If there was a first only, and five others for goodness sake, and life not only went on but continued (and even if you say we weren't here, that's even more toward my point) and got better. I'm not sure what the huge deal is really.

but perhaps the edges of fiction and reality are becoming more blurry day by day. — Jack Cummins

Have you experienced this?

there was a first only, and five others for goodness sake, and life not only went on but continued (and even if you say we weren't here, that's even more toward my point) and got better. I'm not sure what the huge deal is really. — Outlander

Whatever takes our place might be the coolest thing ever. Is that what you mean?

Lake Eerie is an artificial environment. They connected the ocean to it to clean it out. :yikes:

Yes, my life has always been a bit blurry between fact and fiction, but it is a bit hard to explain on a website. I had 3 friends die tragic deaths in a very short space of time while I was at university and this led me to question a lot of things I had taken for granted. All through my adult life since then barely a week goes by without some major drama to the point where I always have a lot to say.

I do have some good things happen as well and I do keep a sense of humor though. But generally I feel I am on an accelerated learning curve all the time. It also seems that some people have more dramas while others seem to just have lives, which apart from inevitable things like deaths of relatives, everything from relationships, studies, career etc just flow smoothly without continuous dramas.

But I am on crash course collision with the apocalypse and a phase I borrow from Marilyn Manson's autobiography is the idea of a 'personal apocalypse.'

Right, but just focus for a second on this: the scientific community does not support the conclusion that we're 'presiding over a mass extinction event'

I doubt this, there is a phenomenon amongst climate scientists, in which they shy away from saying anything conclusive, or alarmist, because they risk being dragged into a media circus. So they don't often give their interpretation of the data and leave such conclusions to others.

They walk away before you can even present the truth to them, as if they dont want their belief threatened.

I would question this "truth" and Also I don't see the phenomenon you refer to of protesters over exaggerating the issue. Perhaps this is how it is in the US, but the rest of the Western countries have already passed beyond this point and the crisis is accepted for what it is.

doubt this, there is a phenomenon amongst climate scientists, in which they shy away from saying anything conclusive, or alarmist, because they risk being dragged into a media circus. — Punshhh

So youre saying that the scientific community is secretly confident that we're in a mass extinction? What makes you believe this?

would question this "truth" — Punshhh

The truth referenced here is that the scientific community in general does not conclude that we are in a mass extinction event. Could you show why I'm wrong?

But I am on crash course collision with the apocalypse and a phase I borrow from Marilyn Manson's autobiography is the idea of a 'personal apocalypse.' — Jack Cummins

From a certain point of view change is the death of something. Is that what you mean?

From a certain point of view change is the death of something. — frank

From the theosophical perspective, we are presently in the fifth kaliyuga, which would mean the demise and dissolution of the fifth planetary sphere. So no, not the sixth mass extinction from that point of view.

I am not sure that I actually meant that change is the death of something. My basic point was that we face the darkness within our own consciousness and what occurs may be a death but also a transformation. I suppose the difference is that I am saying that an end may be a new beginning.

So, my view of mass extinction, quite related to my own discussion thread about cultural collapse, is that when one form of existence or culture comes to an end, it may not be an ultimate end but may be followed by a new beginning.

:up:

Actually, I responded to Frank and I think what you have said is along the same line as my reply. This is fairly possible because I am influenced by theosophy, especially Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.

I have to also admit that I have read some books by Benjamin Creme, who spoke of the transition from the energies of the age of Pisces to Aquarius. He thought that the Maitreya would emerge but he died and it did not happen.

But, in general, collapse of some kind may be followed by a new beginning.

This is fairly possible because I am influenced by theosophy, especially Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.

But, in general, collapse of some kind may be followed by a new beginning. — Jack Cummins

Theosophy views everything as epicycles within epicycles, and from that perspective, a new beginning is imminent.

Theosophy is a very cohesive system that is capable of explaining nearly everything through it's own terms, and in that respect, it is very interesting. Unfortunately, from a purely philosophical perspective it is hyper-speculative with a narrow focus on metaphysics. It hardly touches on epistemology and ethics, which is why it remains conspicuously absent in philosophical circles.

From the theosophical perspective, we are presently in the fifth kaliyuga, which would mean the demise and dissolution of the fifth planetary sphere. So no, not the sixth mass extinction from that point of view.

The demise you refer to is of a whole different order of magnitude to what Frank is talking about. The planet will be entirely extinguished.

Unfortunately, from a purely philosophical perspective it is hyper-speculative with a narrow focus on metaphysics. It hardly touches on epistemology and ethics, which is why it remains conspicuously absent in philosophical circles.

This is unfortunate, I had thought of scaling this edifice, philosophically, but eventually realised that the gulf is to wide to span. Particularly as philosophy seems to be going in the direction of post modernism. Theosophy is an exercise in translating Hindu spiritualism into something which can be grasped by the West. As such it is orthonogal to the edifice of Western philosophy.

So youre saying that the scientific community is secretly confident that we're in a mass extinction? What makes you believe this?

I wouldn't use the words "secretly confident", rather, secretly worried. I say this because the scientists who became embroiled in the media circus around claims by climate change skeptics, that the scientists were massaging the statistics on the rate of predicted global warming. Are from my local University, The University of East Anglia, UK.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy.

This episode is important here because it exposes the phenomenon of climate change skeptics, some of whom are funded by fossil fuel exploiters, rubbishing the dissemination of genuine climate science into the public sphere.

:up:

Per psychologists:

"Worry refers to the thoughts, images, emotions, and actions of a negative nature in a repetitive, uncontrollable manner that results from a proactive cognitive risk analysis made to avoid or solve anticipated potential threats and their potential consequences."

Interesting.

This might be part of it: (per wikipedia on worry)

"There are some who respond to mental representations in an uncertain or ambiguous state in regard to the stressful or upsetting event.[9] In this state the worrier is held in a perpetual state of worry. This is because availability of an overwhelming number(maybe 2 or 3, depending upon the worry-prone individual) of possibilities of outcomes which can be generated, it puts the worrier in a threatening crisis and they focus their attentional control voluntarily on the potential negative outcomes, whereas others engage in a constructive problem solving manner and in a benign approach rather than to engage with heightened anticipation on the possible negative outcome."

Plus another theory says that worrying can be a coping mechanism: it provides a sense of having confronted the evil and so controlled it.

Worry can create sleepless nights and misery. But of course it is better to be conscious of sources of misery than in denial or manic flight.

It would just be better if the leaders, who have the power to influence culture and prevent extinction did more worrying rather than leaving it to the rest of the population. I am sure the leaders are struggling but unfortunately I am not sure that they are grappling with all the philosophical issues deeply enough. Unfortunately a lot comes down to money and power for the politicians.

Agreed. For someone to reach the point of being in power in a large country they will have a strength of character which will enable them to dismiss worries which would be significant for the average person. They are also generally ruthless in the face of moral and political expediency.

A good example is Boris Johnson, a sociopath born with a sliver spoon in his mouth, educated at Eton and Oxford, steeped in an outdated Victorian mentality, with a sense of superior privelidge, walking a path of privelidge right into No10, resulting in an incompetent government.

According to Wikipedia, the last mass extinctiom (K-Pg event) completely wiped out, pay attention, only non-avian dinosaurs. Does this mean that one (of many) solutions to another extinction level event (ELE) is to improve flight technology [vide The Vulture (Spiderman) or Falcon (Avengers)]?

Does this mean that one (of many) solutions to another extinction level event (ELE) is to improve flight technology [vide The Vulture (Spiderman) or Falcon (Avengers)]? — Agent Smith

Entirely depends on the type of ELE. Avians as predators have one big advantage; they can see their prey for miles away. So in a case of mass extinction, where prey gets scarce, a flying creatue has the best odds of still sustaining itself.

Altitude isn't necessarily a huge benefit though. In the case of gas for instance, while CO2 is indeed heavier than oxygen, it is so neatly diffused throughout our atmosphere that you'll still find it everywhere. So in the end it becomes a question of total concentration, globally and regionally.

Entirely depends on the type of ELE. — Hermeticus

How? All ELEs boil down to famine-conditions; flight capability (enhanced mobility) would be a big asset, would mean the difference between life ans death.

How? All ELEs boil down to famine-conditions; flight capability (enhanced mobility) would be a big asset, would mean the difference between life ans death. — Agent Smith

Famine is a consequence, not what it "boils down" too. Ecosystems are generally stable - until they are not. Why is there famine to begin with? Some catastrophic natural event? A disease? Changing climate? Changing environment? An invasive species that competes for resources?

You're right! It's not always hunger that kills! Disease, wars, and so on. :up:

If you go internet surfing to discover the scientific answer to this question, you're bound to come across this article. In it, the authors state, "Life has now entered a sixth mass extinction." The footnotes for that statement refer to three articles. In one case, the author is referring to an article he himself wrote. A second reference is to the popular Barnosky article which does not conclude that we are in a mass extinction event, but that it's possible in the next 300 years. The third reference is an article by Pimm, which also does not conclude that we are in a sixth mass extinction event. In short, this is poor science.

This article delivers the opinion of Doug Erwin, a paleontologist and expert in mass extinctions. He makes a couple of observations:


1. We aren't in a mass extinction now, though it's possible that we could enter one in the future

2. People who announce that we're in a mass extinction may think they're doing their cause a favor, but in fact, they're actually presenting a no-win scenario. No action would make any difference. So if they're trying to encourage no action, they've chosen the right strategy. — frank

I guess we better get ready to have to start to eat some soylent green in the near future, regardless if it is actually made from either sea-weed or people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

Hopefully in this upcoming dystopian future we won't have Charlton Heston running around. I think I can handle having to eat green wafers made from human corpses but having to deal with him would be too much to bear.

If you want to say that human activity is associated with extinction or near extinction of a large number of species all over the world, you've got science on your side.

If you want to say we're in a mass extinction, you don't — frank

And yet... The second law of thermodynamics says that if order in a closed system is created, like is done globally on a massive scale and an exponentially increasing rate, there has to be an accompanying decrease in the medium the order is created in, i.e, in nature. We can nothing but conclude then, that a mass extinction is immanent.

The clue to mass extinctions, that they're real and do happen, is embedded in our DNA - they're mutable, meaning life wants to field as many players as possible to tide over major, unlredictable, catastrophes aka mass extinctions. If I see a man carrying a shield, I know what he's up against - swords/spears and the like.

Interesting isn't it that life (DNA, others) holds information on what life had to go through to get to the present?