Thursday, June 19, 2008

Hi Hal and All

First of all, Frish, I don't have any kids.   (THAT'S THE BEST ANYONE CAN DO TO SAVE THE PLANET, WELL DONE HAL.)

Secondly, I prefer "rosy" optimism to the do-nothing, wring your hands, we're all doomed pessimism you seem to advocate.
(Okay, not sure I adovocate do nothing, besides don't have kids...I had a rather dramatic suggestion re: TRUE COST ACCOUNTING that has yet to be discussed for example...I just would caution that the unintended consequences of our technology, has, so far, been the engine of our distress...what safeguards COULD be in place to avoid that in the future?  NONE!  That's because we've never been able to predict what results from a new disruptive technology (anything planet saving will definitely be disruptive!))
 
If we follow the logic of your position, then why not have kids? What difference can it make? There's nothing we can do to improve things, right, except maybe junking every bit of progress made since the Pleistocene and pretending to be cavemen instead, so we can once again have the joy of struggling for every scrap of food, struggling not to be someone else's food and dying at the ripe old age of 40.
(First, if one knows the future consequences are as I believe they will be, having children is immoral.  And, even way back then (I have an Archaeology degree, by the way, I am a Scientist!) we were doing detrimental things to the environment, we've been a stressor for a long long time, we're just lucky enough to be here near the end.  Our disruptions today, thanks to technology and 6+billion individuals conspire to be PLANET CHANGING, not like 6000 years ago.)
 
The technology that you deride gave us the information we needed to see how we are damaging the environment. Yes, I agree, technology alone won't save us, but without it we don't have a chance. We could develop a green technology that won't come from magic but from science( You're a Bright. Don't you accept the scientific method?) There's little scientific basis for your pessimism, just a philosophy, just like it's obsolete philosophies of politics, religion and economics that holds us back from changing our ways for the better, along with an obsolete understanding of what "self-interest" means. Science, and the clear thinking that comes from it, and technology can help us, not hurt.
(Okay, science and clearly thought technologies got us here Hal.  Excuse me...I'm being realistic not pessimistic at all.  We DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK TO ARRANGE OURSELVES TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE.  (that's my scientific opinion).  Humans have no RIGHT to be forever on the planet, we'll go extinct eventually, but, in my opinion we DON'T have the interest in saving ourselves, it is too damn uncomfortable to do what needs to be done...and people continue to go along without a care, since it wasn't so bad yesterday, perhaps tomorrow will be just as fun!  Even with the wonders of science, what will get the individual human (worldwide) to act properly, since HUMAN BEHAVIORS need to change too.  Our social structures do not "evolve" as fast as our technologies, and human nature being what it is, won't easily be changed to support the goal.  But, perhaps the idea of totally totalitarian means to "save us" aren't something you'd find adverse, if only humans can survive.  That's what it will take, and that's my prediction for what will happen, eventually, when the debate society surrounding the science actually settles down to fix the problem...and the evidence of our abuse becomes more visible.)
 
A great deal of the problem (from a motivation of change of human behavior point of view) is that what we've ALREADY DONE in terms of CO2 emissions hasn't been noticed much yet, since natural buffering systems have soaked up much of our excesses.  Much more dramatic effects, OF OUR ALREADY EMITTED GASSES, will become evident, over time, which will do much to get people's attention.  But, in my opinion, you are correct, we are ALREADY DEAD MAN WALKING, therefore, don't have kids so fewer people suffer at the end.  That's why no one should pro-create, to reduce human suffering at the end, it's the only moral choice.
 
From Hal who wonders what your Bright friends think of VHEMT.
(I wonder that too!  Some get it, some don't!)
Hal, the interesting thing is that you agree that the world is MESSED up, since you pine for a technological Eureka Moment! 
 
You HOPE that technology and science will somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat, and, given human ingenuity and our talent for technology you may well be correct...I'll HOPE so too, but I seriously doubt we can be successful...we don't know enough about ALL the planet's systems and therefore "fixing" something will have unintended consequence, almost by definition.  (The really great thing is that we don't have enough TIME to even study what needs to be done, since we're continuing to disrupt things, at an increasing rate (how many coal fired energy generation plants are being built in China?  Something like 20 a month or some ridiculous rate...)).
 
Here's a thought:  gunpowder originated as a means to entertain via fireworks...unintended consequences followed...
 
I see our views as a matter of degree, not type, so thanks for agreeing with me on the base case, glad to continue our debate on possible "solutions".
--
Cheers,

Frish

No comments: