Why a change in mindset can help us overcome climate change paralysis
In an extract from his new book the Jolly Pilgrim, Peter Baker argues that taking a long view on the human species will make us more able to cope with today's problems.
From the point of view of bubbles in a champagne glass, which bubbles are the biggest and brightest are matters of note. But the really interesting thing is the party swirling around them. At this point in history humans are at the point of perceiving the glass and the party, while still thinking stubbornly like bubbles.
For example, at the moment the issue on everyone's lips is climate change. Here are two narratives for thinking about that issue.
Narrative One
For more than a century, people have relied on fossil fuels for their energy needs. Burning such fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas (i.e. it traps heat by forming a blanket around the Earth). As carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for many years, concentrations of it are building up and global temperatures are rising.
As a result humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb and has a short period of time in which to avert a major catastrophe. This is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, problem facing the human race. Our failure to tackle it decisively could soon send the planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.
Narrative Two
Humans are a species of hominid thrown up by Earth's biosphere. The evolutionary processes which gave rise to them caused their line to develop hands, tool use, large brains and sophisticated culture. Twelve thousand years ago those characteristics allowed humans to start producing food via the technique of agriculture.
That, in turn, set in motion a chain of events which caused human technology to improve inexorably until, at the end of the eighteenth century, they'd started to build machines powered using the fossilised organic matter in the Earth's crust.
That, in turn, helped drive an enormous increase in humanity's command of the physical sciences such that, by the late twentieth century, humans realised that the waste gases their industry and transportation systems released affected the constitution of their planet's atmosphere which, in turn, had side effects.
That realisation came as a shock. Humans had not previously understood to where the forces of history were driving them, or the effects their actions had on the Earth's meteorological rhythms. Theories were soon postulated, computer models cobbled together and everyone began arguing about what to do.
I believe that the second narrative is a much more complete way of thinking about what's happening (with greenhouse gases and climate change) than the first one.
I also believe that the reason climate change is thought of as the overarching threat of the twenty-first century (rather than the inevitable consequence of being a civilisation-building tool-using species on a planet with fossil fuels) is the same reason champagne bubbles who one day realise that they're floating in a glass in the middle of a party might initially panic - because they're subroutines in a system which they're only just beginning to comprehend.
Building a new framework
A century and a half ago, humans began to grasp that life forms evolve across generations and that, over time, species subdivide into new species. At the time, Herbert Spencer coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest' to describe this newly grasped process.
But ‘fittest' is a subjective idea. The ancestor of the tapeworm was an animal that ran around and had legs, but it evolved into an egg-laying parasite which could only exist in the guts of other species. The reason we think about a phenomenon like evolution by natural selection in terms of an idea like ‘survival of the fittest' is because we're thinking about it from the inside.
By Peter Baker
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น