Ben (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
openspace4life) wrote2006-09-21 07:22 pm
openspace4life) wrote2006-09-21 07:22 pm
Entry tags:
If global warming isn't real
There are global-warming skeptics. Some of them are scientists. Some of them accept that some warming is happening, but argue that it's a temporary variation unrelated to greenhouse-gas emissions, similar to the Medieval Warm Period.
Whether any of the skeptics are actually credible, I don't know. But I find myself in the awkward position of hoping that they're wrong, and for pretty much the reason you'd expect: if it's conclusively demonstrated that global warming is nonexistent or that it won't get much worse before it cycles back, then all of those who have campaigned so hard to raise awareness about a supposedly impending catastrophe will be laughed out of their jobs. More broadly, the credibility of environmentalists worldwide will be almost completely destroyed. As a result, the political will to act on issues other than climate change is also likely to vanish.
To understand the severity of this problem, consider what the nonexistence of global warming would and wouldn't mean:
So what can environmentalists do about all this? If the skeptics win, we will need to distance ourselves from climate scientists and rally around a new, more concrete cause, most likely the simple question of how to avoid using up our natural resources. On the other hand, if global warming is real but won't be indisputably obvious for another few decades, then we simply have to stay the course and knock down the skeptics one by one.
Clearly, it would be good to know for certain one way or the other, but science isn't like that. I'll post more when I've done my homework and come to a conclusion about which outcome seems more likely.
Whether any of the skeptics are actually credible, I don't know. But I find myself in the awkward position of hoping that they're wrong, and for pretty much the reason you'd expect: if it's conclusively demonstrated that global warming is nonexistent or that it won't get much worse before it cycles back, then all of those who have campaigned so hard to raise awareness about a supposedly impending catastrophe will be laughed out of their jobs. More broadly, the credibility of environmentalists worldwide will be almost completely destroyed. As a result, the political will to act on issues other than climate change is also likely to vanish.
To understand the severity of this problem, consider what the nonexistence of global warming would and wouldn't mean:
| It would mean... | It wouldn't mean... |
| ...that there's no pressing need to slow or halt carbon-dioxide emissions. | ...that we can just stop worrying about the fact that the oil is running out, or ignore the health effects of coal-based power. |
| ...that sea levels probably won't rise significantly this century. | ...that there will always be enough land even as the scale of the human presence continues to expand. |
| ...that the rate of severe droughts and resulting crop failures won't rise much further. | ...that our current strategy of growing vast monoculture fields and destroying topsoil is a good idea. |
| ...that the incidence of tropical diseases won't increase much more as a result of climate change. | ...that the problems of AIDS, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and illnesses caused by industrial chemicals in our environment will just go away. |
| ...that the Amazon will not just dry up and blow away, and coral reef bleaching should slow down soon. | ...that biodiversity loss due to deliberate habitat destruction will stop anytime soon, unless we do something about it. |
So what can environmentalists do about all this? If the skeptics win, we will need to distance ourselves from climate scientists and rally around a new, more concrete cause, most likely the simple question of how to avoid using up our natural resources. On the other hand, if global warming is real but won't be indisputably obvious for another few decades, then we simply have to stay the course and knock down the skeptics one by one.
Clearly, it would be good to know for certain one way or the other, but science isn't like that. I'll post more when I've done my homework and come to a conclusion about which outcome seems more likely.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
PlanetSave (http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/index.php?option=com_simpleboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=68&catid=6)
EarthNewsWire (http://www.earthnewswire.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=89&page=viewtopic&t=11)
sushil_yadav
Re: Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
(Anonymous) 2006-10-05 05:04 am (UTC)(link)Yes, cities have absurdly large ecological footprints, but it's possible that we could build something resembling a city that maintains a much smaller footprint (something more like an arcology, perhaps). And science, industry, and economics are not inherently evil, they merely have to be integrated into a more holistic/ecological worldview.
Yes, we need to change course quickly. But as your own argument suggests, moving too fast got us into this mess, and moving too fast to get ourselves out may only make matters worse.