In a comment on the last piece regarding corporate agriculture, Robin Andrea from Dharma Bums mentioned an article online from Rolling Stone magazine for which I then went looking. Reading this article, The Prophet of Climate Change, is well worth anyone's time. It explains who James Lovelock is and why we should take seriously what he is saying.
We grew up, at least those of us living in the United States today, in pretty much of a golden era. So many wonderful things came along in terms of vaccinations, antibiotics, improved food production. Plague no longer presented the danger it once had. Famines happened elsewhere but not to us. Do you realize how rare it has been in the history of mankind to not have to worry about so many of the basic necessities we today take for granted. It may have been so good that we became lazy and complacent. Many of us forgot basic skills, our intuition, our ability to be responsible for ourselves.
The Rush Limbaughs say earth will always be here. Too true but what about us? Our concern is human. Are we, as individuals, prepared for what might be coming? Let's quit the blame game and start thinking what can we ourselves do to sustain civilization-- at least as much of it as possible.
Climate changes are happening. In November, amazingly, this rose is still blooming in my garden. What the heck is that all about? I have only lived here 30 years, which isn't much time for making scientific observations for what is normal, but never have I seen my roses blooming this late in these hills. Freezes should have long ago turned them black. The springs on the hill produce less water than ever before, the creek is lower. Some tree types are dying. Bears are coming lower than ever for food.
Are these things we can see happening going to be permanent? What has caused them? People can argue over all of that, but all you have to do is look at geologic and physical history, to know change has happened regularly on this planet some call Gaia. Why has mankind assumed it has stopped? In the future, some heavily populated areas might become inhabitable. Others would then be overrun with refugees. Do we know for sure which would be which?
I believe in what Lovelock is saying. As best we can tell, governments aren't doing anything to prepare. Our leaders around the world might know where they will go, but have they done anything for the rest of us? You know the answer. It costs too much money-- just as solid cockpit doors did before 9/11...
The article is both science and commonsense. I don't think it's panic talk but a solid look at what might well be coming and why. Here is a smidgen:
"...a few years ago, alarmed by rapidly melting ice in the Arctic and other climate-related changes, Lovelock became convinced that Gaia's autopilot system -- the giant, inexpressibly subtle network of positive and negative feedbacks that keeps the Earth's climate in balance -- is seriously out of whack, derailed by pollution and deforestation. Lovelock believes the planet itself will eventually recover its equilibrium, even if it takes millions of years. What's at stake, he says, is civilization.
"'You could quite seriously look at climate change as a response of the system intended to get rid of an irritating species: us humans,' Lovelock tells me in the small office he has created in his cottage. 'Or at least cut them back to size.'"
11 comments:
I think this is truely what we have been blogging all along but it says it with urgency. I feel panic. I want to know what I can do.
I'm glad you read the article and posted about it. I'm not sure how to respond yet to all of what he said. What should we be doing differently? These are the things we talk about quite a bit, but now with a greater sense of urgency. I talked with my youngest step-daughter last week (she's 26) and wondered how the world will be for her when she's my age. I asked her if the world is how she wants it to be, and if it isn't, what she was doing to change it.
I don't know what we should be doing beyond being aware of the skills required to survive should things turn bad-- which is something mankind has often had to face in history but we have been kind of used to thinking it's someone else's problem. Keeping some basic stores on hand is good but that's true whether a major pandemic hits, which some say could cripple this country, or a natural disaster like earthquake, tornado, etc.
I think we should look at where we live and if we believe it won't survive major storms, is going to be in drought or flooded, we should look to move where it looks more advantageous.
We have to use instincts as nobody right now can say where is good or not good to live-- other than low-lying coastlines are vulnerable. Not everyone has the option of moving. Being in a community where people help each other is likely to be a big help. It takes groups to survive bad times.
It might be that all of this will be enough years off that those of us alive today won't see it. Then it means teaching the younger generation the skills we know that will help them survive if things suddenly turn bad.
Fear never helps us but sticking our head in sand won't either. I think mostly it's being alert and watching what is happening as Lovelock described himself doing.
I guess humankind will get what we deserve. Unfortunately, the few who do their best to preserve nature may suffer the consequences brought on by the many who take little or no preventative measures. Perhaps a few will somehow survive and we can begin again working our way up from the caveman level -- if we're allowed to live.
As a younger person I would have felt much more ready to cope with the survival measures needed. Now, as an elder, aware of some of my physical limitations by comparison with my youth, I feel much less optimistic about my ability to deal with really basic level living. I know first hand what simple existence requires.
That was a very interesting article. To lose 6 billion people in 90 years would mean the annual world death rate would have to more than double. That should be fairly easy to notice. I agree with many of his theories about the earth being a giant organism but I just don't see it failing on a global scale. And I think it is arrogant of man to think that we can really do much to change the climate of the planet. Even in the article it says that temperatures were warmer 3 million years ago than they are now. There are cycles on earth as there are for the sun. If we really are able to change things then why are we so arrogant to think that right now is the perfect time. Maybe 10,000 years ago when most of Europe and the US were covered by ice and the Hawaiian Islands were much bigger was the perfect time. Who is to say.
Personally I am not ready to panic, although I don't live in a place where rising sea levels are likely to flood me out of my house.
Men have been predicting the end of the world for a long time and so far they have all been wrong. I think worst case is a few of his predictions will come true, but man will survive and thrive.
If anyone is looking for what they can do to help, go down and start picketing your local politicians and local electric company to start building nuclear power plants to generate electricity to desalinate sea water. That is the biggest coming crisis for the US is having enough drinkable water.
good you read it. He made it clear this has happened before but with less people living. The problem will be our numbers. He didn't suggest the earth would be destroyed. He suggested it would not be able to supply life for as many as currently live here. As for nuclear plants, the problem is the waste. Have you figured that out? So far it's the big issue and it's not a small one given for how long it is dangerous. There was one in Oregon, no others as we blocked future plants until they resolved the waste problem, but the one we had had to be mothballed much sooner than expected-- and they all have to be mothballed in less years than many believe. The best answer would be more savings and less use of power but that won't happen with most people as we have been a pretty wasteful civilization-- most are if they have the luxuries.
I hope people read the article and don't depend on what others say about it and then think whether it seems possible. Frankly given earth's history, it'd be foolish to assume change is done with us. The main issue is what will it mean and how extensive will it be? and that is a huge question that definitely could take many lives.
So, however could a pandemic and many scientists think one is coming with the avian flu unless there is a vaccine developed-- which there has not yet been.
Thank you for directing us to this article.
A flu pandemic could kill a lot of people, but if that starts you will likely see things that most Americans cannot currently imagine. Quarantines and health rules that actually have to be followed, backed up by armed force. Not like the TB guy flying home after being told not too. I still think the industrialized world will wake up if we start seeing mass deaths. The current world death rate is about 150,000 people die each day. That would have to go to 334,000 per day for each and every day for 90 years to kill 6 billion people. So each day that that does not happen has to get added to the next day until you wind up needing several months or years where millions die every day. I am not saying that it could not happen but it sure looks unlikely unless we end up with a global nuclear war followed by several disease pandemics.
And I have not figured out the nuclear waste problem other than taking it to Yucca Mountain which is where it should go at this point.
Nevada doesn't agree with you. Even if it was safe there, the problem is getting it there. Is there any safe means of transport that you know of? Yucca Mountain has unknowns too--What Nevada says about putting it here... Nobody wants it in their backyard because it is deadly forever and forever is a long time to be sure there is not going to be a change that opens it up to the world.
Nothing is 100% guaranteed safe. They have been transporting nuclear materials around this country on trains and in trucks for 60 years. How do you think it got to where it is now? Yucca Mountain has been studied to death and it is the best place to put it. I guess we could do what the French do and seal it in glass and drop it in the ocean.
conservation is safe... and the concern is that a lot more will be on the road once they have a place like Yucca Mountain. Nevada doesn't want it. Would you in your backyard? As for what the French do, we can't control other countries. It's our own that we should be responsible.
Post a Comment