I thought the science was settled!
Salon.com, that veritable fount of environmentalist certainty, never ceases to amaze. Here’s a book review:
Are hurricanes getting stronger? Has Al Gore vanquished the climate change skeptics? “Storm World” author Chris Mooney discusses the heated scientific debates about global warming.
And here I thought the scientists had all reached consensus, and it was just “denialists” who still questioned the issues.
One way or another the global warming is going to kill us unless we appease it and become socialists… :/
It’s not for our own sake, but for the sake of future generations. We should leave them a world like the one our ancestors inherited: a world inhabited by noble, poor peasants who make a subsistence living, have never travelled outside their own villages, and don’t put a strain on social services because they politely die at 40. Things went horribly wrong after the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution.
Any time anyone espouses this myth of the “noble savage” and how we should abandon our high tech, just ask them which 90% of the global population would they like killed? Because returning to pre-industrial levels of tech means exactly that.
There is, however, a way to have one’s cake and eat it, and fortunately for us there are lot of people already working on this. To quote Wikipedia, “Bright green environmentalism aims for a society that relies on new technology and improved design to achieve gains in ecological sustainability without reducing (indeed, increasing) the potential for economic growth.”
http://www.worldchanging.com/ is probably the leading website on bright green environmentalism.
I label myself a bright green environmentalist, and I am certainly not a hair-shirt wearing luddite socialist!
This view appeals to me much more than the typical style of environmentalism that believes laws and taxes and regulations to curb human production and consumption are the only solution to our environmental problems.
You’re right, the “noble savage” didn’t even exist. His life was nasty, brutal and short. The story of our idyllic pastoral past is nothing more than a romantic illusion.
That’s why I always say I’m against environmentalism, not against the environment. (That would be daft - the environment ain’t going away.)
I also dispute the extent and priority of some of the problems raised by environmentalists (including those at worldchanging.com). I don’t, for example, consider global warming a “crisis”, nor that addressing it is more important than, say, dealing with preventable disease, providing water and sanitation, or reducing poverty through trade and economic growth.
That said, many of the solutions proposed on worldchanging.com are anyway worth considering, simply because a lot of people would consider a clean, pleasant and productive environment worth paying for, as long as they’re not railroaded into it by legislation and force.
Thanks for pointing out this site.