“Human world in a nutshell”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=2610
_Earth & Sky is fortunate to work with hundreds of scientists each year, who help us create our daily radio programs, and who are actively engaged in the process of sharing visions and solving 21st century problems. In 2005 and 2006, Earth & Sky asked these experts to help us describe the human world of the 21st century. Here’s what they had to say…_
“Alex de Sherbinin”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=87, “Amy Charkowski”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=163, “Andrew Mill”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=96, “B.L. Turner”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=149, “Baruch Fischhoff”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=107, “Benjamin Horton”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=97, “Bhavik Bakshi”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=81, “Carol Brewer”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=124, “Christian Samper”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=99, “Christopher Potter”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=75, “Daniel Bromley”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=83, “Daniel Janzen”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=120, “Darron Collins”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=73, “Ed Cain”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=84, “Eldon Boes”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=146, “Ellen Kabat Lensch”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=80, “Eric Davidson”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=108, “Felicia Coleman”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=153, “G. Edward Schuh”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=90, “Gene Rosa”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=78, “Geoffery Bowker”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=82, “Gifford Miller”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=101, “Harold Mooney”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=85, “J.R. McNeill”:jr-mcneill-article “Jay Giedd”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=130, “Jerry Schubel”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=77, “John Reilly”:44546john-reilly-profile “John Turner”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=95, “Kai Lee”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=159, “Karen Brewer”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=92, “Ken Caldeira”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=145, “Kenneth Arrow”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=74, “Lee Schipper”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=94, “Malanding Jaiteh”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=154, “Marco A. Janssen”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=100, “Margaret Palmer”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=121, “Mark Plotkin”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=119, “Miguel Altieri”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=122, “Norman Ellstrand”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=143, “Partha Dasgupta”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=118, “Paul Epstein”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=76, “Paul J. Crutzen”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=109, “Peter Gleick”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=106, “R. Brooke Thomas”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=136, “Robert Anex”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=123, “Robert Kates”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=86, “Rosalyn McKeown”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=116, “Scott Barrett”:scott-barrett-prrofile “Scott Doney”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=88, “Shawki Barghouti”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=148, “Steve Gaines”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=147, “Thomas A. Birkland”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=98, “Wangari Maathai”:http://208.96.63.114/?p=164
Now we want to know what YOU think. How would describe the human world of the 21st century?
uncertain about lifes little things: politics weather,work family and children,home, world crisis. it is almost to much to bear,but with new advances in technology and medicine we can be here a long time.
To be human in the 21st century means to be WITH the world and not \”above\’ or \”against\” the world. Till the middle ages, we had a cosmocentric world view where man was considered as a being at the mercy of nature. Modern philosphy and science kickstarted an anthropocentric world view where the universe was considered as \’made for man\’. Today we know that an aggressive anthropocentrism is suicidal. Man has to flourish or perish with the cosmos. Humanworld is an ecocentric perspective where man is a steward and not lord and exploiter of the cosmos. That is the way back to the paradise.
I think that it is more futuristic and a lot more modern! I think that it is a lot more modern than it was in the 20th century. The technology seems to have improved better a lot better. But there a lot more hurricanes now than there were in the 20th century.
– Erica
People\’s activities have made great influence to the earth and the whole ecosystem. Apparently the wealthy countries need to donate more money and resources to the invention and plans to protect environment.They are by no means the parties who are convicted to pollute the planet in the past 2 centuries and this is the final chance for them to save the world by purging the earth.
I think being human in the 21st century means recognizing that we are “of” the Earth and not just “on” the Earth. We’re as natural to the Earth as the wind or trees or grass. But part of being human is affecting things around us. Having an impact on our environment is part of our human-ness. So I think we need to recognize that, and take responsibiity for it. Now that there are so many of us – 6.5 billion people on Earth today – we’re going to have a big impact. But we can have an impact for good. We can create a garden world, a world that’s beautiful, where everyone has enough.
I like Deborah’s comment that humans are “as natural to the Earth as the wind or trees or grass.” Over the years, our perception of the natural Earth has changed. What we once saw as a wilderness we must conquer is now seen as a pristine world we must maintain as is. I think that we should not see the planet as a threat to our survival. Likewise, our presence does not an inherently endanger the planet. We are simply an expression of the Earth like any other.
Abby
The modern world seems to have lost sight of an unconditional positive regard for science, nature and all that lives. Benign neglect appears to express the attitude of many too many people in the best positions to encourage changes to more fully human ways of thinking and behaving toward the world.
A human world is one in which science, nature and all living things are revered… not ubiquitously neglected, irreversibly degraded or destroyed.
I think our world today has all the wrong priorities – too much on the agenda, too much waste, too many hidden agendas. I think we need to get back to the basics of family, friends, and just staying home and looking at our backyards, our sky, the flowers. It’s simple, beaultiful and healthy for our mind, body and spirit.
To be human in the 21st Century – in philosophical sense – will mean same as it has meant for ages. Ultimately, \’a\’ human as a seperate entity of a person mean nothing. What \’a\’ human is doing, what is purpose of his life are questions that will lead to nihilism.
The thing that should be understood is we all comprise one single entity of human. In Indian philosophy – \’Gita\’ – it means \’Bramhan\’. And the article of \’Human World\’ – the way it says \’Human\’ and \’Nature\’ as gardener and garden makes one feel we are \’ONE\’, bringing more sense to what \’Gita\’ says. And this Human has an existense for eternity (i will say as compared to existence of single human) – and has goal to \’exist MEANINGFULLY\’ and not like just other animals. This Human is of course far more superior to other species on earth.
I liked the statement in your article – \’we so powerfully believe that the success or failure of humanity\’s ability to recognize our intimate link to nature will dictate the success or failure of humanity in the coming centuries.\’ and believe 100%.
But, while reading the article I found a weird analogy. But no idea/analogy is weird enough – so will try to put in words.
What Human has been doing is writing a code that will help him convenient his Life. And while doing so, requirements are never \’complete\’. And as she writes, the bugs are inherent in it, because of either human can not \’see it all\’ or because requirements were not enough. Due to this she tries to \’patch\’(correct) the code. And, now here I dont hate this for bug-fixing might no be become an integral part of code-design. It remains like \’patch\’.
So, happens with Human action with nature. And purpose of Human is also to \’patch\’ the things that are craeted as part of Human actions for her well being. The thing is the patch should be correct, fitting to the existing design. Requirement is also to try to make human actions \’Foolproof\’, sothat we have to make patches as less as possible.
(You must have got that I am Software professional
)
To be a part of humanity? To exist within the sphere of knowledge is to know that we walk along the edge of a knife. To what end one can only hope. Where is the one human who will save us from ourselves. To set us on that technological path that will lead us to a future. Perhaps instead of having a nuclear doomsday clock we should have a clock indicating the speed of the clock ,to indicate the moment of no return from the complete depletion of our natural earth system.Will we learn in time the fate of mars and will we adapt to accept a new reality or will one be forced upon us?What is it like to be human on planet earth?It is like a dandelion seed floating on a breeze , too small to be of consiquence, yet if given the chance will produce and multiply until there is no corner of the earth untouched by yellow flowers.That is life on earth! As we are yet unable to grasp our predicament at hand.
to be human in the 21st century means that I go to work and earn just enough money to make ends meet.Gone are the times when a man could work a 40 hour week and have money to invest into the future.It seems to me that the old adage (the rich get richer…)is alive and well in the 21st century.So to answer your question, to me it means that to be human in the 21st century is a very expensive process.
I am glad Earth & Sky tries to be hopeful. When I think about humanity on the 21st century, I am very sad. We destroy our planet and kill each other in holy wars. Those that recognize something is wrong are often pushed to the sidelines, their voices muted by the tyrants in power. People want to tell everyone else what to do and how to live. People are sure their way is the best way. I try to focus on the little things: my plants’ growth overnight, the way the grasshopper moves along a blade of grass, the way the wind feels on a crisp fall night, how bright the moon shines.
I find it strange that humans today feel so unattached to nature and the Earth. Maybe it is where I come from and how I was raised that I had the view that “all” nature was precious and humans were merely a part of that nature. It is encouraging to see humans taking an interest in the world around them. But is Earth truly a “human world?” Maybe that thought alone is an arrogant one and shows how little we understand Earth.
Looking at what happened to the fertile crescent when it became a garden for humans, I only hope (but don’t yet see) that we have more foresight now than when we turned our previous garden into desert.
We have the technology now to destroy our ability to support ourselves faster than ever before, and if there really are 9 to 11 billion of us by 2050, then despite the great opportunity we have to tend the garden, I fear that feeding ourselves, we will see history repeating itself, but on a global scale.
As resources continue to be destroyed and depleted while population continues growing, I predict the human necessities ( food, water, shelter, air ) will become more valuable than other commodities. All the electricity, gold, and recycled plastic in the world won’t feed 9 Billion hungry mouths.
For myself, going into the 21st century, I am full of hope.
But future historians will have to consider the result of our activities now vs. my hope, and without great improvements in the global mindset the mostly unconsidered long-term effects of our human-dominated world will negatively impact future generations long after I and my hope have died.
Ben Z.
it means not to destroy what is still remaining. live & let live.to preserve the earth by not making any more destructive wapons. preserve the nature. if we cant creat a new earth we have no right to destroy it.go & search new planets& spread the vision of love& peace.
I like it! We’re as natural to the Earth as the wind or trees or grass. Humanity’s problems are not world hunger, poverty, add any other symptom…….Humanity’s problem is plain old mismanagement of resources. enough said.
There are many breakthroughs needed, and perhaps the climate crisis will galvanize humanity into an act of ‘volitional evolution’ to ensure its own survival. Our classrooms must become play-propelled habitats instead of the test-driven cubicles we have made of them. Without some kind of paradigmatic shift, our means of informing and preparing the young will remain disconnected from nature, and thus so will we. Play remains a powerful portal to creating such a shift because of its capacity to break through the cultural walls, while establishing more powerful, brain-based learning and communicating behaviors. Only play has this power. Anyone who has watched a dog wagging its tail and bounding up to play can glmpse the untapped energy waiting to be switched on to engage the young. Play is a human birthright and the rightful foundation to learning—and perhaps an important key to our successful survival.
I am always amazed how everyone seems to miss the point. Human population has exploded and is increasing steadily. Nothing will stop it, because we humans don’t have the desire to stop it. Sexual activity is just too exciting to stop it. It doesn’t matter what the human population limit really is; it doesn’t matter how long it will take to reach that point. The hard evidence shows that it will happen eventually, nothing will stop it, and humans will eventually live like rats.
Dear Old Skeptic,
God bless you for telling us what you see and believe to be true. Let us both thank God, too, for the scientific work of Dr. Hopfenberg and Dr. Pimentel on human population dynamics. Their research makes clear that human beings are not rats or rabbits, even though our population dynamics are essentially similar to other species. Unlike other species, as you know, we possess high order intelligence, thanks to God, and science, thanks also to God. Rats and rabbits appear not to be the recipients of such wondrous gifts as these.
According to the evidence to which I would like to draw attention, please note that human beings ARE NOT WITHOUT CHOICE with regard to the explosion of its absolute global population numbers. WE HAVE CHOICE.
While I understand what you mean when you say the human population has already exploded, it appears simply incorrect to suggest that NOTHING WILL STOP THE INCREASE OF OUR NUMBERS.
As far as sexual activity is concerned, somehow we will find ways to humanely ‘separate’ sex from reproduction, ways that are consonant with universally shared values.
I do not want to suggest that the human species does not face formidable challenges; on the other hand, it seems somehow not quite right to draw the conclusion that there is nothing human beings can do about the predicament in which we find ourselves in Century XXI. Human volition exists and there is much, incredibly much for us to do.
It is the absence of discussion about the human population’s looming predicament….that is, the presence of a deafening silence….that presents itself to us as an enemy. People with knowledge appear unwilling to “speak their minds” about the global challenges before humanity because these challenges are difficult and will not readily be overcome by business as usual, the exercise of political convenience and economic expediency, an adherence to outdated culturally prescribed ideas and religious dogma, and the consensual validation of preternatural demography.
Please take a look the link just below, which contains repeated references to the work of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel.
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
Then tell us what you find.
Thanks,
Steve