Global Whining

Our planet offers an amazing abundance, basis for all sort of life. All these life forms have co-evolved with their Umwelt, the climate being part of this Umwelt. Simply being alive means altering the enviroment, transforming food into energy for movement and into various metabolic byproducts.

The abundance of life-sustaining 'stuff' becomes fairly obvious when one considers the amount of energy currently used to propagate a global scare campaign about the climate. It's quite amazing to see how much pollution is created to squabble about global warming. If someone believes strongly that Co2 is the culprit for seemingly catastrophic climatic changes, why don't they use modern technology like video conferencing instead of physically traveling around, creating masses of Co2 in the process?

Which logic dictates that it's okay to destroy old growth forests, which are nature's carbon dioxide traps, when 'climate change' is of such importance? But logic and reason, so it seems, are not part of any proposed solution to the perceived problem.

Rhetorics dictate the media discourse, the old meme 'us vs them' makes 'climate change deniers' to Holocaust deniers, all the while none of the participants of official talks shows any sign of personal responsibility. Politicos claim scientists have found the truth, citizens trust into their politicos, especially if those don't follow their own opinion, but those of impeccable and infallible scientists.

That's right. In any given time of history, scientific knowledge was incomplete, and most assumptions and conclusions wrongly oversimplified. But now, in the 21st century, thanks brilliant fundamentalists like Dawkins, that has changed. Scientists stopped to err, like the Oracle of Delphi they cannot but tell the 'truth'. In earlier times of history saints channeled divine truth to their communities, now scientists are blessed with this job. Hurray, finally I can stop to think for myself, I just find a scientist to answer all my questions.

One of the factors that taints the credibility of contemporary science is the idea of causation. Let's take a simple example, a man stabbed with a knife in his heart. Obviously, the knife caused the death of the man, but it's not weapons, but people that kill people, so the 'cause of death' is the stabber. The 'stabber', however, is not primarily a cause of death, any investigator would look for a motive.

Neither the knife, nor the stabber, nor the combination of knife and stabber suffices as 'cause' for death. The amount of detail about the circumstances of that killing event is theoretically limitless, a judge would certainly require lots more than I made up on the spot to determine whether the deed will be penalised as murder, as man slaughter or as act of self-defense.

Any credible scientist will avoid stating any definite causal chain, as our planetary climate is a highly complex system. System theory as a discipline of science is less than a century old. Chaos theory, an offspring of system theory, became popular during the 1980s, and most definetely deserves consideration when attempting to make predictions about the climate. A 'young' science like that is highly prone to be wrong, new territory needs time for exploration before usable pathways are found.

Mankind is part of the 'finite' system planet Earth, and its activities, especially the technological aspects, affect the entire system. The pollution of man made industry spread through the atmosphere around the globe, it sounds retarded to deny human influence to its environment. Many cultures in history ended in ecological desasters, the lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of nature doomed many civilisations.

If mankind would want to learn from history, than treating nature with more respect must be the consequence. Indigenous people managed to survive for centuries, until globalisation destroyed the balance of their Umwelt. Only sustainable approaches to live with the natural environment succeeded, imposing control over nature with anthrocentric approaches always ended in doom.

It sounds quite hypocritical to claim that controlling CO2 emissions will avert an almost certain catastrophe. Most contemporary species have survived for millions of years on this planet, with about 30,000 years we have just started to use our survival potential as species on this planet. The thought of us (mankind) wiping ourselves off the planet in maybe only a century is way too pessimistic for me to buy into, although I certainly believe that we have the technological capacity to exterminate all human life on this planet.

But okay, let's assume for a second that reducing Co2 in the atmosphere will safe the planet. First priority then should be the preservation of existing 'carbon sinks', which is good old rain forest, saved from activists around the planet since the 1970's, nevertheless shrinking at an alarming rate. Instead of getting hyperactive simply doing less. Less rain forest killed means less heavy machinery running on fossil fuel, less global transport of those goods, and mainly a living ecosystem binding massive amounts of Co2.

And course, reducing emissions at the same time, or at least, not increasing them. Although I'm not a friend of nuclear power, generating energy in this way certainly wouldn't contribute to more Co2. Instead of hailing Iran for its nuclear program as spearhead for non-carbon based energy production, she is demonised. Instead using Australia's sunny predisposition to become world leader in solar technology, sun-deprived Germany, smaller than Victoria, generates more solar energy than entire Australia.

O wait, there's a catch. In global fascism nobody beats its own drum, all march in step. Those hippie ideas of saving forests and green technology creates too much autonomy, and require different solutions for different areas. Once the sheeple have grazed the idea of Co2 causation, their next meager meal is a hidden tax to finance a trading scheme.

The fear mongering in the name of science is already hard to swallow, but a positive influence of trading on the climate sounds like a pretty drug-crazed idea. It's a bit like reinventing the rain-dance, just in a suit, without music, dance and others to pick up the bill. Please, my local politico-parasite, present me a scientist to prove that trading cools this planet, and until then, stop the systematic rape of nature in this country.

century climate co2 death energy forest global history idea instead kill knife life man mankind nature planet science scientists sounds system technology umwelt

created at TagCrowd.com