what is the point of being a sentient being?

Uh-oh, there we go again.

increased lifespan + increased population = how much more damage can the planet and ourselves sustain?

You have to play the hand you're dealt, you know? I mean, what's the alternative? Lobotomy?

60% liquid brain sometimes doesn't seem like a bad deal.

--

There is no overpopulation problem. There is an over consumption problem, but it's not the same thing. The population is expected to stabilize at 10 billion at the end of the 21st century. If everyone would have the quality of life of a bangladeshi peasant, the earth could sustain 30 billion people. If everyone would have the quality of life of today's occidentals, the earth could sustain 700 million people. It's possible to improve the quality of life of as many people as possible while keeping the means to achieve this as affordable and as environment friendly as possible. There are many real life examples of this, that makes me think it consists a distinct trend in sustainable development.

first thing that came to my mind/ www.worldchanging.com would have work as well/ but I welcome people to tell me other excellent sources of information about sustainable development.

http://www.metropolismag.com/

it's a question of acuteness :-)

I don't know if there's anything inherently desirable about complexity. It seems like there is, but I can't explain exactly why. If sentience an inevitable byproduct of complexity, and if sentience does have the ability to grant meaning to life beyond that enjoyed by mites and the mites on the mites, then that's a good argument for it.

The dictionary definitions of sentience aren't very satisfying, and I think it's more than just self-consciousness, or at least that it implies a deeper level of self-consciousness than most people have all of the time. The question of whether all humans are sentient or whether a person is sentient all the time is a good one.

Report: Human Damage to Earth Worsening Fast

Wed Mar 30, 9:17 AM ET

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) - Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said on Wednesday.

The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.

"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

"Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it said.

Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems.

"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel," the report said.

"This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth," it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.

GETTING WORSE

"The harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years," it said. The report was compiled by experts, including from U.N. agencies and international scientific and development organizations.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the study "shows how human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate."

The report said there was evidence that strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland in Canada in 1992 after years of over-fishing.

Future changes could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa due to climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera.

And a build-up of nitrogen from fertilizers washed off farmland into seas could spur abrupt blooms of algae that choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts.

It said deforestation often led to less rainfall. And at some point, lack of rain could suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region.

The report said that in 100 years, global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage. The report mainly looks at other, shorter-term risks.

And it estimated that many ecosystems were worth more if used in a way that maintains them for future generations.

A wetland in Canada was worth $6,000 a hectare (2.47 acres), as a habitat for animals and plants, a filter for pollution, a store for water and a site for human recreation, against $2,000 if converted to farmland, it said. A Thai mangrove was worth $1,000 a hectare against $200 as a shrimp farm.

"Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program.

The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems.

"Governments should recognize that natural services have costs," A.H. Zakri of the U.N. University and a co-chair of the report told Reuters. "Protection of natural services is unlikely to be a priority for those who see them as free and limitless."

dan, i really appreciate your response.

As far as evolutionary traits go, it ranks right up there with opposable thumbs.

Yes of course, this is still how the population goes but don't you think sentience influence our evolution in other ways than reproduction? It's a safe bet to say that genetic composition will be à la carte, at least for some people, right? In any case, there are some choices to be made at that level= what I mean by we are in control of our evolution.

The point of evolution (yes, that's a completely ridiculous statement, as if there is a point to it, mot like the *definition* of evolution) is that organisms evolve and adapt to fit their environments. Humans have reached a point where they no longer change to fit their environments, they change the environment to fit *them*. And not necessarily for the better.

Sentience itself is a paradox. I've read some very interesting books lately on the biochemistry of the Mind (not just human behaviour but its parallels in animals) and it's astonishing to me, how much of what we think of as consiously chosen behaviour is biochemically rooted.

Sure, Sentience is the idea that we are more than our genes, more than our biochemistry, that we have a Choice. Sentience is the choice of how we process, and how we react to stimulus and biochemical response. In theory it is an intriguing idea. In practise, we've adapted our own environment to be so different from the environment that caused us to evolve, that there is a fundamental tension.

It's too early and I haven't had my coffee yet.