will not be destroyed?
On one hand, you argue that vast climatic changes have historically occurred, sometimes rapidly. No one, I think, denies this.
You point to the evolution of oxygen releasing photosynthetic creatures as an example of dramatic change, and again, no one denies this either.
But you take a leap of faith when you suggest that the survival of humanity and "civilization" will be included among the survivors. The increase in oxygen toxicity in the atmosphere resulted in the death of 90% of the species then living. At that time the species were unicellular of course, and clearly some life forms did survive, but if one were to pick a particular species one would have to say that the odds of the
particular species surviving was low.
The adaptability of the human species is legendary in our own minds, but such survival of our species is no more assured than that of any particular anaerobic species was assured when oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere.
There is mitchondrial DNA, as well as evidence on the Y chromosome - that being the chromosome associated with foolishness - evidence that suggests that human extinction was at least, in one period, a near thing. In fact, sudden climatic change seems to have been involved in these events.
http://www.earth-pages.com/archive/Anthropology.aspThe broader question is philosophical, whether the cognizant being, the being who can comprehend the existence of galactic clusters and/or quarks and superstrings, has a
special relationship with the universe, whether we should minimize the risk to such beings, who do in fact, hold the unique ability among species to
plan and, now, apparently to
control planetary environment on a planetary scale.
Of course, it is an element of some religions - most religions maybe - to extend special status to humanity, to regard it as being somehow more than just another species, indistinct from a paramecium in its overall worth.
I consider myself an atheist, but I am not so bereft of a spiritual sense to not be thrilled by our extension or our vision, and to hope that we will do all we can to continue such extension. I am prepared morally to accept that the idea that self awareness in and of itself is a special feature of the universe, and that the cells of such vision, of which the earth is the only
known example, deserve protection. My atheism aside, I further buy into the Western notion, which has only become culturally broader, but is certainly not culturally universal, that
individual human lives are important. It seems to me that the lives of individual Bengalis are as important as the lives of people who use a lot of fossil fuels, or moderate amounts of fossil fuels, or very little fossil fuels. I feel strongly that my life, even if I can afford to hole up in some survivalist stronghold fitted with a bunch of guns and solar cells, is intimately connected to the lives of the people on the streets of Decca who can afford no such survivalist luxury. In short, I don't believe that it's come down to every man and woman for himself or herself.
We who are breeders are not in any way superior to those of you who are not breeders. Arguably, people who do not breed are doing far more than their share to give humanity as a whole the best shot at survival. On the other hand, we breeders do have to face the implications of the future in a special way: We have to look directly in the eyes of those who will be stuck with cleaning up our mess. I have two children, and immediately on having the second (it was during the more optimistic Clinton era), had myself rendered sterile so that the possibility of exceeding the replacement rate was not a possibility for me. I could have forgone having children, of course, and maybe I
should have done so but I didn't. My children are here, I love them enormously, and I must
face them and do whatever I can to protect them. I am also preparing them. I am teaching them about energy, and responsibility, and obligation to their fellows. I insist that humanity as a whole has a responsibility to my children, just as I have a responsibility to the children of Mali, of Turkmenistan, of Japan, and of Finland. I also believe that we cannot breed ad infinitum, and I applaud those who do not have children; I celebrate them; I admire them. On some level they are doing far more for the future than I am.
But let's step back from children and talk about all humanity now living.
You say that it is laughable to speak of the banning of fossil fuels because people have no will toward doing so and because they use them now. But if we do as you do, and appeal to
history, we have seen vast changes in human technological approaches to problems, some of which were, in fact, deliberate and planned and some of which did, raise the level of human experience to new heights. In fact the use of fossil fuels is a fairly recent development, and it allowed us to place ourselves in a Malthusian bind. Clearly this use was highly problematical, but it has also allowed us to understand how we must think in the future. We have scientific insight now that we have never had before. We know we can have a
global effect, and we can realistically sketch out the procedures and implications of what we do.
Recently, for the first time in our history, some global environmental pacts have been put forth and
acted upon. The Montreal protocol on CFC's was a
success, flawed maybe, less than ideal, but it succeeded. This sort of thinking
can be made to prevail and it can reduce the number of bullets in the probabilistic game of Russian Roulette we are playing as we "party hearty." The Montreal protocol
demanded technological change that was essential toward stabilizing the planet. It should be the model for future approaches.
Kyoto failed, but if nothing else, it started the
international conversation on the matter. It made it real. It made it a
global issue.
I personally believe it is nonsensical to assume that we cannot technologically change our ways on a broader scale than the CFC issue, and deal with the matter of energy and its effect on the atmosphere. I am acquainted with technology, and I am convinced that many excellent solutions do in fact exist,
if we have the courage to approach them. One hears all sorts of
conservative thinking on the subject of course, that things
cannot change, but I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. I believe in change, and I believe that change can be for
good, that it can be
molded so as to have a moral dimension. One change that
will almost certainly happen is that the human population will be reduced, maybe to zero, maybe not. Many of those of us now living, I think, will see that happen. Do we want it to happen through catastrophe, as in Dafur, or do we want it to happen rationally, as it is happening in Finland? Which experience to we want for ourselves, as individuals? I think we all know.
I believe that humanity can, indeed survive, and it is important for it to survive, but I am not convinced in any way that it
will or must survive. Whether it
does survive, I believe, is at contingent on the choices we make. I recognize that the probability for the occurrence of global climate change is now 100%, as the event now occurring, but I do not believe that the probability is 100% that we accept the inevitability of the worst case or the worst implications. I believe it is the moral responsibility for human beings to make an
effort to improve their environment, to use our special ability to manipulate things to offer maximal stability on which the
current population depends. This is not the same as claiming that the effort
must produce results, but that it is not the right thing to throw up one hands and say, without trial, that
nothing is possible, so forget about trying.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
