I was reading up on Global warming and the great debate on environmental degradation due to human activities in the last two centuries and one particular point struck me as extremely weird. It seems that this wave of emotional outburst and moral tirades has reduced our ability to actually think rationally about the problems. I mean, there are just too many individuals and groups single mindedly intent on flaring up the sensitive emotional side of human thinking just so that their views are able to garner more popular support. It has almost started to seem like religious fundamentalism or governmental fear mongering. I am not saying that there is no threat. I am just saying that there are solutions and we do not have to tear our hair apart to find them. I am even surmising that, probably much to the dismay of the environmental activists, humanity would survive easily and without much fuss. Lets look at a few specific points.
I have started hearing a lot of hue and cry over specie extinction recently. At this point, I would like to point out that during the past 550 million years of Earth's history, there have been 5 major extinction epochs. One of these epochs (Permian-Triassic) managed to wipe off 96% of all marine and 70% of all land species. We are currently in the midst of the Holocene extinction event (started about 13000 years ago and continuing) and it is estimated that 50% of all living species will be wiped off by the end of it (including those due to human intervention). The more startling fact is that 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth have become extinct and humans have contributed to only a very small fraction of them. We would be stupid to not realize that there have been far greater forces at work than human threat to the environment and specie extinction is quite normal but life manages to sustain itself nevertheless. What's more important to realize is that specie extinction, if directly resulting from human intervention, wasn't a luxury that could have been avoided. We have all bartered biological diversity for personal comforts and social 'development' and I think that's a fair enough price and now that we all live in our temperature controlled apartments and drive our air-conditioned cars, we should probably stop crying about how things could have been different.
Similar is the case with global warming. The problem here is that we probably do not know what we want to solve. The fact that stringent treaties like Kyoto protocol have to be put in place now indicates somehow that the situation is already out of control and we are only trying to delay the inevitable. Unless we stop all emissions, we are only adding to the greenhouse stock. Maybe we never had a say ever. I mean, when the hoopla started in 70s about global warming maybe it was too late even then. But the situation is hardly pessimistic. Humans differ from all other species in their ability to adapt wonderfully, in their capability of using their knowledge for survival. I am surprised that while so much effort is being spent on trying to reduce Global warming, hardly any effort is being made in the direction of defining a new paradigm of survival where the effects of Global Warming would be seamlessly incorporated in the system. To even think that we would somehow not burn up most of the fossil fuels, especially considering the stakes in the present geopolitical scenario, somehow seems stupid. Given that it's not going to happen, nothing is going to stop us from worsening the Global warming situation to as bad a state as possible. Now that we know that its going to happen sooner or later, why not start preparing for it now ?
Finally coming to environmental activism, I must say that a lot of it is needed in the sense that it enlightens the general masses about their surroundings, but beyond that, it seems to act like an impediment, mainly because it frequently fails to realize that the present situation was never an option for humanity. Neither will the continuous degradation of biodiversity be. It wears emotional glasses when a pair of coldly rational would do perfectly fine. In a sense, it hinders us from making peace with some inevitabilities and in the process, delays the scientific process of human adaptation to changing evolutionary paradigms.
I have started hearing a lot of hue and cry over specie extinction recently. At this point, I would like to point out that during the past 550 million years of Earth's history, there have been 5 major extinction epochs. One of these epochs (Permian-Triassic) managed to wipe off 96% of all marine and 70% of all land species. We are currently in the midst of the Holocene extinction event (started about 13000 years ago and continuing) and it is estimated that 50% of all living species will be wiped off by the end of it (including those due to human intervention). The more startling fact is that 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth have become extinct and humans have contributed to only a very small fraction of them. We would be stupid to not realize that there have been far greater forces at work than human threat to the environment and specie extinction is quite normal but life manages to sustain itself nevertheless. What's more important to realize is that specie extinction, if directly resulting from human intervention, wasn't a luxury that could have been avoided. We have all bartered biological diversity for personal comforts and social 'development' and I think that's a fair enough price and now that we all live in our temperature controlled apartments and drive our air-conditioned cars, we should probably stop crying about how things could have been different.
Similar is the case with global warming. The problem here is that we probably do not know what we want to solve. The fact that stringent treaties like Kyoto protocol have to be put in place now indicates somehow that the situation is already out of control and we are only trying to delay the inevitable. Unless we stop all emissions, we are only adding to the greenhouse stock. Maybe we never had a say ever. I mean, when the hoopla started in 70s about global warming maybe it was too late even then. But the situation is hardly pessimistic. Humans differ from all other species in their ability to adapt wonderfully, in their capability of using their knowledge for survival. I am surprised that while so much effort is being spent on trying to reduce Global warming, hardly any effort is being made in the direction of defining a new paradigm of survival where the effects of Global Warming would be seamlessly incorporated in the system. To even think that we would somehow not burn up most of the fossil fuels, especially considering the stakes in the present geopolitical scenario, somehow seems stupid. Given that it's not going to happen, nothing is going to stop us from worsening the Global warming situation to as bad a state as possible. Now that we know that its going to happen sooner or later, why not start preparing for it now ?
Finally coming to environmental activism, I must say that a lot of it is needed in the sense that it enlightens the general masses about their surroundings, but beyond that, it seems to act like an impediment, mainly because it frequently fails to realize that the present situation was never an option for humanity. Neither will the continuous degradation of biodiversity be. It wears emotional glasses when a pair of coldly rational would do perfectly fine. In a sense, it hinders us from making peace with some inevitabilities and in the process, delays the scientific process of human adaptation to changing evolutionary paradigms.
11 comments:
Bravo! Let me summarise what you just wrote in a couple of points for the benefit of others!
1. Too much fuss is being made something which is probably not true.
2. Even if that were to be true global warming was inevitable.
3. Lets assume for a moment that it was not inevitable naturally but because of scientific progress and our growing needs it will happen regardless.
4. As by now I (Ankit) have proved beyond shadow of doubt that it was inevitable so lets just turn a bind eye about the morals of it and prepare for the eventualities and consequences as it was nature which was responsible for global warming to begin with (Evidence: Holocene extinction event).
Now my two cents on it..... Well the causes of what caused previous extinctions are still scientifically inconclusive. We all know that earth goes through periods of cooling and heating up and switching of north pole and south poles and cataclysmic events like those from time to time. However never in the history of earth the changes have occurred at such a drastic pace within a century with so much of change of annual temperature without outside intervention (such as an asteroids hitting the earth.) We all know that "we’re each going to die, our species will go extinct, the sun will explode and the universe will collapse. Existence is not only temporary, it is also pointless!" quoting from the wisdom filled words of Calvin and Hobbes. However I see no justifications for us to speed up our own extinction. The odds are against us as we are multiplying at an exponential pace at which the demand will outstrip the supply of resources very soon which is needed to sustain the exponential rate of growth. At the end of it there will be chaos, nations will go on war, humans will kill other human beings in the fight for resources and almost half of the humanity will be wiped out bringing a balance between demand and supply. I will welcome this scenario any day rather than the one in which we collectively bring such a change in our environment that the survival of the whole of humanity is at stake. I admit that at our present rate of growth we are like a car with failed brakes on a downhill slope but by encouraging global warming tendencies we would only be pushing down the accelerator too hard when we have no brakes!!
I think you got me wrong at several places. Lets just leave the pandora's box that is morality. I will just say this:
Causes of extinctions are inconclusive but I am sure you will agree that humans had nothing to do with the first 5 of them by virtue of their absence. Your last para is an example of the fear-mongering I was talking about. I almost feel that a lot of people would be disappointed if we do not meet such a spectacular destiny. Its a conjecture, but I feel nothing of the sort is going to happen. We have enough resources and if left to pure economics, we would certainly come up with the alternatives. Nature and humanity are self-corrective, self balancing systems. Unless something drastic happens, like a nuclear war, I feel that humanity is going to be fine and is going to survive well enough.
But this is a notion that is abhorrent to a huge lobby because how would they earn their breads then ? How would self-righteous jerks like Al Gore earn their Nobel prizes ?
If you like to call it "fear mongering" thaen thats up to you but I like to call it a "reality check."
//We have enough resources and if left to pure economics, we would certainly come up with the alternatives. Nature and humanity are self-corrective, self balancing systems.//
What do you mean by "enough" resources? What is enough anyway and for how long when human population in large parts of Asia and Africa is multiplying uncontrollably? Indeed nature and humanity are self-corrective, self balancing systems if the corrective steps needed are small. We have already seen the state of Yamuna river for years now and we do not see the river cleaning itself when the organism which are supposed to clean the river such as fish has been dead a long time due to toxicity of the water. Gangotri is receding at an alarming rate. Do you think Ganga will have enough water to support the drinking water needs of the population of northern plains in the coming 50 years at this rate? Making a sweeping generalization of nature and humanity being self-corrective, self balancing systems is easier said than done!
//Unless something drastic happens, like a nuclear war, I feel that humanity is going to be fine and is going to survive well enough.//
On the contrary I believe that unless something drastic happens in the next 100-200 years which reduces human population by 1/2 or more, humanity is not going to survive because of this alarming rate of growth.
//But this is a notion that is abhorrent to a huge lobby because how would they earn their breads then?//
Actually those who work in the area of environmental preservation usually do not really earn their bread from it but it is their passion to make others aware of the dangers that humanity is facing in the near future.
//How would self-righteous jerks like Al Gore earn their Nobel prizes ?//
1. Al Gore didn't nominate himself for Nobel prize.
2. He didn't award himself the Nobel Prize.
3. He didn't start working the area of environmental preservation with the sole aim of winning a Nobel prize.
4. Jerk or no jerk, I do not care! He did a good job of raising environmental awareness among people especially those who are in position of making decisions in Developed countries. He was passionate about it and deserved a Nobel prize and he got it.
I think I have done the impossible, making Riksu delete one whole para on environmental activism from his post. Of course that would make me look like a fool of writing about something that he didn't post but I am still happy at his retraction! Cheers!
as an Environmental Engineer, I think I should be the sole authority when it comes to global warming and stuff like that....it is very easy to blame but why dont you look at yourself ....well it is damn easy to talk about global warming when you live in San Diego....but let me tell you one thing, ask people from mid-west or north-east USA, global warming is the best thing that ever happened.....you know temperature goes down below freezing point in here....life become so hard in winter....you cant drive faster than 20mph....life is laughing at you....
i respect Al Gore for his nobel prize and for that matter i think he should be rated ahead of Mahatma Gandhi, who by didnt even had a chance to win such a prize....Al Gore did 20 pushups, 10 crunches, 5 rope-skippin and 1/2 a mile run.....all in one hour....yes all in one hour....do you think Gandhi could have done it....yess exactly he used a cane to walk when he could have easily flown from place to place...with airplanes....what he was thinking
so think before you write any other piece about global warming....i will be watching you
LOLz @Pandit
"i respect Al Gore for his nobel prize and for that matter i think he should be rated ahead of Mahatma Gandhi"
WRONG! Fifty years from now, no one will ask this about Gore: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040813.html
How can you even compare a guy who gets beaten by the bush with one who fathered a billion?
Sorry for interception, as the Q was intended for Pandit but I think I have the answer to it.
//How can you even compare a guy who gets beaten by the bush with one who fathered a billion?//
The answer is, How can you even compare a guy who got Nobel prize with the one who got pushed down from a train in South Africa?
As you can see both the questions, mine as well as yours, are meaningless and non-objective. You are asking for a comparison between two dissimilar cases without any proper correlation. It is like comparing apples to oranges and asking which one is better? The question that needs to be asked which one is better in what and that particular 'what' needs to be defined properly prior to asking the question.
Here's a fu...er question to ponder on, "Is Global Warming a consquence of heads getting hot by thought?"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Himalayan_tragedy_awaits_India_China/articleshow/2885870.cms
Post a Comment