I had two questions during the presentation (this post deals with the first one) 1- by creating more dense environments wont we be creating other climate change due to the urban heat island effect; and 2- there was a statement that market forces are clambering for more dense places, but if this is unevenly distributed demographically then wont all of the potential gains be for nought?
My thoughts on question 1 really have to do with what is the fear motivating action to limit climate change. As I understand it with a global rise in mean temperature major weather events (like strong hurricanes, flooding, drought and wildfires) will become more common, extinctions will occur at a fast pace, area of the world will be rendered uninhabitable and there will be a lot of habitat change for plants and animals.
A lot of the issues don't seem like that big of a deal to me, mostly the changes in habitat, and diversity. Change is a part of what happens constantly on this planet, and extinction is a fairly common thing to have happen. I have heard arguments that this is different because it is happening at such a fast pace that there is no time for adaptation to happen. That argument, I think, is based in old, linear evolutionary thinking whereas now a model of punctuated equilibrium seems better, where lots of mutation and evolution occurs rapidly followed by a period of more stable linear evolution. So even if there is a mass die off, the availability of resources will allow the survivors to flourish and diversify to the new environment.
A lot of the issue seems to be that we don't want things to change. It is like a community rants and raves about a new development in their area, not necessarily for any reason other than nothing like that has been there before. Change is inevitable.
Of course the other reason may be guilt that thing are dying and it is all our fault, but thankfully I don't seem to suffer from that particular malady.
1 comment:
I'm not on board with the man-made global warming schtick. Now before you go off about "scientific consensus" and "everyone agrees" (neither of these are true) hear me out. We as humans have been on this planet for the equivalent of a cosmic eyeblink. We've been keeping track of the weather for an even shorter time. When we suddenly see a spike, we assume that something drastic must have happened. It must be us that caused the change.
This goes back to two feelings that I think we all suffer from as humans.
One is that we tend to overestimate our own importance. This maybe has some evolutionary advantage that allows us to worry more about ourselves. Regardless, our individual impacts on the world are quite small. People are born and die each day and no one seems to take much notice. To assume that we, as humans, are dramatically altering the course of the weather is akin to more ancient men worrying that the weather is a result of some offense to the gods. The weather exists, quite apart from what you and I do.
The second emotion is one that human being are riddled with. Guilt. We humans have an immense capacity and we use it to make ourselves comfortable. Unfortunatley, something in our nature leads us to feel guilty about being prosperous. We feel like there has to be a catch. There must be something bad we are doing to feel this good. This tendancy shows itself in the actions of almost all prosperous nations. America is the most powerful nation in the world, but we don't seem to brag about that. In fact, judging from our media, we spend more time examining our perceived faults than lauding our accomplishments. We're constantly trying to help smaller, weaker nations even when they don't want or appreciate our help. This is because we feel guilty for having so much. I feel this guilt is misplaced, after all, we created all this wealth through our hard work. America is not rich because we have so many more resources, it's rich because we work hard.
Back to global warming, it's instructive to look at the doom and gloom predictions about global cooling that were all the rage in the 70's. Science had concluded that we were on the verge of a catostrophic cooling period that would surely destroy humanity. But it seems that that fear was misplaced.
I've seen data from scientists that correlate global temperatures to the activity of the sun. During periods when the sun was more active, the Earth was warmer. Imagine that. The source of all warmth on Earth might have something to do with the temperature.
There's some great information in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Trying to use social pressure and declaring it a fact doesn't change the information. Proponents of global warming declare any dissenters as idiots or biased. If they are so confident in the theory, why don't they tolerate dissent? The true root of global warming in the free speech movments of the 60s. These radicals fought for social changes. Then, when society changed, they didn't have anything else to complain about or fight against. Enter the environmental movement.
I think drastic action is unwarrented and, indeed, harmful. I don't mind change, but I want it to be reasonable change over time. To expect the whole of society to change right now because Al Gore says so, is rather unrealistic and simplistic.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking care of the planet. I just feel like we need to be reasonable about it. There has to be a happy middle ground where all sides can find consensus. A place where production can still happen while the environment is take care of.
Post a Comment