Monday, 7 April 2014
UnCracked Monday
Today, in an internet full of fanatical climate alarmists with an anti-civilization anti-innovation mentality on one side, and know-nothing religiously-motivated reactionary climate-deniers on the other, I've finally managed to find, for the first time in a very long while, an article on climate change and its associated problems (and actual, intelligent consideration of what to do about it) that is actually thoughtful rather than fanatical.
Its also noteworthy in its recognition of the way the problem of the Media Circus (the need to always have attention-grabbing headlines) combined with eco-activists (rather than actual scientists) who are low on expertise but high on fanaticism (like oh so many on Facebook and G+) ends up utterly warping the discussion of a real situation. Let me give you a hint: if you accept that climate change is happening (regardless of what causes it or what have you), and you want us to work out ways that will help make things better, then the guys who go around screaming that the world will catch fire next Tuesday are NOT YOUR FRIENDS. They help turn public opinion against you, they encourage apathy because their utterly partisan demands about what 'must be done' (that have much more to do with insane political agendas than any solid thinking) make people think that there is no reasonable path to making things better and thus its best to just give up.
What the environment desperately needs is one or more intelligent (rather than zealous), optimistic (without being in denial), encouraging (without encouraging complacency), and inclusive (rather than seeking to lay blame and to wish punishment on those who have "defiled mother gaia") promoters of bringing people together to find innovative solutions for (rather than against) our civilization when it comes to confronting the potential dangers of climate change.
And as the article points out, the ultimate solution is not (as so many eco-activists either openly desire, or must be assumed to ultimately desire as the logical conclusion of their proposals) a return to a pre-industrial pre-historic back-to-the-cave primitivism (along with the death of 90% of humanity, and our ultimate inevitable extinction), but rather to move FORWARD to the point where we will be capable of controlling our world's climate and our own evolution as a species.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Moretti Rhodesian + Gawith's Squadron Leader
Yeap. Just like in Star Trek ��
ReplyDeleteWhen in need of a solution, Star Trek ��
What the world needs in MORE industry, especially in agriculture, NOT less. Now, imagine that the various third-world countries will institute industrialization programs, mechanization of agriculture, use of better fertilizers and pesticides, and rational land managements rather than planting cash-crops for short-term profits. This will end up famines once and for all! Keeping emission slow in the third world means keeping the third world dependent on the West. Economic independence requires industrialization and modernization.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is a solution to climate change, it's called nuclear power, as long as safety precautions are taken, it is completely safe and clean, zero emissions and cheap electricity for all.
Yes, absolutely. But nuclear power doesn't fit the Gaia Earth-mother hippie new age fantasy, so the left would rather the world keep polluting itself to death than go with nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteBut then, as the above article pointed out, for a lot of the professional environmental activist, being able to claim there is no solution other than returning to pre-industrial levels of civilization is something in their vested interest.