Here is a miscellany of comments regarding the impending demise of humans.
I stand with Guy and regard any "solutions", whether 'divestment', 'geoengineeing' - anything other than a choice made as an individual moral choice, as nothing less than delusional
For
Those Who Still Refuse to Accept the Impending Demise of Humans
Guy
McPherson
9
March, 2015
I’m
frequently disparaged by relatively wealthy, Caucasian men who cannot
think for themselves. It turns out to be a stunningly large
proportion of the demographic. The line they trot out, time after
time, is that I do not explain how a rapid rise in global-average
temperature will cause human extinction.
Allow
me, yet again, to explain with small words and short sentences. I
doubt it’ll help, but I’m giving it one more try.
The
genus Homo has
occupied the planet for about 2.8 million years. We’ve never had
humans at 3.3 C or higher above baseline in the past (baseline =
beginning of the industrial revolution, commonly accepted as 1750).
And
that’s based on the relatively slow rate of change so far. It fails
to take into account abrupt
climate change,
which has begun only within the last few years.
Plants
cannot keep up with the rate of change. So they die. For those
without the slightest clue about biology, this seems to be a
technical problem to which we’ll simply design a technical
solution. Not so fast, engineers. The living planet is not merely a
complex set of cogs to which we can apply wrenches and screwdrivers.
Evolutionary change requires random mutations and subsequent
heritability. Alas, there is no time for multi-generational
adaptation to a rapidly changing physical environment.
Without
plants, there is no habitat for the genus Homo.
Without plants, our species has no food. Never mind the lack of water
for Earth’s current human occupants. Never mind the early deaths of
millions of people due to ongoing climate change. After all, the
techno-fantasies of the engineers include the ability to create
potable water with “free energy.”
Starvation
lurks.
Even
if we could manage to move plants from one area to another, don’t
expect the plants to thrive unless we move the soil, too. And the
rich array of organisms within the soil. And the relatively stable
weather system with which the plants evolved.
Whoops,
too late. The weather is too weird. The soils are too interactively live.
We’re
human animals.
As with every other animal on the planet, we need habitat to survive.
Once the habitat is gone, we won’t last long. But, immersed in
abject misery, every moment will seem to last forever.
Forever
is a long time. Especially toward the end.
There is always room for satire and humour
Scientists
Consider New
Names for Climate Change
BY
ANDY BOROWITZ
NEW
HAVEN (The Borowitz Report)—After a report from the Yale Center on
Climate Change Communication showed that the term “climate change”
elicits relatively little concern from the American public, leading
scientists are recommending replacing it with a new term: “You will
be burnt to a crisp and die.”
Other
terms under consideration by the scientists include “your cities
will be ravaged by tsunamis and floods” and “earth will be a
fiery hellhole incapable of supporting human life.”
Scientists
were generally supportive of the suggestions, with many favoring the
term “your future will involve rowing a boat down a river of
rotting corpses.”
“Any
of these terms would do a better job conveying the urgency of the
problem,” Tracy Klugian, a spokesperson for the newly renamed Yale
Center for Oh My God Wake Up You Assholes, said.
For some reason, the artistically-bent seem better able to see things clearly
Chill
the arctic, save the
world
So
it's official: According to the prestigious National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), we're in a "climate crisis" of our own
making due to the ever increasing amounts of "greenhouse gases"
we humans have been pumping into the Earth's atmosphere since the
dawn of the Industrial Age.
But
just like those absurdly naïve news articles lately about the
"positive economic impacts" of the Arctic's ongoing
meltdown (which is picking up speed even as I write this, no lie),
the NAS seems oblivious to the full scope of what we all now face due
to stubbornly refusing to get off fossil fuels when we had the chance
back in the 70's (or 80's, or 90's or...).
True,
they are now calling for dramatic reductions in global greenhouse gas
emissions along with major reforestation and soil restoration efforts
beginning this decade (all good ideas, long overdue).
But
they (like many) don't seem to understand that this will no longer be
enough to stave off a near-term catastrophe of epic (dare I say,
Biblical?) proportions.
The
alternative media (such as "Truth Out") are all over what's
happening to the Arctic, and the serious implications from it.
Yet,
there's a creepy, "Stay calm, don't panic, everything's under
control, keep consuming", feel about things coming from the
"mainstream" these days.
And
maybe this is because the truth is far worse than you (and perhaps
even "they") may want to know:
Even
as I type this, the Arctic is in a "Death Spiral", and
seems hell-bent on dragging us down along with it.
Its
sea-ice pack (less than two-fifths of its former glory and very thin
now) is "gunning" for a "Blue Ocean" this summer
or next.
(Those
poor Eskimos and Polar Bears!).
Greenland
is also showing signs of "rapid collapse". If it were to
"let out", this would raise seas substantially and quickly,
well before "later this century or next".
And
Arctic Methane ("Natural Gas") is increasingly erupting
from thawing tundra and shallow sea floor permafrost (most notably,
along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf) in amounts that have been
described by scientists as "horrific" and the like.
Not
good, because Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than
Carbon Dioxide, capable of "super-heating" the atmosphere
if it builds up.
(It
then breaks down into Carbon Dioxide, which has a "life-cycle"
of about 200 years, give or take. Getting the point yet?)
This
is all happening because at some moment, not too long ago, a "tipping
point" (remember that?) was finally reached. Inconveniently.
At
that point, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans decided they'd had enough
of overheating due unnatural global warming from fossil fuel
emissions.
(How
much heat? Nearly 4.5 BILLION Hiroshima bombs worth since 1970 alone,
literally several per second. Tick, tick, tick...)
Now,
they are giving this heat back to the Arctic Ocean (therefore the
Arctic and the world) in trumps.
Because
of this, the Arctic has warmed up to a point where the temperature
difference (gradient) between it and the equator has diminished
enough to substantially weaken the Polar Jet Stream.
This
is allowing for "freak", "stuck" air patterns
unprecedented in human history (and probably then some).
These
in turn are leading to the increase in extreme, "abnormal,"
weather disasters of late, such as the prolonged drought, heat waves
and cold snaps, super storms, torrential rains, and massive,
repetitive snowfalls.
(Don't
believe me? Check out the current issue of "Scientific
American")
Scientists
are currently saying that the last time "greenhouse gas"
levels were this high on Earth was millions years ago (at least the
late Pliocene) when the Earth was much warmer and humans weren't
around.
Wanna'
go there? Neither do I. Who would??
But
now the planet is trying to "catch up", and wants to do it
in within a few decades. (That's gonna be a bit hard to adapt to,
don't you think?)
And
a number of top scientists now say it could get much worse, real
fast.
They
say things have become so unstable "up top" that a massive
"gigaton" release of Methane is possible "at any
time", especially along the rapidly thawing East Siberian Arctic
Shelf.
And
if this were to happen, then "all bets are off".
The
Pliocene could arrive in a decade's time, give or take. (WTF??)
It
is said that this type of significant, rapid heat-up will be
catastrophic.
That
it will cause major ecosystem and agricultural collapse, rapid sea
level rise, ever more extreme weather events, and the like.
And
these in turn will end civilization, and trigger mass extinctions
(maybe even our own), well before mid-century.
(Well,
that figures...)
And
this is why a growing number of top climate experts (all of whom have
friends, families, and reputations to uphold) are SCREAMING about a
"planetary emergency".
They
argue we're actually now in a fight for our very lives, due to a
climate that is now beginning to go "out of control".
They're
saying the Earth's biosphere is so maxed out from greenhouse gases
that not even serious emissions reductions and far better stewardship
will be enough to "save the day" anymore.
That
in order to stave off catastrophe, a safe and efficient way to
capture excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it back in the
ground where it belonged in the first place must be found before
long.
Of
more immediate concern, they now insist that (so as to minimize
future Arctic Methane releases, and prevent that "gigaburst")
it is imperative to engineer a "Hail Mary" style "cool
down" of the Arctic during its sunny months, beginning this
spring (utilizing "cloud seeding", an established
technology, at least).
Not
much in this world makes sense these days, but I guess this does.
So,
here we are, at least half-way to heck with a HUGE decision on our
hands:
(And
it hasn't been as if there haven't been ample warnings along the
way.)
Do
we continue to go along with global warming and climate change
deniers, even 'though their "worm tongue" claims seem ever
more ridiculous with each new, disastrous, day?
With
those who are heavily invested in fossil fuels and resisting change?
And
just take out chances with an "On The Beach" (or at best,
"Beyond Thunderdome") scenario, despite what a growing
number of experts are saying?
Or
do we actually do something about all this before it really is too
late?
Getting
off fossil fuels isn't as impossible as some say it is.
(Not
doing so sure looks terminal, 'though.)
Major
advancements have been made in efficiency and solar (room for big
gains here!). And the technology exists (or is rapidly developing)
for far less polluting fuels, lubricants, and plastics from hemp (and
even algae).
Better
stewardship practices will certainly help (along with more "thinking
global, being local").
But
it is going to take some technological breakthroughs, such as for
carbon capture (not to mention better storage of the large amounts of
spent, but still radioactive, nuclear fuel currently being
"temporarily" stored at aging, closing fission reactors
worldwide, lest there be more Fukushimas).
Hey,
this is the era of nanotechnology. Let's do it!
In
the true spirit of the "open, free market", let's have some
real innovation!
If
there can be any better investment than "saving the world"
for all those corporate trillions currently "parked" in
offshore accounts, I don't know what that could possibly be (talk
about a jobs and infrastructure program!).
True,
to deal with the climate threat we all now face, far more cooperation
and forgiveness (and far less confrontation) will be necessary
worldwide (not that!).
Yet,
it just seems like such a damn, stupid, shame to be touching the
stars, and then self-destruct due to greed, inefficiency, war,
ignorance, apathy, and denial.
Maybe
things are already "too far gone" to re-stabilize the
Earth's climate back where our species (and most life) needs it in
order to survive (let alone thrive).
And
sooner or later, "we're doomed" (unless we get off the
planet, 'though that "coming singularity" is still only a
dim light down a long tunnel).
At
least we went out trying to fix the mess we've made instead of
dumping it on the heads of today's beautiful, innocent, children and
countless other species.
At
least we went down "giving it our best shot" instead of
"firing drunk and blind".
First
and foremost, there's the issue of "chillin' down the Arctic",
preferably before the Sun returns to the North Pole...
(You
listening, world "movers and shakers"? How "lucky"
are you feeling now?)
A
good thought and a prayer to all Creation amidst the Whirlwind...
Cody
Michaels, - piano
soloist, composer, storyteller, poet, poet, rock roller, student of
life
"The
wild party's over. Here's the bill." (Mother Earth)
A
word about veganism
Seemorerocks
I
have a had a range of comments, ranging from a friend referencing
desertification and the disappearance of Habitat - “I have
long thought the Chinese purchases of farms in NZ were in part to
protect agaisnt this phenomenon”
To
-
“I
think people concerning themselves with careerists like McKibben
whilst ignoring the great contribution animal agriculture places to
climate change, are suffering from the same hypocrisy that Bill
McKibben is.”
It
has got me thinking, because we get a lot of aggressive prosetylising
about veganism these days, so I would like to record what I think
about it.
If
people want to adopt veganism on a personal basis to reduce their own
participation in violence, as a moral choice, I can only support
that.
However,
that is where it ends.
Veganism
is not going to “save the planet” (all due respect to Chris Hedges), any more than geoengineering,
changing the lightbulbs or anything else – right up to things that
are definitely “right”, like permaculture
The
train has left the station.
The
horse has bolted.
As
a personal dietary choice I am far more in favour of
lactovegetarianism (if for nothing else than for the ability to have
a more balanced diet).
As
a way of approaching how we manage our land (and I mean our land,
as I am not naïve enough to think that there is going to be any
positive changes in agriculture.
It
has always made me wonder what these folks would propose doing with
those cattle, sheep and pigs that actually exist in today’s world
in the highly unlikely event of a change of heart about industrial
farming. Letting them lose to destroy what remains of our land?
Culling them? (I hope not)
All
of this makes me think of two things – both related in some way to
Tibetan Buddhism. The first, is the statement by a Lama when asked
about diet - “You are not going to become enlightened by eating”
and the second is the rather hypocritical practice of Tibetans who
need meat to survive getting Muslims to carry out the deed because of
their ban on killing.
Human
nature is a funny and contradictory thing. I prefer to see things as
they are rather than adopt some ideal.
To
make it clear to those with closed minds, I abhore the practice of
industrial farming as much as I do the practices of Wall Street and
crony capitalism. But , seeing none of these things is going to go
away until we witness a sudden and catastrophic meltdown I will live
what remains of my life as I see best.
In
the meantime, I dislike implications that I am a hypocrite because I
don’t embrace somebody else’s ideology.
Posts
