The Times They Are A-Changin’
Sometimes I feel the fear of uncertainty stinging clear
And I can’t help but ask myself how much I let the fear
take the wheel and steer… (1)
Are these the words of a master poet? No, not unless you put Incubus on the same level as Walt Whitman. But the words’ relevance is unmistakable. These are uncertain times. Human history is full of uncertain times, marked by fear and courage, destruction and resilience. Change is inevitable, and we continue change faster and faster as our species develops more powerful technology and becomes more integrated throughout the world.
The above song, Drive, is relevant in another way, too. We are letting our addiction to nonrenewable resources, such as petroleum, cloud our judgment. As long as we can drive, we will, until the planet has been sucked dry of all pragmatically accessible fossil fuels.
We are more destructive than ever now; we have the power to effect the entire planet. It is very frightening. And some people let the fear overwhelm them and descend into apathy and depression.
I won’t be made useless. I won’t be idle with despair. (2)
But…we cannot lose hope. I know that’s always the end message…”But wait! We know all this severely depressing shit is happening, but there’s still hope!” It’s in all the new documentaries. Al Gore went on and on about how doomed we are in An Inconvenient Truth and then at the end said, “we can still change things!” And then we heard Melissa Etheridge’s happy song.
There’s a reason they do this in documentaries. If the audience leaves feeling useless and hopeless, the entire point of the film is lost. Their purpose is to make sure people are empowered with knowledge of what’s truly going on in the world, so they have a chance to change it. In the American Civil Rights Movement, seemingly powerless people all over the country came together and held their ground, and eventually changed the country. They were mostly Black people; second-class citizens without the power or wealth that we assume is needed to make a difference. Similarly, during the Indian fight for independence from the British, a bunch of “powerless” Indians decided to take production into their own hands, and not let the British keep their power by exploiting Indians.
So how is this global movement different? I’ll tell you how. It’s a movement, not only of seemingly powerless people with few resources, but of privileged, middle-class people in industrialised nations.
In this global movement for change, there are powerful people involved. We have absolutely no excuse for failure!
Whatever tomorrow brings, I’ll be there
With open arms and open eyes. (1)
1) Incubus, Drive
2) Jewel Kilcher, Hands
“We have absolutely no excuse for failure!”
Well, excuse me…. but we do. The other changes and movements you describe are struggles between people about how human society ought to be organised. There is of course a strong component of that here as well; but in this case there is also a race against the clock; the natural system which we are destroying / about to destroy is badly understood, and will not in any way allow us to buy time or negotiate. The examples you cite, on the other hand, could take the time they needed to complete.
It is exactly that which can be a strong driver for apathy (not that I find apathy justified!)
I did not think that it is “well known” that there is such a tipping point, but I should be interested in reading sources about such a consensus. But still it follows from what you say that we do not know whether it is already too late: if we are now at 388 ppm we might already have entered the feedback loop. So how can you say that “450 can be avoided, and 350 can be created”.
My point was, moreover, that even if we have not entered positive feedback, it might be too late to steer the ship away. The only thing that I see you argue here is that the ship can be steered, like other ships could. But then so could the Titanic.
I do not understand why you ask to be taken on trust in what you say; if you are a skeptic you’ll understand the need for evidence. I did not say that there was no evidence (though I do not know of any), I said that you did not provide it here in the argument that you give.
Frankly, the suggestion that I should write in my own blog (I do not have one, btw) if I do not immediately agree with you does not seem very serious to me.
OK, I will gladly oblige.
I’ll repeat, I wrote “The fact that the other movements did manage to reach their goals does not provide a shred of evidence for thinking that such optimism, such faith, is in this case justified”. Meaning exactly this: in your blog posting you do not provide an argument (against apathy) that can stand on its own.
I’ll add that I did use the word “evidence” correctly. Nowhere did I ever “require proof that there is a scientific consensus about the tolerable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere” – I would be the first to admit that to require that is pretty ridiculous.
What I did write was: “I did not think that it is ‘well known’ that there is such a tipping point”. You were suggesting that it is, and thus that there is scientific consensus that a tipping point exists. I believe that this is, at best, a simplification.
Treat me as an ignoramus if you want. But it is a pity that you do not read carefully what I wrote. If you had, you would likely have been less angry. Oh well.
Well, the only excuse I can think of is in-fighting and lack of organisation, which would be the death of any movement. People who know exactly how to stop and even reverse the effects of global warming, etc., being hindered by people who are trying to avoid disaster, yet cling to our current socio-economic system. It is entirely possible to mitigate the disasters caused by our exploitation of the earth and its people, if all those who want to stop it try their hardest. And by trying their hardest, I mean seeing the truth of the situation we’re in and doing something about it.
A race against the clock is yet another constraint, just like powerlessness was an extra constraint in the Civil Rights and Indian Independence movements. And with both other movements, the leaders used what is called “horizonal thinking”, i.e. setting a specific goal and then waiting until that goal is fulfilled to set the next one. I have to say I’m pretty impressed with how quickly those movements arrived at their first goals.
A good example of another race against the clock was the hole in the ozone layer and CFC bans. That required international cooperation from both industrialised and developing nations, and could be used as an example of a first goal on the “horizon” of a movement.
It is well known that regarding climate change, there is a specific “tipping point” beyond which we create a positive-feedback loop of disaster. Scientists are strongly debating whether this tipping point is 350 or 450 ppm. We are currently at about 388. 450 can be avoided, and 350 can be created. Global warming has already caused a great deal of trouble, but that absolutely does not mean we cannot do anything about it, or that we cannot mitigate its worst effects.
There are many climate scientists who believe it is “not too late,” and I am not creating this out of thin air or from a simple desire to lie to people so they will act to change something that cannot be changed.
Please do not talk to me about faith and lack of evidence. I will never post on this blog on a topic where there is no evidence. I am an empiricist, an atheist, and a skeptic. And never ever call me an optimist. It’s plain insulting. I am capable of understanding reality, which is why I despair when others don’t and have hope when others despair. If you wish to proselytise a message of hopelessness and pessimism, you are free to do so on your own blog. But I suggest that your message will spread apathy, which is very dangerous.
I do not try to convert people. I try to educate and promote awareness. The people I wish to reach out to are those who have the strength to act, but need more information. This blog is designed to give them more strength and provide the informaiton they need.
I meant to say that other than with the Civil Rights and Indian independence movements, the success is not measured by the change brought about in the same domain as the one in which people act to change. Even if people act now and manage to radically change the ecological sustainability of our human society, it may well be that such change comes too late to prevent irrepairable change to the ecosystem, which may, for all we know, be a metastable system. Those who shout that it is not yet too late, or say, with you, that “It is entirely possible to mitigate the disasters caused by our exploitation of the earth and its people, if all those who want to stop it try their hardest”, are expressing faith, and nothing but that. The fact that the other movements did manage to reach their goals does not provide a shred of evidence for thinking that such optimism, such faith, is in this case justified.
One need not be as pessimistic as I am, I’m just saying that what you write does not give any reason for the pessimists to convert, and come out of their apathy.
PS Suggesting that disagreement with a certain justification for action is to “spread a dangerous message” I cannot take very seriously either. My position is that, given the uncertainties under which we have to operate, our best justification for action comes from the precautionary principle. I do not advocate inaction at all, just sound justification.
I really do not feel obliged to prove anything to you; you can do your own research, and as you are only one reader of whom I am growing less and less fond, I am not going to waste my time. I will point you to the site http://www.350.org and you can continue from there. 350 ppm is the goal that many scientists are targeting.
This is not my blog of footnotes and research. It is a blog where I write based on years of accumulated knowledge.
By the way, as a skeptic I feel you should understand the difference between evidence and proof: evidence is like a bunch of puzzle pieces and proof is the final puzzle. Yes, there is evidence that we can go back to 350 ppm. To require proof that there is a scientific consensus about the tolerable amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is ridiculous at this time. Climate science is incredibly complex, and scientists have been working long and hard to prove global warming’s causes; proving its exact tipping point is even more difficult.
This is not about whether or not you agree with me; it is about your attitude the moment you left your first comment on my blog. This is not the atmosphere I wish to begin my blog in, no pun intended.
I will leave you with the last word, which you will no doubt take advantage of. I will not respond to you again on this post.