This little amble lies somewhere between “I’m just saying” and “if I were king”. Its also partly throwing something out there and seeing if there’s some huge problem with what I’m thinking…if so, give me the virtual slap but give me good reasons why.
So this is it. I’ve no doubt that global warming is taking place and no doubt that plenty of it is human driven. What I don’t see is why that is a problem for non humans, and specifically how it is bad for the planet. The planet has gone through many changes and you can’t really say that one era is any better than another. Even if you use the debatable measure that life is better than no life, life has stayed pretty constant through all the changes. Yes, species come and go, prosper or decline but that’s the way things go, weather changes or not. And yet, on the news yesterday I heard that global warming was not good for the planet.
Humans will suffer if there is climate change. And unfortunately it will hit those who are already the most disadvantaged. (And I guess my point it that if every human died, the planet itself would be just fine….man is not the measure of all things).
Here’s the thing: We may not be successful with all the programs we are attempting to put into place. They work best with everyone on board and that just doesn’t seem to be happening. It may be a colossal waste of time and money.
Might it not be better to go with the flow? Assume that things are going to get worse and throw efforts in the direction of coping with that change. Direct the efforts towards those who need it rather than spreading it into places where the effect will not matter as much.
Fighting global warming the way we are right now seems to me like trying to perpetuate outmoded manners of existence for as long as possible when we should be thinking about alternatives.
I’m not saying go out there and burn up as much fuel as possible because that supports a very wasteful infrastructure that really does destroy life (unlike global warming which just kind of shifts it around).
Thoughts?
3 comments ↓
I think global warming might be causing changes that are two rapid for many species to adapt to.
I’m sure you are right. The question then is: are the existing species which have difficulty adapting to be rated more highly than those who don’t (which often fall into our weeds and pest category) or those which barely exist but which global warming would favour?
In the short term you think of those closest to you, but in the long term, you might not.
Ok so we’ve established that the planet goes through cycles and this global warming is just another example of this. The problem lies with the fact that human beings have affected the cycle with our way of life and are continuing to do so. So now the warming of the earth may have occurred sooner than should have and hence the effects of this may have far reaching concequences or the warming cycle may be more severe than ‘normal’ with. I myself am not too concerned with global warming for the reasons that you stated but I think it’s a good excuse for us, as humans, to clean up our act and stop destroying the one thing we can’t live with out, a life sustaining habitat.
I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective on the financial spending as trying to stop global warming is lunacy, we can only adapt to climate change. Why not spend money on feeding, clothing and housing for everyone on the planet instead of throwing it away on projects that cost alot with little potential return. If you and I can see this, why can’t the leaders of the world? Because humans are generally stupid and resistant to change (no matter how flexible we think we are) we will hang on to outdated ways of life for as long as we can….. go figure!!!!!!
Leave a Comment