In class today we discussed many things including global climate change. I got a bit frustrated during this conversation and I apologize to anyone that I may have offended with my attitude. I found some of the arguments being presented by other morally offensive and I didn’t restrain my react. In the following blog I will try to show why these arguments were off base in a more polite manner.
First off, I just want to say that it’s generally accepted among all respected scientists that human’s are contributing to climate change. The degree is debatable but the general fact is not, unless you want to discount the entire scientific field. Think about it in this way, during the Great Depression people said it was just a natural cycle of the market. Now, to some degree they were correct. However, the amount that it was a natural cycle was far outweighed by the amount that it was an exceptional economic instance. I would say the same is true about the environment today.
I would like to turn my attention to what Gabe said in class. He said that if something is a natural phenomenon then we have neither the means nor the right to stop it. In terms of the means, he may be right. So far there has not been a single real solution to the problem of climate change proposed. Based upon how quickly we are polluting and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the only real way to save ourselves is through some sort of bioengineering project that no one has invested yet.
The second claim is quite off base however. The reason I reacted so strongly to it is because that’s the sort of claim I’ve been arguing against for years but with far-left mystic tree lovers. Since now its Gabe who made that claim I’ll use a different argument. His claim was that if something is natural phenomenon that we have no right to stop it. If we stretched that logic it would mean that all antibiotics are a violation of nature. In fact, it would mean all medicine is a violation of nature. I wonder if he really meant what he was saying.
Well I figured I might as well jump in here and end the widespread speculation as to if "he really meant what he was saying" or not.
ReplyDeleteI will not address the "means" concern since it seems to have already been well covered. The "right" however is another story. I am by no means a tree-hugging hippy and anyone who has talked to me for any extended period time will confirm this. However I am a very strong believer that the principals with which we govern our lives and our societies are inexorably tied to the biological laws which we seem to have forgotten apply to us. We are still just one species of animal, a chronically overpopulated one, but still just one species. Humans have a tendency to think that we have the power and the right to shape the planet around us, we like to forget we're animals and think we're something more. And to be quite honest, its worked out pretty well so far. But there are some events so unfathomably beyond our control it is almost laughable to think a puny little animal like us could have any effect on them.
I could go on for hours about this stuff but I have plans tonight that I'm rather eager to get to so I'll wrap this up. Just because humanity is egomaniacal enough to assume responsibility for something huge enough to change the very face of the earth, doesn't make us right. Some things are just beyond us and I think it's high time humanity learned our place again