First we denied that the globe was warming much faster than it should. Then we denied that it was mankind causing this effect. The latter is now the centrepiece of the denial lobby. So what. The science is overwhelming and therefore a sensible society should take measures to reverse the damage... Or should it?
There is a new kind of sceptic emerging that is saying that we should not do anything, whether climate change is manmade or not. Don't get me wrong, I like sceptics. Coming from a marketing background I know all too well that as soon as you start believing your own BS, you know you are in trouble. Sceptics keep us on track to the truth because they are rational people who debate in a realistic way and help us to actually question our own marketing. Its the deniers who are so dangerous because their lobby is purely dogmatic, emotional and usually with a disconnected political agenda.
When a species or society exploits an unrestricted and limited natural resource, eventually it will fail and the outcomes are in the lap of the gods... or Darwin. This is commonly known as "The Tragedy of the Commons" and the exploitation of the biosphere to sink our unrestricted carbon emissions has now reached such a limit and apparently we are soon to pay the price through rapid and dangerous warming.
These new sceptics are claiming that climate change is the biospheres way of delivering a "natural cull", much like plagues and wars have done in the past. And we should let it get on with it. This seems hugely callous, and who says so and who says who gets to survive. In the past its always been natural selection. Maybe its the same here too. Equity once again does not get a look in, and again who says that we are all born equal.
I don't accept the above equity argument but at the same time I have no rationale to deny its unfair either. There's a huge amount of unfairness in life that is completely overlooked by even the most kind of citizens. Often we do not realise by living like we do we are punishing someone out of sight, out of mind. But at the same time we do not look far for those we could easily help.
My view right now on the outcomes of climate change on civilisation are those that are abundant, wealthy, flexible and adaptable enough will make it through quite easily. The rest will be the victims of evolution
Monday 17 September 2007
Who Cares About the Climate Anyway
Following conversations with several friends recently, who are generally good people, but refuse to limit their excess use of carbon, usually with the excuse that they don't really care, I decided to have a deeper think about why they were adopting this classic form of psychological denial.
Normally its used as a means to deny its their problem simply by saying they don't care. That way they have put themselves in a position that means this existential threat no longer hurts them or makes them feel directly uncomfortable and they can continue doing those things that are the root cause of the emotion in the first place. I suspect they are risking that some magic is going to resolve any problems between now and when any climate fallout affects them directly. Its a good bet I guess.
So I needed to discover why this was and if there was any reasonable rationale for the behaviour. It came to me the other day after reading a report called the "State of the Future in The Guardian about how organised crime is by far the biggest threat to our future alongside climate change and access to decent water
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2167270,00.html
But the trigger in the report was not the leader. It went on to say that there are now 27 million people held in slavery, more than during the slave trade and the majority Asian women. So I thought why are we not doing anything about this. And to my point, why do we still not care about slaves given the dramatic scale of the problem and the shameful history still bearing down on those of us still reaping the fruits of that vile trade. Well I don't have the answer about our selfishness here. But it does tell me that its not the only thing we don't care about.
Its an obtuse thing to deny the logic behind climate science's claim to anthropogenic climate change these days. Its clear to me that any remaining denial is purely political, emotional and influenced largely by prejudice. Logic and science do not come into it. For me this is almost certain behaviour
So people only care about things that are immediate and close to us, things that will affect our livelihood or safety directly. Remote dangers and injustices, no matter how big, that fall outside our immediate sphere of comfort are clearly not that important to us. We really don't actually care about them or the outcomes of future generations. I suspect this is ultimately because we do not need to care about the social well being of others any more. We are all wealthy enough not to have to rely on the help of others.
Its still difficult to explain this complex argument to my friends without hurting their feelings though. One statement always does get them thinking though:
Our fun loving lifestyle of travel, homes and leisure means that the climate issue will be resolved by Darwin
Normally its used as a means to deny its their problem simply by saying they don't care. That way they have put themselves in a position that means this existential threat no longer hurts them or makes them feel directly uncomfortable and they can continue doing those things that are the root cause of the emotion in the first place. I suspect they are risking that some magic is going to resolve any problems between now and when any climate fallout affects them directly. Its a good bet I guess.
So I needed to discover why this was and if there was any reasonable rationale for the behaviour. It came to me the other day after reading a report called the "State of the Future in The Guardian about how organised crime is by far the biggest threat to our future alongside climate change and access to decent water
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2167270,00.html
But the trigger in the report was not the leader. It went on to say that there are now 27 million people held in slavery, more than during the slave trade and the majority Asian women. So I thought why are we not doing anything about this. And to my point, why do we still not care about slaves given the dramatic scale of the problem and the shameful history still bearing down on those of us still reaping the fruits of that vile trade. Well I don't have the answer about our selfishness here. But it does tell me that its not the only thing we don't care about.
Its an obtuse thing to deny the logic behind climate science's claim to anthropogenic climate change these days. Its clear to me that any remaining denial is purely political, emotional and influenced largely by prejudice. Logic and science do not come into it. For me this is almost certain behaviour
So people only care about things that are immediate and close to us, things that will affect our livelihood or safety directly. Remote dangers and injustices, no matter how big, that fall outside our immediate sphere of comfort are clearly not that important to us. We really don't actually care about them or the outcomes of future generations. I suspect this is ultimately because we do not need to care about the social well being of others any more. We are all wealthy enough not to have to rely on the help of others.
Its still difficult to explain this complex argument to my friends without hurting their feelings though. One statement always does get them thinking though:
Our fun loving lifestyle of travel, homes and leisure means that the climate issue will be resolved by Darwin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)