. Wrap your mouth around the end of a tailpipe and spend a minute breathing in the fumes. It's extremely toxic stuff. Sure one car isn't so bad, but multiply that by the millions of cars in operation and suddenly the concentration of pollutants becomes significant. Deniers need to listen to their own advice and use their pea-brains for rational thought.
Posted by chefp
24th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
What a bizzar article.
If we can change the climate unintentionally, perhaps we can intentionally change it so we will never have an ice age again or a warming period either. Its so nice to know that we are so advanced that we can control the planet. I never realized we had actually evolved so far. We must have become .... gods???
Posted by jwlthe4th
25th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Here we have some bad science (Evolution) as an answer to more bad science (Global Warming). Give me a break, the lack of a response to a non issue is not evolutionary, it is just common sense. Oops, perhaps not so common.

T
Posted by lilkid1100
25th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
We are evolving - but not in the way that causes us to not respond.
Human Evolution huh? Ok, let?s go with that theory.

We?re evolving right now! Humans are evolving and beginning to
realize that there are those who will sound the alarm for any reason
under the sun ? merely for personal gain, (e.g. Gore personally
making millions on Global Warming).

Typically, when huge mistakes in judgment are made, those that
sounded the alarm merely fade into the background ? with our money.
Now, if we decided as a species to publicly ridicule such alarmists
when they sound false alarms and demand restitution ? we have fewer
alarms and the supporting evidence would be sound! The media used
to do this ? but they?ve devolved.

We're evolving to realize that some of us are idiots and a lot of us
can't be trusted.
Posted by GuntherGump
25th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
I'm sorry aspir8or but I believe the Little Ice Age lasted only a couple decades. So it doesn't take hundreds, thousands, or millions of years for the climate to change.

This belief that man has created this Global warming is just a guess. No one has the ability to prove that the climate change is caused by man because they cannot separate what co2 is natural and what is mans.

Besides the plants like the co2 and from what I've heard that the crop yields have been the best in years.

The US has more important things to worry about like the huge amount of money we owe China and others that our government has got us in to.

Jeff
Posted by JefferyS_TheTech
25th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Jeff, It's pretty easy to show that the increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is due mostly to human burning of fossil fuels. You can calculate how much CO2 is released by burning a ton of coal (it works out to about 2.5 tons of CO2 per ton of coal). You can do similar calculations for other fossil fuels. The increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere amounts to about 45% of the CO2 released by humans each year and the other 55% gets absorbed in the ocean and biosphere. So while you can't point to a particular CO2 molecule and say it came from human causes you can say that if humans weren't releasing such large quantities of CO2 from fossil fuel burning and other activities the level in the atmosphere would still be around 280 ppm rather than the current level of 388 ppm.
Posted by riverat1
25th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
How, pray tell, does one get two and a half tons of CO2 out of burning one of coal? Surely this is alchemy and we can use this skill for other beneficial purposes!
Posted by psquare11
27th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Money first, humankind survivabillity a distant second
JefferyS_TheTech's response is typical of what makes me fear how my grandson is going to live through what will happen if we carry on thinking that way.

1. If we get a mini ice age, even for only "a few decades", billions will die. Hamanity will not have time to evolve enough to adapt to it. Crops that love co2 cannot grow under miles of ice. Half of North America, China and India will be under ice. Most of Europe and the old USSR will be under ice. Is everyone affected going to move south and try to produce enough food in less than half of the land mass left to feed everyone?

2. Global warming with humanity as the major cause is "just a guess"? Most atmospherical, geological, biological, in fact, most scientists of all disciplines having anything to do with pollution agree in large part that your "guess" is fact.

But it's more important to pay back international debt than to face the coming horror and try and do something about it. When it comes, my grandson and yours will probably be trying to kill each other over a half rotten potato. Whereas if you and your friends take your blinkers off and we all try and do something about it now, there's a fair chance we can avoid the consequences of our refusal to take responsibility for our actions.

That's it from me. I'll be out back teaching my grandson how to fight with a knife and the best way to cook worms on an open fire.
Posted by aspir8or
28th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
We are too evolved to be suckers!
Maybe our slow reaction to the threat of global warming is because we are evolved
enough to know when we are being taken for fools. Remember, you can't fool all of the
people all of the time, even if over 70 billion dollars has been squandered in the attempt.

No doubt Andrew Shatte's shameful branch of science would like a slice of the funding
pie to devise ways to overcome our evolutionary tendencies and make it easier for us to
fear ? and act on ? climate change.
Posted by firth@...
28th Feb 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
How to get 2.5 tons of CO2 out of 1 ton of coal.
psquare11, It's easy. Coal is typically about 70% carbon so there are about 1400 lbs. of carbon in a ton of coal. When you burn coal the carbon combines with 2 oxygen atoms from the atmosphere to form CO2. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 and the atomic weight of oxygen is 16 so the atomic weight of 1 carbon atom and 2 oxygen atoms (IOW a CO2 molecule) is 44. 44/12 = 3.67 so a CO2 molecule weighs 3.67 times as much as a carbon atom alone. So 3.67 * 1400 lbs. of carbon in a ton of coal = 5,133 lbs. or 2.567 tons of CO2.
Posted by riverat1
1st Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
Sun dried, is "the best way to cook worms".
They're a little like plain jerky.
No smoke, or smell, to attract claim jumpers.

Major Dissappointment
Posted by Major Disappointment
2nd Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
None of the "man is at fault explanations" for global warming explain why the ice caps on Mars have melted over the same period. None of these explain why the "hockey stick" is a straight line when the concentration should be accelerating; the number of CO2 producing items grows exponentially, not linearly. And there is no explanation why farm implements have been uncovered as glaciers recede on Greenland. Did the Vikings have tractors?

Global warming is a natural part of the planet's cycle or caused by something from the outside. There was a big spike in solar activity in the 1850's or '60s that explains what has happened here and on Mars over the last several decades, but Al Gore didn't invent astrophysics.
Posted by jagad5
2nd Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
The explanation is many centuries old and captured in a C14 maxim - What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over.

The eye could be literal or instruments capturing data and the heartfelt reaction be informed or otherwise.

No evolutionary forces at work here that I can see. CO2 and the climate is not the first and certainly not to be the last observation that we make about our world and how we coexist with it.
Posted by mr.jonno@...
8th Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
C02 DOES NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE
Get a grip
Global Warming is the BIGGEST LIE in the past 100 years
There is NO PROOF of man made global warming. The "scientists" fugded the figures
BTW...Evolution does NOT exist either
Posted by verd@...
12th Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
I guess I am one of the few who agree with the writer. Fear
often drives behavior change. We don't fear climate change so
we don't change. Until people start believing that our life can
dramatically change, there will be no change. MOST SCIENTIST
SAY GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL and due in part to
human activity. Humans have been on the planet (in some form
or other) for millions of years yet only in the last 100 years
have humans introduced carbon dioxide at great levels. Are we
suppose to think that it is not going to have an affect on the
planet? So many people in denial. I'd rather be safe then sorry.
Our children's children deserve it.
Posted by ziggycy
12th Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Blaming evolution for our slow response to global warming
WOW! Talk about LEAPING to conclusions. I quote from the author, "...everything about evolution has pushed us away from being able to mount a challenge". This article has to be one of the all-timers. It is poorly thought out and poorly supported; it is so bad I can't begin to cover all of the fallacies. Did the author ever consider the possibility that there might be many reasons besides evolution for why not everyone on the planet would panic about global warming. Maybe some people have evolved enough to try to use their brains to figure out an appropriate response (if any) instead of just yelling "the sky is falling". How do you even measure what an appropriate response would be and then determine whether or not it has anything to do with human evolution?

Those who say any response is better than none (or better safe than sorry), will get us KILLED (as a nation or as a society, if not litterally then figuratively). If global warming is real and is a threat, just doing "something" will not solve the problem, if it is even solveable. If you believe some of the doom-sayers, maybe it is too late already. Personally, I believe that we need to reduce pollution but am not at all convinced of man-made global warming. If it is so obvious, why would top scientists need to distort or misrepresent their findings?
Posted by Bob C User
11th May 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet Community and join the conversation! Signing-up is free and quick, Do it now, we want to hear your opinion.