That's a reasonable enough analysis, but it doesn't address the issue that I -- and some other people -- have regarding the environment.
This is going to necessarily be somewhat long.
First, my (oft-stated) positions in a nutshell: there is not yet enough information to determine the extent of the impact of human activity on the global environment on any time scale; the 'debate' over the mechanisms of the global environment, and our role in them, has been reduced to a matter of dueling belief systems; and, that said, conservation is important anyway, and it is logical to make reasonable efforts to limit the effects of our activities on the environment.
What's often frustrating for me is that my first point almost always ensures that nobody hears my third point, thus proving my second point over and over again.
It is not impossible for us to take some actions without a complete understanding of environmental systems. In fact, it might be imperative. Or, it might not. The problem is, we'll never know so long as people continue to line up on either side of environmental issues and state their positions using the phrase, "I believe..."
There are reputable scientists even now that are working hard to add to our understanding of environmental systems, yet they're working with less funding, and less peer support, than scientists working from the position that man's impact on the environment is known already.
Also, it's important to recognize that our actual -- and unstated -- goal, as a species, is to control our environment to the extent that it stays familiar. Our planet has undergone extreme variations in environmental conditions, long before we ever appeared on the scene, and those variations have led to great diversities in the plant and animal life on the planet. It's reasonable to figure that the planet could develop an environment which was completely alien, and even lethal, to the human species, and the planet as a whole would keep on going. It would be a different place, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.
So, since our goal is to control the environment, to maintain it in this familiar state, just how can we do that without completely understanding environmental systems? And, if we continue to make environmental science a political issue, how can we expect to pursue all of the avenues of research that will lead to a more complete understanding?
Fear doesn't serve anyone, and fear mongering doesn't engender better understanding. In fact, it creates ignorance.
That said, it just plain makes sense that we shouldn't go around crapping in our own living room. Necessity pushes technology, and some of the push towards more environmentally friendly practices has led to the development of better light bulbs, solar power, and alternative sources of energy. Rather than being economically crippling, I think that a steady drive towards reduced environmental impact can stimulate a series of new technological markets.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
This is going to necessarily be somewhat long.
First, my (oft-stated) positions in a nutshell: there is not yet enough information to determine the extent of the impact of human activity on the global environment on any time scale; the 'debate' over the mechanisms of the global environment, and our role in them, has been reduced to a matter of dueling belief systems; and, that said, conservation is important anyway, and it is logical to make reasonable efforts to limit the effects of our activities on the environment.
What's often frustrating for me is that my first point almost always ensures that nobody hears my third point, thus proving my second point over and over again.
It is not impossible for us to take some actions without a complete understanding of environmental systems. In fact, it might be imperative. Or, it might not. The problem is, we'll never know so long as people continue to line up on either side of environmental issues and state their positions using the phrase, "I believe..."
There are reputable scientists even now that are working hard to add to our understanding of environmental systems, yet they're working with less funding, and less peer support, than scientists working from the position that man's impact on the environment is known already.
Also, it's important to recognize that our actual -- and unstated -- goal, as a species, is to control our environment to the extent that it stays familiar. Our planet has undergone extreme variations in environmental conditions, long before we ever appeared on the scene, and those variations have led to great diversities in the plant and animal life on the planet. It's reasonable to figure that the planet could develop an environment which was completely alien, and even lethal, to the human species, and the planet as a whole would keep on going. It would be a different place, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.
So, since our goal is to control the environment, to maintain it in this familiar state, just how can we do that without completely understanding environmental systems? And, if we continue to make environmental science a political issue, how can we expect to pursue all of the avenues of research that will lead to a more complete understanding?
Fear doesn't serve anyone, and fear mongering doesn't engender better understanding. In fact, it creates ignorance.
That said, it just plain makes sense that we shouldn't go around crapping in our own living room. Necessity pushes technology, and some of the push towards more environmentally friendly practices has led to the development of better light bulbs, solar power, and alternative sources of energy. Rather than being economically crippling, I think that a steady drive towards reduced environmental impact can stimulate a series of new technological markets.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)