This topic is an outgrowth of a comment made in the thread
The Problem with EvC:
quote:
No, the conflict is broader than between religion and science, and that conflict has peculiarities I'm not talking about here. I really am after something in this arena even if I haven't yet found the right terms for it. But I'll read Snow and see what he has to say. There are definitely two cultures, two mentalities, at odds with each other in such a way that communication is nearly impossible.
I find myself in almost complete agreement with the sentiment expressed here. Which is interesting, as the comment was made by someone who comes at the question from a diametrically opposed viewpoint to my own.
I fully recognize that the shared viewpoint here represents but two points on a continuum - the extremes, if you will, that I have identified in the topic title as Deep Faith and Deep Science. I am aware that there are many readers who are closer to the middle ground, and some indeed that straddle the center. That is not at issue, and it is not the intent of this thread to explore the idea of whether or not such a divide actually exists. I would like to take it as a given that it does as a point of departure. I invite anyone - regardless of their position on this issue - to participate. Advice from the center may be highly useful, for instance.
What I would like to explore in this thread is the question of whether or not the two “sides” can approach an understanding and consensus on solutions to problems that affect both. In other words, can the extremes in fact communicate with each other at least to the point where we can reach “common ground” on solving critical problems - problems, I submit, that have the potential to directly or indirectly cause the extinction of our species if not resolved.
As my counterpart cogently pointed out, the first step requires definition of the problem. In that vein, I have created a “short list” of critical issues that I consider to be of signal importance. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive, and I invite others to add or subtract their own.
1. Overpopulation. The human carrying capacity of the biosphere is rapidly approaching maximum. Science and technology, which has been very successful in increasing K
h over time is falling behind net growth rate. In other words, we are rapidly approaching the point where science is no longer capable of increasing K to meet human need. In natural populations, all other things being equal, this causes the population growth curve to level off - to reach an equilibrium. In other circumstances, when growth exceeds carrying capacity, the population crashes. There are reasons to believe the latter potential in our case.
2. Ecosphere degradation. Anthropogenic effects are accumulating to the point that irrevocable degradation of the life-sustaining processes of the biosphere may be beginning to occur. Deforestation, climate change, pollution, over-harvesting, non-sustainable resource extraction, and bio-invasion are all contributing factors. In essence, this degradation reduces the capacity of the biosphere overall to maintain human existence.
3. Globalization and emerging infectious disease. As humans penetrate deeper into as-yet-untouched natural areas, reservoirs of infectious diseases that we have as yet been unexposed to are being activated. Epizootic disease incidence is on the rise. Ebola Zaire, Rift Valley Fever, and even HIV-AIDS are examples. As ease of transportation between widely separated parts of the world increases, so to does the potential for global pandemics. In addition, coupled with increasing population is the increasing threat of ease of transmission between individual humans (the wildfire hypothesis), permitting diseases that would because of their high virulence rapidly burn out due to lack of local hosts spread globally.
I have couched these three problems in scientific terms because that is how I perceive them, and how I relate to them. However, I do NOT intend this thread to be solely the province of scientists and science - that would tend to defeat the purpose. In addition, the above list is not expected to be the sole (or perhaps even the major) area of discussion. I firmly believe that these highly inter-related problems represent the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human species, and that indeed some of the canaries in the human mineshaft have already died. On the other hand, I’d like this to be open to other questions. If this thread serves no other purpose than deriving two distinct lists of critical problems, as perceived by the two “sides”, then I feel it will have been a valid exercise.
I request that this PNT be placed in Misc. Topics in Cre-Evo. My primary reason is that I would like to hold the science side to the slightly higher evidentiary requirements of a science thread. On the other hand, I would request that deviations from those requirements on the part of the faith side be treated leniently.
™ Version 4.2