Bad News Express (again)

[hmpf]

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4A57MA20081106?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

The interesting question here is, of course, what 'not technically achievable' means. Or rather, what that statement is predicated on. Is the unspoken basic assumption that our current lifestyle - or something reasonably close to it - is non-negotiable, and therefore anything that would challenge that lifestyle truly radically is 'not technically achievable'? Or do they *really* mean that even with the most radical measures imaginable (e.g., worldwide, extremely strong restrictions limiting emissions for *everybody*, economic growth and so on be damned) it's still 'not technically achievable'?

The thing about those six degrees they're talking about there is... that would be the end of civilisation as we know it. And not in a relatively far off future: this century. Possibly well before the middle of this century. Mitigation for six degrees is impossible. Mitigation for four degrees is impossible, or nearly so.

So. If there's official report after official report, scientific study after scientific study saying that everything's going much faster, and much worse than predicted in the previous report, the previous study - it seems to me there are only two possible reactions:

1.) Eat, drink and be merry. There is no future. We're toast, and so is most of the flora and fauna that has the bad fortune of sharing the planet with us.

Or

2.) Do everything, absolutely everything we can to turn things around. Even if it means great discomfort and sacrifice. Even if it means reducing absolutely every form of consumption to the absolute minimum. Even if it means running 'the economy' into the ground (hey, the crash of civilisation is going to destroy it anyway.) Even if it means having to resort to strict rationing of absolutely everything, and living like people did a century ago, for the rest of our lives.

What is the rational choice?

(BTW. Just to give an impression of the frequency and amount of bad and worse news coming in: this is just one week of news.

Comments

[nick-101.livejournal.com]

Either way, we're pretty much screwed. :/

Well, if people would get behind option 2.)

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

I don't think we'd be completely screwed then. I think we'd have a chance.

I think one part of the problem - a significant part - is that there's not a lot of very clear communication happening. Politics still relegates this topic to one of the lower priority rungs, and that gives most people the impression that it really can't be all that serious yet, and that 'something' is being done. What needs to happen is for politicians to start being honest about the scale of the problem; if that were to happen, I can imagine society moving in the right direction.

The difficulty here is of course, how do we get politicians to do that?

2009 is essentially the last chance we have to get the necessary changes underway...

Re: Well, if people would get behind option 2.)

[nick-101.livejournal.com]

Yep, a whole lot.

I hope the politicians can solve this problem fast, even if it does take sacrifices. There is a glimmer of hope to slow down this barely controllable force.

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

To be honest with you, I don't think 2) is even on the agenda - there are too many vested interests in keeping the bandwaggon rolling along as it is. :-( And I certainly don't think there is any long-term prospects for us as a species unless we do something about our population - 6.5 billion people is far beyond the capacity of the Earth to carry.

(Yes, I'm one of nature's pessimists. Sometimes I think the best thing we can do for the planet is become extinct.)

Extinction

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

The thing about that 'we should all just die' plan is that nearly everything else is dying faster than us... I just read something absolutely staggering a few days ago: apparently, since the 1970s, about 30 percent(!!!) of all species that were still existing then, have died out. I'm still not sure whether to believe that number, although it did come from a reputable source - sorry, have forgotten what organisation it was. So, even if we do manage to render ourselves extinct, we'll still leave a planet that will be denuded of nearly everything that still makes it wonderful today, and thus, that doesn't sound like much of a plan for saving the world, to me.

(Also, I'm rather fond of a lot of the things we've done; I don't think we universally suck. So, I actually think that, despite everything, it would be a bit of a shame if we were gone.)

Re: Extinction

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

Yes, though if we were taken out of the picture other species would evolve over the next few million years to fill the vacant evolutionary niches. The problem is, we take more than our fair share of resources.

(Though strictly speaking I would prefer it if we didn't become extinct, just that there were few of us. Even subsistance farming can cause an ecological disaster if there are too many people using land, water, firewood, etc.)

Re: Extinction

[hmpf.livejournal.com]

Other species would evolve, yes - but those would most likely have to be derived from rats or cockroaches, because not much else will be around in a century or two (if we continue business as usual.) I just can't make myself adopt the view that somehow, because maybe in the far future a new diversity of species may exist, it doesn't matter so much that we're killing everything that exists right now. (I know that that isn't really what you've been saying. I also know that extinction-by-natural-event happens on a regular basis on this planet of ours; it doesn't even take us meddlesome skin-monkeys for large-scale death to happen. I think my point is something like... I simply can't help caring a lot - maybe too much - about the future, even if I know it's doomed even without us. I care about our future, I care about the future of life on this planet in general, I care about the future of sentience in the universe - and that's another issue, see: We don't know if something *sentient* would evolve here again. And I have this weird... philosophical, I suppose... belief that somehow, sentience matters. Like... who'd see how awesome the universe is if there were no sentient lifeforms to perceive it? Sure, there may be sentience elsewhere. But, in absence of proof of that, I'll be cautious and assume we - and a few other species on this planet, all of which we're doing a good job of rendering extinct at the moment - are the only examples of it.)

Re: overpopulation. Counter-intuitive though it is, while overpopulation *is* a huge problem, it's really not what's driving the planet over the brink. The truly planetary damage is done mostly by us here in the moderately populated, industrialised countries (and, recently, by newly industrialised, overpopulated countries, but that's a) a very recent development indeed, and b) caused, to a not insignificant degree, by us exporting all our really dirty industries there, so a lot of the responsibility comes back to us, really.) Overpopulation is mostly a humanitarian problem, which is bad enough, really - it means millions of people starving, and so on. Definitely A Bad Thing. But it's not overpopulated Africa that's turning this planet into a hothouse. It's us. So we have to start changing, and fast.

Re: Extinction

[neuralclone.livejournal.com]

But are the industrialised (or even post-industrialised!) societies that sparsely populated? I'd argue that it's not just Africa which is overpopulated. How many developed countries can feed themselves without relying on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and factory farms? Here in Australia, which does not have a huge population in absolute terms, we're running into problems because we use more water than the continent can easily spare.

But back to global warming... it would be a lot easier to reduce our total consumption if there were less people consuming. As it is, the best we can do is chip away at the amount we consume per capita - and I'm pretty convinced that any sacrifices which are made are going to be borne disproportionally by those who already consume the least.