The last frontiers of the natural world are gone while species of plants and animals are disappearing. Our civilisation has been growing exponentially over the last century. The most visible side effect of that is the creation of a...
moreThe last frontiers of the natural world are gone while species of plants and animals are disappearing. Our civilisation has been growing exponentially over the last century. The most visible side effect of that is the creation of a throw-away society (Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 2013). According to the Pope, "Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a 'throw-away' culture which is now spreading'' (Ibid.) Humanity has been attacking while Gaia has been defending. This paper argues that Gaia deserves a respite which is defined as a period of break away from exploitative human activities and the burning of fossil fuels. These should be replaced by planting trees. It would enable Gaia to catch a breath and renew itself. This could solve many of the world's problems by establishing a symbiotic coexistence between human civilisation and the planet and leading to comprehensive healing of Gaia. This paper aims to analyse whether humans have reached the limits in every possible dimension of life on the finite planet. The key research questions is: Has humanity reached the planetary threshold beyond which civilisation cannot expand without the implementation of sustainable policies? The bottom line of the argument is that accelerating growth cannot continue indefinitely on a limited planet (Nürnberger, 2011: 66). Sooner or later, "there will come a point where the growing nutritional needs of the growing world population can no longer be met, regardless of how generously future generations may want to share their food. The quest for diminishing resources will almost inevitably lead to higher conflict potentials, greater investment in military hardware and expensive security systems for those whose privileges are threatened" (Ibid.). This paper suggests that there is a need for a new paradigm that integrates the continued development of human societies and the maintenance of the Earth system in an accommodating, resilient and sustainable way. Imagine that bright, blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear, e.g.: "the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity, that is what is at stake when trying to preserve precious biodiversity on the Earth." (Obama, 2013). The earth is a spaceship, with the sun as our energy supplier, which means that it imports energy from the sun that flows into and through the elaborate patterns of energy transfer that make up the Earth system, including the oceans, the atmosphere, the various geochemical processes, and finally, all life itself. Life on the planet absorbs this precious energy and then the energy flows back from the Earth into the universe - it is as if life was participating and almost by chance (Goldilocks) functioning in a perfectly self-sustained, mutual co-exchange based on a renewal of energy and evolution of life. Through argumentative discussion, it will be demonstrated that if an era of singularity is incipient, a time in which human intelligence will become increasingly nonbiological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today, then the present global civilisation must abort prejudices, such as ethnic, religious, gender and national. Such prejudices must not become an equivalent of colonial conquests of the past. Only a steep learning process could prevent humanity from an increasingly violent scramble for dwindling resources on the finite planet. It will be concluded that first, humans ought to resolve some of the ongoing and appearing challenges on Earth, and then think about the “conquest” of the Cosmos. This is necessary to move from the present Type 0 Civilisation to Type I Civilisation when humanity will be capable of controlling Earth entirely maybe even influence the weather, control volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, influence global flora and fauna, geological makeup, plate tectonics and others. And to recall wise words by C. Kennedy, "To the extent that we are all educated and informed, we will be more equipped to deal with the gut issues that tend to divide us." Climate change seems to be such an issue although according to scientists there is a 99.9999 percent chance that humans are the cause of global warming. Humanity burns fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that's most responsible for warming. With only a one-in-a-million chance that humans are not the cause, it is obvious that humanity needs to dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, according to experts and scientists. Sometimes we experience an intuitive hunch that a particular challenge needs to be overcome at a particular moment in history due to the unacceptable level of hypocrisy and hiding truth to sustain the status quo. Can we solve climate change? Already in 1964, N. S. Kardashev (1964: 221) observed that "if terrestrial civilisation is not a unique phenomenon in the entire universe, then the possibility of establishing contacts with other civilizations by means of present-day radio physics capabilities is entirely realistic." The moment humanity unites, then we can believe we can do it, then we just do it and nothing is impossible. We must act within the defined planetary boundaries to avoid catastrophic environmental climate change. Investments in better preparation for dismantling natural disasters can pay dividends both for the present and for future generations. But global leaders often prefer to focus on more politicised issues of national content simply because they reflect the populist mentality of modern societies and can win easy votes. Had they focused more on long-term projects they would equip themselves with a more farsighted strategy - a strategic vision for a planetary rescue mission. If humanity does nothing effective to offset global heating, if it waits in inaction Gaia will defend against human interference and there will be fewer of us (Lovelock, 2014: 122). It is very likely that the number of humans surviving such a cataclysm will be limited, perhaps less than a million, which is still enough for the survival of our species. The history of humanity on the planet ''suggests that there was a bottleneck when our total population fell to a few thousand, and we all come from them'' (Ibid.). When climate solution will be found it will give birth to a new civilisation based on scientific progress, tolerance, multiculturalism and humility that would enable humanity to transcend national borders, biological limitations, amplify creativity and invest in the power of the human mind. Likely, such a new foundation based on post-growth economy, sustainable growth and green cities will be built in the developing world, mainly China and India. Perhaps, if we move to green cities as efficient as termite nests, there could be hope for survival. The defining characteristic of nature-symbiotic infrastructure is that it is planned and designed in a way that anticipates, prepares for, and adapts to changing climate. It coexists in harmony with the natural world, effectively imitating nature and blending humanity into it. This requires a degree of humility since according to this model, humans are no longer Earth's owners or masters, but act as wise stewards. Earth is not without unlimited reservoirs of anything. In this model, all we have is what is on our spaceship with us – and when that runs out, the money runs out, too. There is a case for working in sync with Gaia and the purpose of climate-symbiotic architecture is that it is resilient, can withstand, respond to and recover from any disruptions. As Romer (2018) observed, ''A healthy climate requires us to move to a post-growth economy with well-being rather than increasing material wealth as the goal.'' The idea of a circular economy is primarily concerned with the flows of materials and energy, and it is often taken for granted that this circulation can happen within a growing economy. However, the demand for materials and energy needs to be considered in the context of the limits of a finite planet.'' (Ede, 2016: 3). The problem with the West is that there are more goods and, more growth, but less faith in ideas, less ambition to make a world a better, a more sustainable place. There are fewer visionaries who think big. As Ede (2016) noted, ''When human demand on nature’s capacity exceeds what nature can supply, we are in a state of ‘overshoot’. It is the amount by which nature’s biological capacity is being used beyond its regeneration rate–e.g. overfishing or overharvesting, or emitting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and destabilising the climate.'' Positive energy could upgrade the Earth, but only when humans are able 'to hear the Earth's cry.' The key impact of this research is to serve as a modest, informed and objective policy advice for global leaders of tomorrow.
