3 ms·
What "we in the first world" mostly need to concentrate on is mitigation of the effects of whatever the climate bestows upon us, there is no sense in trying to
by hagbard_c 5y ago
What "we in the first world" mostly need to concentrate on is mitigation of the effects of whatever the climate bestows upon us, there is no sense in trying to change the course of the climate. Mitigation means developing crops which will grow and prosper in areas where the conditions become more amenable to agriculture, e.g. large parts of the northern hemisphere which are now tundra might become more bountiful if the temperature goes where it was during the last interglacial and during the Holocene climatic optimum. If there is a marked rise of sea level - which is not a given, it wholly depends on where on the planet you happen to take measurements since several areas are still rising due to post-glacial rebound [1] - this can be mitigated in several ways as has been shown in the Netherlands for centuries.
It does not make sense to waste time doing penance by "reassessing out relationship with this planet" - the planet couldn't care less whether we live or die - when the capabilities of "the first world" are much better suited for developing and implementing technologies to improve the quality of life for anyone who cares to implement them. This does not mean churn out more useless commercial crap to be produced by the lowest bidder. What it means is developing and producing effective desalination systems to ensure the availability of fresh water, effective energy storage systems which actually work, can be affordably produced now in enough quantity, design and series-build nuclear (fission) power generation systems which can be delivered and installed on locations without needing to type-approve each and every installation as if it is a from-the-ground-up design, etc. Whatever impact a changing climate - whether that change means a warmer or cooler climate - has it will be worldwide but the mitigations will need to be implemented on a local/regional/national level.
So, no penance is wanted nor needed nor would that be of any help. It is good old human ingenuity which we should turn to. A species which looks towards colonising other planets should be - and is - capable of facing this much smaller challenge and emerge victoriously.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
- retrac98 5y agoIt’s not this simple.
- hagbard_c 5y agoNothing is simple. Surviving during the last glaciation wasn't simple yet people still lived. Crossing the ocean without accurate maps wasn't simple yet the oceans were crossed. Developing and growing enough crops to feed 7.5 billion people when Malthus said the planet could not sustain 1 billion people wasn't simple but they were developed and the population is still growing. Landing on the moon, diving to the Marianas trench, reclaiming the 'polders' in the Netherlands, developing nuclear power, writing Beethoven's 5th symphony, writing and memorising "The Gulag Archipelago" to later commit it to paper were not simple but all those things were done. What do you mean by saying "it's not that simple"?
- retrac98 5y agoThat the problem is more complex than you’re making it out to be.
- hagbard_c 5y agoPlease explain in what sense my explanation simplifies the problem and what would need to be changed to what I propose to make it better. Just saying that "it is not that simple" without saying where I'm wrong doesn't help me better my ways. In short I propose to solve problems instead of meditating on them while retreating from the world stage. What is missing?
- adrianN 5y agoI think the big risk is wars caused by climate change and millions (billions?) of refugees migrating from where you once could do agriculture to where you might be able to do agriculture in the future. It's really hard to mitigate those effects.
- weakfish 5y agoThe burden is of proof is on you to explain your point. (Coming from someone (me)scared shitless about climate)