![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Conservative interventionism
Dec. 8th, 2009 01:53 pmET Claim? (7,6)
Yes, it's Climate Change time in Copenhagen, mysteriously now Copenhaagen according to at least one Radio 5 Live political commentator. I look forward to hearing about the G20 conference in Paree.
The debate on Global Warming is interesting, not least because all sides concerned seem to be doing their best to throw logical thought out of the window. One woman on Radio Four said that anyone who ignored the threat of global warming was contributing to the problem -- which seems a bit unfair on the carbon neutral eco-bloke living in a forest who has turned his back on The Guardian and all who sail in her.
A second curiosity seems to be this "either/or" dichotomy. One side says it's all the fault of industry and cutting down the Amazon rainforest, while the other says that it's just a natural global cycle (or, in some cases, they claim that it's an even shorter-term blip). None seems to accept that some of the warming might be a blip, some might be part of a long-term global cycle, and some of it might be our fault. And since no-one seems to be taking this line, no-one is trying to ascertain what percentage cause can be ascribed to variance, what to a long-term natural cycle, and what can be blamed on humanity.
However, it's the third curiosity that most amuses me. I remember the De Gaulle speech of 1968 that brought the French workers out on the streets of Paris to bring to an abrupt end the student protests of 1968. As the Gaullists marched down the Champs Elysees, proudly singing the Marsellaise, one left-wing observer commented: "If only they would listen to the words they are singing, they would realize that they are on the wrong side".
I get that feeling with Global Warming. Those who are doing everything they can to get us to reduce carbon emissions are associated with the liberal left, and yet it is these who are, in the broadest sense, the most conservative; while those in industry who are saying "hell, it's not a bother at all", should realize that the changes that will be rendered will probably put most of them out of business and create new companies based in the new cities in Greenland and on the Antarctic.
I guess that my point here is that worrying about maintaining the current ecological balance is not something that peoples six centuries ago had time to worry about. It's a product of privilege. And if one takes the extreme view and assumes that the "worst" scenario will come true, the simplest answer I can think of is, so what?
I looked up web sites that were warning of the dangers of global warming (not the "climate change deniers") to see what threats they posited. And, guess what, nearly all of these are threats to humanity's comfortable life, not to the survival of humanity itself. In addition, the threats are, in the main, threats to the developed world, rather than to the developing world. Let's face it, telling Bangladeshis that there's an increased danger of flooding as sea levels rise is hardly going to get much of an emotional response when we've been allowing the country to suffer horrific weather events for the past 50 years without really lifting a finger.
No, the worries about climate change are worries about the developed world losing its very comfortable life. Valuable land will become less valuable, while currently worthless land (Greenland, Antarctica) will acquire desirability. Little wonder that the population and government of Greenland is less than enthusiastic about "keeping things as they are".
I don't see us stopping the current long-term cycle of warming (which, for my tuppence worth, I think is slightly more significant than our own contributions) and that means the world of 2100 will indeed be very different from the world of today. But that does not mean the end of humanity. What it means is opportunities and gains for many have-nots and losses for many haves. It's the threat to a comfortable way of life, not the threat to the planet, that is the major cause of worry in the developed world.
But that's the nature of the earth; it changes. And if eventually we destroy the planet in the same way that our forebears destroyed the Sahara, then, well, that will be that; it was good while it lasted. We have no "responsibility to our children", and we do not hold this planet "in trust for the generations that come after us". If you'd tried speaking guff like this to anyone in any century in the past, they would have looked at you as if you were mad.
Personally, I think that some of the excessive consumption-mad lunacies of our current generation (gas-guzzlers, conspicuous consumption, deliberate obsolescence, GDP-growth mania, etc) is distasteful and inefficient. But that's a moral stance of mine, not an absolute right. My guess would be that, in 2100, humanity will still be around, despite the end of the Amazon rain forest and the existence of parts of the world where we have to live under special sun-protecting canopies. But humanity will be no more nor less miserable than it is today, because most of the people alive will have known no different.
Our desire to stop "climate change" is really our desire to maintain our own way of life. It's an intensely conservative way of thought and also a rather narrow way of thought, because there have been people like that throughout the centuries. In the past, they were often religious or political leaders. Change is not "good" or "bad". But it happens. Some people try to slow it down, but they can't stop it. The trick to winning is working out how to utilize things in the way that life is going to be, rather than putting all your effort (and eggs) into the basket of stopping the change happening. Because, if you do that, you are bound to lose.
++++++++++++++++
Yes, it's Climate Change time in Copenhagen, mysteriously now Copenhaagen according to at least one Radio 5 Live political commentator. I look forward to hearing about the G20 conference in Paree.
The debate on Global Warming is interesting, not least because all sides concerned seem to be doing their best to throw logical thought out of the window. One woman on Radio Four said that anyone who ignored the threat of global warming was contributing to the problem -- which seems a bit unfair on the carbon neutral eco-bloke living in a forest who has turned his back on The Guardian and all who sail in her.
A second curiosity seems to be this "either/or" dichotomy. One side says it's all the fault of industry and cutting down the Amazon rainforest, while the other says that it's just a natural global cycle (or, in some cases, they claim that it's an even shorter-term blip). None seems to accept that some of the warming might be a blip, some might be part of a long-term global cycle, and some of it might be our fault. And since no-one seems to be taking this line, no-one is trying to ascertain what percentage cause can be ascribed to variance, what to a long-term natural cycle, and what can be blamed on humanity.
However, it's the third curiosity that most amuses me. I remember the De Gaulle speech of 1968 that brought the French workers out on the streets of Paris to bring to an abrupt end the student protests of 1968. As the Gaullists marched down the Champs Elysees, proudly singing the Marsellaise, one left-wing observer commented: "If only they would listen to the words they are singing, they would realize that they are on the wrong side".
I get that feeling with Global Warming. Those who are doing everything they can to get us to reduce carbon emissions are associated with the liberal left, and yet it is these who are, in the broadest sense, the most conservative; while those in industry who are saying "hell, it's not a bother at all", should realize that the changes that will be rendered will probably put most of them out of business and create new companies based in the new cities in Greenland and on the Antarctic.
I guess that my point here is that worrying about maintaining the current ecological balance is not something that peoples six centuries ago had time to worry about. It's a product of privilege. And if one takes the extreme view and assumes that the "worst" scenario will come true, the simplest answer I can think of is, so what?
I looked up web sites that were warning of the dangers of global warming (not the "climate change deniers") to see what threats they posited. And, guess what, nearly all of these are threats to humanity's comfortable life, not to the survival of humanity itself. In addition, the threats are, in the main, threats to the developed world, rather than to the developing world. Let's face it, telling Bangladeshis that there's an increased danger of flooding as sea levels rise is hardly going to get much of an emotional response when we've been allowing the country to suffer horrific weather events for the past 50 years without really lifting a finger.
No, the worries about climate change are worries about the developed world losing its very comfortable life. Valuable land will become less valuable, while currently worthless land (Greenland, Antarctica) will acquire desirability. Little wonder that the population and government of Greenland is less than enthusiastic about "keeping things as they are".
I don't see us stopping the current long-term cycle of warming (which, for my tuppence worth, I think is slightly more significant than our own contributions) and that means the world of 2100 will indeed be very different from the world of today. But that does not mean the end of humanity. What it means is opportunities and gains for many have-nots and losses for many haves. It's the threat to a comfortable way of life, not the threat to the planet, that is the major cause of worry in the developed world.
But that's the nature of the earth; it changes. And if eventually we destroy the planet in the same way that our forebears destroyed the Sahara, then, well, that will be that; it was good while it lasted. We have no "responsibility to our children", and we do not hold this planet "in trust for the generations that come after us". If you'd tried speaking guff like this to anyone in any century in the past, they would have looked at you as if you were mad.
Personally, I think that some of the excessive consumption-mad lunacies of our current generation (gas-guzzlers, conspicuous consumption, deliberate obsolescence, GDP-growth mania, etc) is distasteful and inefficient. But that's a moral stance of mine, not an absolute right. My guess would be that, in 2100, humanity will still be around, despite the end of the Amazon rain forest and the existence of parts of the world where we have to live under special sun-protecting canopies. But humanity will be no more nor less miserable than it is today, because most of the people alive will have known no different.
Our desire to stop "climate change" is really our desire to maintain our own way of life. It's an intensely conservative way of thought and also a rather narrow way of thought, because there have been people like that throughout the centuries. In the past, they were often religious or political leaders. Change is not "good" or "bad". But it happens. Some people try to slow it down, but they can't stop it. The trick to winning is working out how to utilize things in the way that life is going to be, rather than putting all your effort (and eggs) into the basket of stopping the change happening. Because, if you do that, you are bound to lose.
++++++++++++++++
