[P2P-F] Fwd: FROM RAJANI: INTERVIEW WITH MCPHERSON, RESENT TO CORRECT OMISSION

Fri Sep 21 05:14:26 CEST 2018

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: r kanth <involutegandhian at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 5:05 AM
Subject: FROM RAJANI: INTERVIEW WITH MCPHERSON, RESENT TO CORRECT OMISSION
To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>

 *IDEAS FOR OUR TIMES *(4)

          *On Imminent Human Extinction*

            *An Interview with Dr Guy McPherson*

*   This is the Fourth in a series of interviews exploring New Ideas that
may,   *
*          perhaps, serve as salves for our troubled times**.*

            [*Interviewed by Professor Rajani Kanth]*

                    **the italicised emphases* *are the Interviewer’s*

*1.    **Please explain the environmental threat to human existence you
perceive that has brought you much notoriety in recent times.*

First, a little perspective.

As with all other species in planetary history, except the few remaining,
our species will go extinct. We are in the midst of the Sixth Mass
Extinction. As with the five prior such events, most species on Earth will
be driven to extinction in a relatively short period of time.

The post-Permian mass extinction caused the extinction of more than 90% of
the species on Earth about 252 million years ago. It was the worst of the
prior mass extinction events. As with all five of the prior mass extinction
events, Earth’s recovery required several million years to become vibrant,
verdant, and characterized by an abundance of multicellular organisms.

The current event is underlain by atmospheric carbon emissions about 10
times faster than those during the post-Permian event. It is no surprise
that the ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction is proceeding an order of magnitude
faster the post-Permian mass extinction.

According to an August 2010 report from the United Nations, an estimated
150-200 species are driven to extinction every day. The actual figure
exceeds 200 species daily during the last few years.

In my case, the notoriety comes from my prediction that *Homo sapiens* will
go extinct by 2026. Thus will we join the six other species within the genus
*Homo* that have already gone extinct.

*Specifically, I predict that there will be no humans on Earth by 2026* ,
based on projections of near-term planetary temperature rise and the demise
of myriad species that support our own existence.

*2.    **How does that differ from more mainstream views of climate change
extant today?*

My view differs from the conventional, conservative view only with respect
to *timing.*

Every conservation biologist knows our species will join others in
extinction when we lose habitat that supports our species. Yet, doubtless
due to a combination of personal and professional reasons, few other
scientists are willing to connect the dots leading to our imminent demise.
Among the personal reasons are parenthood. Amongst the professional reasons
are the loss of support for one’s privileged position.

*3.    **How, and when, and why, did you come to believe in this thesis?*

My lifelong pursuit of evidence, combined with my knowledge of conservation
biology, lead me to believe we face extinction in the near future.

Conservation biology rests on the pillars of speciation (when and with what
predecessors a species comes into existence), extinction (when the last
member of a species dies), and habitat (the many factors necessary to
support the populations of a species, including clean air, potable water,
healthy food, and the means to maintain body temperature within a narrow
range).

As with other species, human animals depend upon* habitat* for our survival.

More than 15 years ago, I reached the conclusion that the last member of*Homo
sapiens* would die by 2030. I was co-editing a book about climate change at
the time, and the evidence overwhelmed me.

The conclusion was so disconcerting, I did not write or talk about the
subject for a few years. Less than two years after reaching the conclusion
about near-term human extinction, I discovered the “hail Mary” pass that I
believed would ward off extinction for a few more generations: global peak
oil, or net energy decline.

Alas, passing the global peak for conventional oil in 2005 or 2006 did not
cause the collapse necessary to turn off the heat engine of civilization.
And our contemporary knowledge of global dimming, reported in the journal
literature only since December 2011, indicates that collapse will actually
accelerate human extinction relative to maintaining the omnicidal heat
engine of civilization.

More than a decade ago, I began speaking publicly about human extinction.
For a few years, I adhered to the conventional notion that our species will
go extinct in about 100 years. As evidence accumulated, I shifted the
timeline back to 2050, 2035, 2030, and ultimately 2025 for human extinction.

Our species will lose global habitat before 2025, thus marking the point of
functional extinction. A few members of our species will persist beyond
this loss of habitat for a few years, and the final members of*Homo sapiens*
 will die lonely, hungry, thirsty, and confused.

*4.    **What scientific evidence, either from your own research or from
others, have you drawn this conclusion from (in layman’s terms if
possible)?*

I routinely describe *two paradoxes*, and the fact that we are in the midst
of the Sixth Mass Extinction.

First , the paradoxes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in their
vaunted fifth assessment that nearly all scenarios between now and 2100
require large-scale sequestration and storage of atmospheric carbon
dioxide. This “geoengineering” must be accomplished at a tremendous scale
if we are to survive. There is no known technology by which such an effort
can be conducted, as pointed out by the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States and a European body of similar stature. In short, fantasy
technology is required.

The second paradox combines our knowledge of greenhouse gases and the
aerosol masking effect (aka global dimming). As indicated by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, civilization is a heat engine, even if civilization is
underlain by “renewable” technology.

Yet,  turning off the heat engine of civilization heats the planet even
faster as a result of the aerosol masking effect. Industrial activity pours
particulates into the atmosphere, and these particulates – notably sulfates
produced by burning coal – act as an “umbrella” to keep incoming sunlight
from striking the surface of the planet. These particulates are constantly
falling out of the atmosphere, and industrial activity is constantly adding
them.

While the greenhouse gases produced by industrialization are acting as
“blankets” to hold in the heat, the particulates produced by
industrialization are acting as “umbrellas” to keep the heat from striking
Earth.

*Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t,* civilization is simultaneously
destroying most life on Earth while also serving as a shield to protect
most life on Earth. The abrupt rise in temperature resulting from the
near-term demise of industrial civilization will proceed too rapidly for
most species to “keep up” with the rate of change.

The plants that feed us cannot move. We cannot move them fast enough, and
they depend upon unique environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and
precipitation regime, extant soil, co-dependent species).

As if two paradoxes are not enough, we are in the midst of the Sixth Mass
Extinction on Earth. Destroying habitat for the species that keep us alive
will cause our extinction, too. The ongoing loss of habitat for human
animals will accelerate, thus leading to our near-term demise.

I have provided supporting details within a long essay at Nature Bats Last (
https://guymcpherson.com/climate-chaos/climate-change-summary-and-update/).
This long essay barely mentions the likelihood and consequences of an
ice-free Arctic Ocean.

As Finland’s President Niinistö has been pointing out for more than a year,
an ice-free Arctic will lead quickly to loss of habitat for humans on Earth
(e.g.,
http://finlandtoday.fi/president-niinisto-in-north-russia-if-we-lose-the-arctic-we-lose-the-world/).
The near-term blue-ocean event was projected to occur in 2016 *+* 3 years
by a paper in the 2012 edition of*Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences*(
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/suppl/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345
).

*5.    **If so, how is it that most of your fellow-scientists have missed
what is so ap*

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20180921/bb781b70/attachment-0001.html>