by Gary C. Gibson

Created on: December 23, 2009

Some of the ancients believed the world was running down-getting worse with each generation. Thermodynamically the universe is running down into disorder from a low state of entropy to a high state. What do we mean though by 'worse'? Is the world getting worse from each generation to the next?

The natural resource are becoming worse. Biodiversity is getting worse with thousands of species exterminated annually. The world is becoming more polluted so much so that whales and other marine mammals absorb it in their blubber and pass it on to young ones crashing the species in some cases. Even  human beings have a cocktail of chemicals in their bodies that are industrial wastes and so forth. We can put our heads in the sand and ignore it all of course.

If one enjoys wilderness then things are getting worse. Alaska has the state legislature spending money to propagandize in favor of Arctic offshore oil drilling for Shell or against the endangered species act's set aside of real estate. If all that matters to promote the good of the world is more oil and shag carpets, big box homes and weapons production then the world is getting better.

The world is such a large category and a sizable place-can it be getting generally worse each year instead of better in most ways. or in too many significant ones? Jacque Cousteau said the3 world had about 200 years of time to go before the resource destruction would doom us all. The creator of the modern Gaia hypothesis believes in about 300 years natural climate change disasters will wipeout most human life as it presently exists. If these are true time clocks is the world getting better or worse from generation to generation?The industrial era since the 19th century has spewed hundreds of billions of tons of pollutants into the world. The ocean alone is about half-way along in its carrying capacity for the sequestration of CO2.  The ocean itself has been a dumping place/sink for toxic wastes for all that time as well. Even human food production consumes about 2/3rds of the continental land areas in human use. Population growth beyond the present scale would require vast new good areas to cultivate that don't exist, and perhaps more strict government guidelines for growth? Is any of that a getting better scenario?

If the humanity continues to have success in inventing new technologies are they even needed to sustain life? Isn't a substantial percent of technological progress given not to bring people up from a desperate condition

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>