Global warming as a "statement"
Twice in the last few weeks, I have heard people say that they are upset/frustrated/angry about how humans are "crapping in our bed" -- meaning in an environmental sense, of course.
Both times, this was said in the context of "maybe the 'global warming' thing will at least wake people up to some higher level of environmental responsibility. The speakers weren't all that concerned about whether 'global warming' was 'for real' or not -- they more just wanted the possibility to be interpreted as a wake-up call, as it were.
Now, in general, I can't say that this sounds like a bad position. However, I think that in this specific case, taking that approach will turn out to be a bad idea in the long run -- for several reasons.
The problem is that in the long run, the truth will come out. People will (at some point in the future) become fully apprised of all the data. In 100 years, they will know whether the globe has warmed significantly or not, and whether it really was a crisis or not.
And, of course, it ISN'T a crisis, in any sense. For any of you who watched Al Gore's movie -- he posted the graph of the Earth's climate over the last 600 thousand years (repeatedly). The graph went up and down and up and down and up and down .... For the last million years, this planet has been going through repeated glaciations (Ice Ages) that last 50 to 100 thousand years, followed by GLOBAL HEATWAVES that also last 50 to 100 thousand years. This is what our planet does NATURALLY. If you want to be an environmentalist, you must accept this planet's natural cycles, patterns, and behaviors. This is one of them.
Where are we now in the cycle? With just a tiny amount of thought, anyone should remember that we just came out of an Ice Age 15 thousand years ago. The planet is heading into the beginnings of a COMPLETELY NATURAL many-millenia-long global heatwave. Everyone on the planet is eventually going to learn this simple fact.
So, back to the "human-induced global warming crisis." The environmental movement only owns a certain amount of credibility. The movement is staking a considerable amount of that credibility on this global warming issue, simply by turning it into such a circus.
And within 100 years, people are going to come to the understanding that the hysteria about the crisis was purest crap. And even Al Gore, looking at his own graph, should realize it's purest crap. And the environmental movement is staking its credibility on a "crisis" that will certainly prove not to be a crisis at all!
And I am going to have to assume that the people pushing this 1) either have no clue that they are going to end up looking like total idiots, or 2) are thinking about using the global warming thing to make an environmental statement -- about "crapping in our beds."
I am going to assume that there are a lot of non-brainwashed people in category 2) -- but I think they should tone it down.
Especially because all living systems produce waste products. It is part of the scientific definition of the word "life." Speaking both in a literal and a figurative sense: humans are living biological systems, with biological needs; and in filling those needs, we will produce crap -- waste products.
It is also a physical law that inside a closed system, the crap will remain. If you simply define "bed" to be big enough, any living system must crap in its own bed. We are still confined to this planet, and therefore if you define the planet to be our bed, there is no possible way we can avoid crapping in it.
Assume a galaxy-wide star-faring civilization. Define their "bed" to be the galaxy. They will crap in it.
(The only way to technically avoid the problem is to throw all your crap down a black hole.)
-- But it is not fair or reasonable to trap humans into a logical impossibility, and then get upset that they can't find a way out of it.
Both times, this was said in the context of "maybe the 'global warming' thing will at least wake people up to some higher level of environmental responsibility. The speakers weren't all that concerned about whether 'global warming' was 'for real' or not -- they more just wanted the possibility to be interpreted as a wake-up call, as it were.
Now, in general, I can't say that this sounds like a bad position. However, I think that in this specific case, taking that approach will turn out to be a bad idea in the long run -- for several reasons.
The problem is that in the long run, the truth will come out. People will (at some point in the future) become fully apprised of all the data. In 100 years, they will know whether the globe has warmed significantly or not, and whether it really was a crisis or not.
And, of course, it ISN'T a crisis, in any sense. For any of you who watched Al Gore's movie -- he posted the graph of the Earth's climate over the last 600 thousand years (repeatedly). The graph went up and down and up and down and up and down .... For the last million years, this planet has been going through repeated glaciations (Ice Ages) that last 50 to 100 thousand years, followed by GLOBAL HEATWAVES that also last 50 to 100 thousand years. This is what our planet does NATURALLY. If you want to be an environmentalist, you must accept this planet's natural cycles, patterns, and behaviors. This is one of them.
Where are we now in the cycle? With just a tiny amount of thought, anyone should remember that we just came out of an Ice Age 15 thousand years ago. The planet is heading into the beginnings of a COMPLETELY NATURAL many-millenia-long global heatwave. Everyone on the planet is eventually going to learn this simple fact.
So, back to the "human-induced global warming crisis." The environmental movement only owns a certain amount of credibility. The movement is staking a considerable amount of that credibility on this global warming issue, simply by turning it into such a circus.
And within 100 years, people are going to come to the understanding that the hysteria about the crisis was purest crap. And even Al Gore, looking at his own graph, should realize it's purest crap. And the environmental movement is staking its credibility on a "crisis" that will certainly prove not to be a crisis at all!
And I am going to have to assume that the people pushing this 1) either have no clue that they are going to end up looking like total idiots, or 2) are thinking about using the global warming thing to make an environmental statement -- about "crapping in our beds."
I am going to assume that there are a lot of non-brainwashed people in category 2) -- but I think they should tone it down.
Especially because all living systems produce waste products. It is part of the scientific definition of the word "life." Speaking both in a literal and a figurative sense: humans are living biological systems, with biological needs; and in filling those needs, we will produce crap -- waste products.
It is also a physical law that inside a closed system, the crap will remain. If you simply define "bed" to be big enough, any living system must crap in its own bed. We are still confined to this planet, and therefore if you define the planet to be our bed, there is no possible way we can avoid crapping in it.
Assume a galaxy-wide star-faring civilization. Define their "bed" to be the galaxy. They will crap in it.
(The only way to technically avoid the problem is to throw all your crap down a black hole.)
-- But it is not fair or reasonable to trap humans into a logical impossibility, and then get upset that they can't find a way out of it.