MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

The Thirteenth Tipping Point

Page 3 of 3


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

RE:ACTION

THE RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM OF VAMPIRE BATS

AN ASSESSMENT BY the World Health Organization concluded that the effects of climate change since the mid-1970s likely caused more than 150,000 deaths in the year 2000. Other analyses estimate 160,000 deaths a year since then. In contrast, terrorism caused 56 American deaths in 2005, the same year we spent about $100 billion fighting it and its shadow oil war—even as these investments fantastically increased the real threats to our homeland security.

To mitigate and survive the global changes coming our way, we need to cooperate in unprecedented ways. Biologists have long struggled with the notion of cooperation, which was once seen as benefiting the "survival of the species"—until geneticists pointed out that, evolutionarily speaking, there is no mechanism in place for species survival, only individual survival. William Hamilton's work on colonial-living insects advanced the radical idea that related individuals might act altruistically because they share genes.

Eventually, scientists surmised that individuals act altruistically toward even unrelated others in expectation of an equivalent reciprocal act at some time in the future. A now-classic example was found among vampire bats. Gerald Wilkinson of the University of Maryland discovered that on any given night, 7 percent of adult vampire bats and 33 percent of juveniles fail to find a blood meal. They rarely go hungry, however, since well-fed bats regurgitate blood to them upon return to the roosting colony.

Wilkinson's experiments showed that bats are more likely to share blood with a bat that has previously fed them. Without these reciprocated favors, he wrote, "annual mortality should exceed 80 percent, but female vampire bats are known to survive more than 20 years in the wild." In other words, because they share a little every day, vampire bats increase their longevity over a lifetime. Those that don't share die young.

The notion of reciprocal altruism is tested in game theory through the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which two players pitted against each other choose to cooperate or not cooperate (cheat). Cheaters always win—except when the same players engage in repeated rounds together. Iterated play eventually produces a tit-for-tat response, until the players learn to cooperate, lest they both lose. In this way, punishment for cheating leads to cooperation.

A Prisoner's Dilemma variant run by Stuart West of the University of Edinburgh found that small groups of people are more likely to come together and cooperate (share resources) when engaged in repeated interactions, and when the competition for resources occurs on a more global than local scale. His study took place over two years, engaging undergraduate classes of 12 or 15 students broken into groups of 3. West's results suggest that manipulating how the players perceive competition alters the level of cooperation. He suggests this insight could be used to encourage altruism. One way would be to reward local cooperation. Another would be to create a common enemy who must be competed against globally.

Since we already have our common enemy, global warming, perhaps we can bring it to life. Picture a fiery monster consuming our neighborhoods. It's big and scary yet vulnerable to the Lilliputian arrows each of us wields with personal lifestyle choices. However, the hybrid car is not enough. Wielding the big stick of consumer choice, we can batter the fiery monster more convincingly if we persuade the corporate world that we are serious and, collectively, powerful. We can buy or not buy. We can invest or not invest. Business can survive by becoming green and sustainable.

How might we get these messages across? Imagine a lottery funding advertising about the fiery monster, the Lilliputian arrows, the neighborhood dangers. Ideally these advertisements would be big and splashy and persistent enough to awaken us from our slumber in the televised lagoon.

Instead of a ticket, we'd buy a web listing displaying our commitment to the battle as well as our marksmanship rating: a number reflecting how much money we'd donated, the efficiency of our car, home, appliances. The highest-rated players would earn high-visibility web pages. Low-rated players could improve their ratings by following a list of lifestyle amendments. The higher our rating, the greater our chances in the lottery. Every week someone would win.

Would we play?

THE CLATHRATE GUN HYPOTHESIS

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS when we don't. Left to governments alone, the troubles breed and fester. For example, the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 165 nations (but not the United States), requires its signatories to report their greenhouse gas emissions. A 2004 study by the European Commission Joint Research Centre in Italy found this voluntary reporting to be grossly inaccurate. The United Kingdom, for instance, which advertises itself as a leader in the global warming fight, actually emits up to 92 percent more methane than reported. Other enormous discrepancies were found in Germany, China, and France.

Methane is one of the three greenhouse gases reported under Kyoto (along with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide). Twenty times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, methane has more than doubled in the atmosphere in the last 150 years until today it totals about half the greenhouse effect caused by carbon.

Worse, methane emissions increase rapidly in a warming climate. So even as methane alters climate, it is also affected by climate—another dangerous positive feedback loop. Methane garners its own tipping point in the form of methane clathrates, the 1- to 2.5-trillion-ton reservoir of frozen methane underlying the ocean floor and the Arctic permafrost.

Some scientists believe that the sudden melting of clathrates in the past released massive "burps" into the atmosphere, catastrophically amplifying global warming. The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis posits that a big burp of methane triggered the Permian-Triassic extinction 250 million years ago. Schellnhuber and others fear this could happen again as ocean temperatures warm, and as the permafrost melts. A recent study in Nature reported that the Siberian and Alaskan permafrosts are rapidly melting, releasing five times more methane than expected.

Exacerbating those problems, a study by Russian and American researchers in Science published in June announced, is a heretofore unknown global carbon source in a deep layer of permafrost known as loess, which contains an estimated 500 gigatons of carbon. The loess has never been accounted for in climate warming models.

Warming oceans may also trigger the tipping point known as salinity valves—the chemical plugs enabling oceanic bodies to maintain strikingly different ecosystems and biodiversity. These include the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Caribbean, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico, the Black Sea, the Baltic, and the Java Sea. Warming waters may unbalance the El Niño tipping point, too, which NOAA researchers report could create a persistent El Niño with biblical droughts and floods afflicting half the globe all year, every year.

Finally, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Long believed too cold to melt anytime soon, this icy world now confounds the soothsayers. New data from the British Antarctic Survey hint that the slumbering giant is awakening, its 7 million cubic miles of ice thinning dangerously. If melted, the ice sheet will raise sea levels between 16 and 50 feet worldwide.

This recent melt may be caused in part by the Antarctic Oscillation—a kind of on/off switch affecting pressure gradients in the Southern Hemisphere. At its current setting, the Antarctic Oscillation is warming Antarctica, increasing the melt, and accelerating the flow of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (our earlier tipping point). As we've heard, changes in this current affect plankton populations, which affect atmospheric CO2. Changes in the ACC also affect the global thermohaline circulation, which controls everything from Europe's thermostat to the monsoon.

In the end, all the spinning plates spin or fall together, and the Antarctic Oscillation appears to be triggered by none other than the ozone hole, the wound that refuses to heal. The cooler stratosphere caused by (and causing) the ozone hole produces the weather changes at ground level now threatening to turn Antarctica's icescape into a continent-swallowing seascape.

In less than 200 years, armed with fossil fuels, we've wrested hold of the spinning plates, donned the acrobat's tights, and initiated our own wobbly circus. Nature, impassive and plenipotent, waits to reward or punish us.

LET THEM EAT CO2

THE NATURE OF TIPPING POINTS is that they happen dizzyingly fast. The good news is that history proves we are capable of keeping up. Social scientists once believed it would take decades of government pressure and education for Americans to choose smaller families, since the desire to procreate is an absolute part of the human animal, or so they thought. Yet population radically declined in the course of only three years in the 1970s—one woman at a time, without an ounce of government involvement. Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson calls the voluntary choice of women around the globe to limit their families an almost miraculous gift to future generations.

We also changed with breathtaking speed in 1941 when we recalibrated the entire economy of the United States in one short year to fight global enemies in Germany and Japan. The effort was promoted by the government but carried forward by individual citizens. Obviously, our powers of transformation are magnified by visionary leaders. Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March in 1930 ignited Indians of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities to unite in the common cause of independence. Gandhi, in turn, inspired Martin Luther King Jr., Stephen Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi, who catalyzed their followers to change the world as well.

Leaders can rouse us against them, too. Whether or not Marie Antoinette actually said, "Let them eat cake," she inspired change that reverberated far beyond Europe. Likewise, when George W. Bush says we can't act on global warming until we "fully understand the nature of the problem," we can use his callous disregard as a rallying cry.

The truth is, we can change, and change fast, even in the absence of perfect knowledge. Like cockroaches, our hallmark is adaptability. Long ago, we looked out from the trees and saw the savannas. Beyond the savannas we glimpsed other frontiers. History proves that when we behold a better world, we move toward it, leaving behind what no longer works.

WE ARE THE ANTIDOTE

THIS MORNING, IN THE AFTERMATH of the coral spawning on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the surface of the sea is slick and pink with eggs. From the air or from afar it looks like an oil spill and smells like a fish kill, drawing in creatures from the deep and creatures from the land, including crocodiles cruising the reefs. Underwater, the fish that make their living picking plankton are hyperactively at work—the day shift toiling alongside the night shift, as lobsters, cuttlefish, and flashlightfish forgo sleep to feast. Above, the air is crowded with seabirds plucking at the surface with pink-stained beaks.

In the coming days the gamete cloud will travel on prevailing currents, triggering the corals below to spawn. Seduced by moonlight, spring, and the tides, stimulated by the chemistry of other spawners, the tiny creatures that build their own world will build it again.

So too with us. The difference between people and corals is that if we build our world poorly, we can rebuild it well. We know what to do. We know how to do it. We know the timeline. We are our own antidote.

Illustrations by: Guy Billout



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

I would consider myself a "naysayer" however I don't fit the description you give the group. I think it's very racist and biggoted to suggest that those who believe science over hype are less credible just because they don't buy into the religion of liberalism. Currently, in every 100,000 air molecules in our atmosphere, you will find 38 carbon molecules. At the rate that we create green house gasses, the number will be 39/100,000 in 5 years. We need to protect the environment. We should put our efforts into problems that we can actually fix. We're in between ice ages right now. We are experiencing a natural warming cycle.
Posted by:al-DonalJune 2, 2007 3:13:42 PMRespond ^
I think the "Global Warming Debate" is swipe at our mad rush forward in technology and it will only get faster and faster. The ludites, the nannies, and the conformists are oozing out in every sector possible. They don't want to enjoin the future. The problem with their approach is there is no feasable way to stop global warming other than killing off 5.8 billion people and going back to the cave. If we halt our appetite for new technology and development when the world reaches 10 billion people, and it will, life on Earth will be worse than Hell. There will be energy wars raging everywhere. You will have access to electricity for 6 hours once a week. Let's take a serious look at this because this is the REAL CHEESE. The world is projected to need double the amount of power in use today by the year 2050. It will need 4X today's output by 2100 and by 2150 it will require, not desire, require 8X the amount of energy in use today. Without that added output world progress will freeze up and fall apart. There will be chaos and war. The end will come with you or your descendants huddled in a dark shelter with no hope of help arriving. Putting a little solar power panel on your roof is not going to equal the vast amounts of energy we will require by 2050, 2100, and 2150. We need thousands of new high energy resources, or the end will come. We need Moon-based solar power, huge orbital-solar power stations, nuclear power, coal power, and we need to nail down fusion power once and for all, or you can kiss everything you know and understand today goodbye. How's that for a scary senario. I think it beats "Global Warming" hands down. We are on a treadmill of our own making and until the population bomb is defused we must provide energy or die in an armagedon type demise. Bode Bliss Cleveland, Ohio
Posted by:Bode BlissJune 3, 2007 6:20:29 PMRespond ^
Our society is based on greed and consumption, with total disregard to the impact we have on the earth and all nonhuman creatures that inhabit it, let alone humans who do not share this self-serving "philosophy" of utter disregard to the consequences. Yes, we need energy to maintain our lifestyles. But if we do not change the way we live voluntarily, it seems that the earth will see to it, one way or another. How ridiculous and selfish we are to rigidly refuse to accept what science has learned. The truth is, no one fully understands the impact of what is currently happening to our earth. Everything in nature is connected. We are looking to the large, obvious changes as harbingers of global trauma, but the truth is, something as "small" as the extinction of one species of insect could be all it takes to push us over the edge. We have to do more than change the way consume, we have to change the way we think, and we have to do it now--not when we think we "fully understand the nature of the problem."
Posted by:AylenJune 4, 2007 8:32:28 AMRespond ^
The critical point this article ignores it that it is not just a matter of cutting back, but radically radically cutting back. The global sustainable GDP is barely an equivalent of 2000 US dollars a year, and nearly no one, no matter how well intentioned, is likely to cut back that far. You will find a few voices who advocate the need to cut back consumption to the global median wage, namely J. Merkel in his book "Radical Simplicity" and FitzGerald in "Sea-steading" but to date I've encountered no one else, including this author, who takes the issue that seriously. Hence, doomsday.
Posted by:John AndersonJune 4, 2007 4:19:08 PMRespond ^
you are a bunch of idiots.
Posted by:g. marcosJune 20, 2007 7:03:18 AMRespond ^
Ms. Julia Whitty, your article is one of the most insightful, creative, comprehensive pieces I have read, and I am blessed to be able to learn and be inspired by your terrific research and your eloquent words.
Posted by:Richard McCollimJune 29, 2007 11:31:25 PMRespond ^
Would it not be fair to say if we dry out one area, the Amazon, that perhaps another area would get wetter? Perhaps forests would return where savanna is today? I can't stand Bush and his ilk, but our science should seek to look to explore counter arguments as well.
Posted by:Mandelamorta@mac.comJune 30, 2007 7:18:59 AMRespond ^
Scientists dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge and truth. The primary goal of their lives is understanding the universe, and helping others understand and appreciate nature. It is surprising and sad that so many influential scientists are dishonest and corrupt, spreading dangerous falsehoods in order to gain money, fame, or simply for job security. One example is the complicity of scientists employed by tobacco companies. Their deliberate lies caused many of us to get sick and die for decades until the truth of smoking dangers became accepted. Barnes, DE and LA Bero wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association 279:1566-1570 that "that while most reviews of passive smoking conclude that it is harmful to human health, when the author has an affiliation with the tobacco industry, the review is more likely to reach the opposite conclusion." For details, see . This is one example of a series of analyses showing that when an author has a financial interest in the outcome of a study, the conclusions are likely to be biased in favor of the financial interest. The debate over lead poisoning is a past example from the chemical industry in which industry scientists produced consistently biased findings. See also , by Norbert Hirschhorn, MD, Consultant to the World Health Organization. Recently news reports came out saying that drug studies are dishonest. For example, giving smaller doses of the competitor's drugs, or otherwise bias the studies. Again, scientists spread falsehoods in order to get job security. We are currently affected internationally by a very serious scientific fraud. Dishonest scientists have convinced world governments, including our government, that global warming is caused by large amounts of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere, and that we must spend a lot of money to reduce the carbon dioxide in order to prevent excessive warming. This is bad science, as historical records show that when the earth warms, a few centuries later carbon dioxide forms in the atmosphere. Global warming not caused by carbon dioxide, but by the variable solar wind. The sun emits streams of charged particles, called the solar wind. As this stream approaches the earth, the stream's magnetic field (moving charges create a magnetic field) deflects cosmic rays away from the atmosphere. Cosmic rays that strike air molecules ionize them. These ions act like seeds creating clouds. More solar wind means fewer clouds. Less solar wind means more clouds that reflect sunlight and cool the earth. The sun is a very dynamic, changing object. The solar wind waxes and wanes every 15 centuries, causing global warming and cooling. Worldwide studies of historical events and of the earth's ancient past verify the existence of these warming and cooling cycles. The current global warming is due to the increasing solar wind, and will last for another 5 centuries. Talking about reducing carbon dioxide in order to reduce global warming is another example of dishonest scientists hawking their wares. Government leaders must critically examine scientific claims, and always be suspicious and on guard. Yes, we must reduce pollutants in order to make the air safer to breathe and to make us healthier. Let us not waste our valuable resources and money on false science. Thank you very much.
Posted by:Dr. Sanford AranoffJune 30, 2007 8:25:48 AMRespond ^
Dr. Aranoff said: "Talking about reducing carbon dioxide in order to reduce global warming is another example of dishonest scientists hawking their wares. Government leaders must critically examine scientific claims, and always be suspicious and on guard." He earlier mentioned the bad science funded entirely by interested corporations. Today the interested corporations (most notorious being Exxon)are funding the science of the climate-change debunkers. My suggestion is that he's dragging a red herring. If I follow the corporate money behind climate research, I'm inclined to believe the "alarmists".
Posted by:L. HicksJuly 6, 2007 3:32:20 PMRespond ^
Too many words; too little emphasis on effective action.
Posted by:Shanti ServicesJuly 8, 2007 3:41:04 PMRespond ^
In response to Bode Bliss and those who think the same way...They are exact;y backwards in their thinking. What we must do is make and use the energy we have close at hand from the only real ultimate source of energy on this planet--the sun..In contrast to what was posted, if we would put out technology into improving and utilizing solar power on a local basis. Maybe on every roof top or even all paved areas which absorb billions of tons of energy everyday we could produce the energy needed without all of the far-out science to "bring it from the moon" or where ever. It is here right above us. Let's figure out how to use it. Of course we can't continue to use all the energy we want unabated. Time to grow up and learn to conserve what we have
Posted by:Bruce Lee DeuleyJuly 9, 2007 5:11:08 AMRespond ^
In response to Dr. Aranoff and any other skeptics.I will agree with him that even scientists can be swayed by various incentives to present any given view, but whether one accepts that human use of fossil feuls is contributing to global climate change or not, the resource itself is finite and we are going to run out of it and have to adapt to using something else.We can either do it in an intelligent and controlled fashion or disastrous, catasrophic fashion.Warming or not we need to begin changing our way of life.
Posted by:Scott ParsonsAugust 12, 2007 7:36:19 PMRespond ^
Well written article but a little off on a few things i.e. Katrina is nothing compared to what will happen in the near future. 100 years? These scientists need to take their head out of their asses! We are in a "SNOWBALL EFFECT" Things can only get worse at a more alarming rate. It does not take a scientist to figure out how fast the glaciers are melting. We can stall the inevitable...... 1) Cease extracting oil from the earth. (by the way) Oil is not from dinosaur bones like we were taught in school!! It is from vegetation. 2) Enforce a 1 child law limit world wide. These people need to wake the [deleted] up!! 3) Cease all use of plastic!! The hardener in plastic makes the human body produce more Estrogen in both male & female so in turn the human body automatically produces more Testosterone. Which obviously means more babies. Where is all of this incompetence coming from?
Posted by:MatthewAugust 20, 2007 1:28:42 AMRespond ^
you are brilliant, and you will make a differece in the world today.
Posted by:ruffisAugust 23, 2007 2:22:03 PMRespond ^
You said that "In ordinary play, if all players contribute all their money, everyone wins big. If one player cheats, everyone wins small." This is an exaggeration. A typical game of ten players doesn't go from "big" to "small" if only one person defects. "Minigames capturing the essence of Public Goods experiments show that even in the absence of rationality assumptions, both punishment and reward will fail to bring about prosocial behaviour. ... But reputation can induce fairness and cooperation in populations adapting through learning or imitation." according to: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/IR-01-031.pdf You should note that humans are more intelligent than dolphins in spite of the dolphin brain being larger. Also you might add that dolphins sleep in one-half of their brain at a time. "The dolphin cortical column is composed of only 5 layers. The reptilian cortex has only three layers." according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_column Public Policy games show that intelligence is a disadvantage to the group and hence the individusl in certain social situations. Are you recommending that humans become less intelligent? don
Posted by:Donald Paul MartinSeptember 20, 2007 10:44:09 AMRespond ^
You know what they say....it would take the planet to almost die for anyone with power,money and resources to do something to help the environment. People always want to redeem themselves after someone has died. Why would it take for someone or something to die beforfe it is noticed? It's a sad truth about human nature's way of learning. If we're any smarter, we all need to do something about saving our planet.
Posted by:LlermoOctober 14, 2007 6:19:09 AMRespond ^
i dont profess to know all the answers,only a few of them .im grateful for the webs information , one thing that is painfully obvious is that if the majority of people dont agree there is a problem and quickly its curtain time for all
Posted by:bigboyOctober 15, 2007 4:26:07 AMRespond ^
"My you live in interesting times". We are challenged by future of whole humanity. We are on crossroads of future of humanity, destruction and greed of war or sharing the spirit of love and hope .Division between those energies is getting greater and greater, this is battle for Earth, between Light and darkness. Who are you serving? Mother is crying, desperately crying, Mother Earth is presently being raped with rage, bombs, hatred, revenge, greed, and it is ready to explode in big ways of earthquakes, volcano's, floods, intense heat you will not be able to bear it. Will you be the mice running in your hole, you will not be able to find, or you will suddenly realize your divine nature, help the world, stop destruction and war, forgive and ask for forgiveness, hug the Mother earth with so much love, get the strength now before it is late for all of us. It is time of great challenge when we need to look at our spiritual nature, see the big picture, learn from our past and mistakes, awaken from within vision of better world to live and create in, create peace on the world, wake up our spiritual, enlightening energies that are dormant sleeping in all of us, realize our true spiritual potentials, so the world can hear us, and respect. American Nation has huge role to play in next decade. We have much karma to bear. Our hope is major transformation and change on all levels. We are the energy, planet earth is made of energy, we are part of mother earth, we influence all. Ask your self which energies are you serving in your life, what you do, what you speak of, what you think? That same energy will serve you or will destroy you, simply you ask for it. Wake up now, before it is too late for all of us, we all share collective karma.
Posted by:GurudanaNovember 27, 2007 10:31:14 AMRespond ^
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com we need to think about polar cities for the future, year 2500 or so. Julia want to interview me? Danny Bloom in Taiwan
Posted by:dnny bloomDecember 19, 2007 3:22:08 AMRespond ^
put some nice outfits on these pages. okay like da
Posted by:brittanyJanuary 31, 2008 12:41:59 PMRespond ^
Yes, we now face an amazing challenge if WE are to survive. Certainly, life will continue to evolve without us.

Presently, according to David Suzuki, over 55,000 species go extinct every year. As indicated in so many articles and theories, we have no clue as to which species may serve as the tipping point to topple humankind from its pedestal.

Species are going extinct because of the fragmentization of habitats due to our invasion into habitats and disrupting established ecosystems that represent millions of years of evolution and networking. Since water is the essence and supporter of every ecosystem - our alteration of surface and groundwater is the leading cause for
most extinctions.

To save our world - all of humanity must awaken to a new water consciousness - and weigh every action and purchase of nonliving items - and consider the impact on our world of water. We must begin to invest in a living world in lieu of a dying world. We have to wake up!

William E. Marks www.watervoices.com
Posted by:William E. MarksMarch 24, 2008 5:33:56 AMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















Palin on the Issues

Sarah Palin on Iraq

More Reaction to Palin

Friday Cat Blogging - 29 August 2008


More MoJo voices...



bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS