I have been watching Cosmos, by Carl Sagan on Netflix. I have really been enjoying Sagan’s passion for life and condemnation of violence. Global warming came up in one part of the series and I began to consider the possibility that humans could effect their environment in such a way to harm people. It’s a subject that I am reluctant to approach since there is such hysteria about it at the moment. In this post, I will consider the possibility that humans could effect the earth in such a way that could be ultimately detrimental to all life on earth.
I know that thinkers like Sagan look towards solutions to climate change, such as reforestation, cutting toxic emissions, helping third world countries become self sustainable and seeking alternative means of power. All of these solutions are interesting, and probably the correct direction to look if humans are truly killing themselves off, but I wonder by what means Sagan believed that these solutions be achieved.
I know what most of his contemporaries have decided. They have decided that violence is the means. Since Sagan and other scientists like him have provided us with the possibility that humans could destroy themselves through climate change, men in power have twisted these ideas into weapons of fear against the masses to further enslave them. Don’t believe me? When people talk about global warming now-a-days where does the conversation next lead? Politics. Can you have an intelligent conversation with most people about the possibility of climate change without discussing the Kyoto protocol, Al Gore or what Obama should do to stop pollution?
When most liberals find out that I am against government solutions to problems, they become angry with me. I suspect it is because I make them look like a conservative when they stand next to me. What I mean by that is that I expose the gun in their hand. When they talk about the climate, health care or a slough of other human-interest subjects they think that they have peace on their side. If you call yourself liberal, green or any other term that suggests that you are a fan of life… and at the same time support government solutions to problems, you have just as much blood on your hands as the conservatives.
You want a real solution? First recognize that violence is never a solution. All else will flow naturally from there.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:31 am
I have been thinking about this subject recently as well. I agree with everything you just said.
Unfortunately all the crap flying about on the subject makes it almost impossible to discuss it rationally. It seems that if you don’t agree with the current methods of action, then you are instantly labelled as someone who does not care about the environment. Here one of the primary ’solutions’ is to place huge taxes on energy consumption, and to enforce a myriad restrictions on organisations to ensure they are more ‘green’.
If I try to voice my criticism of such violent methods, in favour of finding actual solutions, I find myself drowned out with emotional manipulations about how we only have one world and we have to act right now. That I fully support the idea of preserving our environment is an inconvenient fact that gets washed away in the tide of hysteria.
Saving the world with violence and coercion is self-defeating. A real, peaceful solution needs to be found.