Extinction is Natural, So is Global Warming

You’ve heard again and again, “global warming due to human activities”. But what if it is all natural?

Natural vs Man-made

Now before you call me a flat-earth believer, I want to establish the basis of my claim. I want to say that, the term “man-made” and “natural” are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I consider “man-made” changes a part of nature.

Why do I say that? Because it is natural to say so.

According to the theory of evolution, humans evolved into our current form “naturally”. The process is a governed by the biological process of mutations that spanned across vast period of time. So there is nothing “unnatural” about humans as a species.

Taking this idea one step further, what makes all of our actions “unnatural”? If we are just product of natural selection, performing biological and chemical reactions according to what’s encoded in our genes. Humans causing other species to extinct? It is just part of natural selection. Humans themselves cause global warming and go extinct? It is also just part of natural selection.

Consider this hypothetical situation:

Dinosaurs, without the foresight of environmental consequences, decided that destroying forest would give them more space to build their own civilizations. They went extinct due to the effect of deforestation and subsequently global warming.

What would you call it? A “dinosaur-made” global warming, or a natural global warming? I would say both are valid statements, because dinosaurs are part the nature.

Bottom-line is, we as a species are governed by the same laws of physics, chemistry and biology as other species, there is nothing separating us from the rest of nature.

We are all part of the nature.

What Difference Does it Make?

Not much. Except we need to acknowledge the fact that “addressing the issue of global warming” has very little to saving the planet or the nature. The planet or the nature does not need our help. It will always exist and function as intended, governed by laws of natural sciences.

Too much CO2 in the atmosphere? Species who cannot handle excessive CO2 goes extinct and species who can handle them survive and pass on the genes.

Too much UV light reaching surface of the earth? Species who cannot handle excessive UV light goes extinct and species who can handle them survive and pass on the genes.

So what are we really trying to do here is just saving ourselves from extinction. That’s it, the natural desire for continuation of species.


To put my point more directly:

Whatever we do to “save the earth or the environment”, they are not really “saving” the earth or the environment, because the earth and the environment don’t really care about humans. The nature does not differentiates hot vs cold, high CO2 concentration or low CO2 concentration, earth covered by lava or forest. What we call destructions or damages, are just natural processes by a highly intelligent species. All we are doing is making the earth more suitable for humans to live, that’s it.

[Update 2]

If you are still not convinced, here is another question to consider:

If humans have the ability to safely and easily move to another habitable planet, and we are able to raise all animals artificially on other planets, do you still care about the Earth?

One comment

  1. I read through your post and it all makes sense. There are (as far as I can see) no direct logical errors in your way of thinking.
    But! as soon as I was at the bottom I had forgotten what the your original point was. What are we talking about here. and thats the problem, its a problem of definition.

    “global warming due to human activities” != unnatural

    noone is saying its unnatural. The point is it is due to human activities. And we could alter or stop those activties.

    natural and man-made, are not to be taken as literal opposites here, but have to be used in context. It’s just the best fitting words that are used to create a category for us to talk about the idea and have a meaningful conversation.

    My point is, your reasoning may be smart but in the end it has no real new information. All your are arguing here, is that we maybe should be using different words.
    Or are you arguing that we should stop our efforts to prevent/stop global warming, because it is the natural way and we have no choice anyway (the deterministic view) That would be arguing against free will. Which is something I wouldn’t dismiss right away, but Im not sure if thats even the point your are trying to make. (And also, having read your Info page, it would seem you hold free will in high regard)

    Anyway, the last and maybe most important point is, this kind of discussion could be doing more harm than good, because climate change deniers could very well use it as an argument, because they (either purposefully or not) misinterpret the point you were trying to make.

    let me end by saying, I think you mean well, but I also think you just wanted to be/sound smart here (which you clearly are) but without a real meaningful purpose behind it. (which is a behavior I am guilty of myself… a lot.. but I am trying to do better.)

Leave a Reply