|
Not Ranked
:
+0 / -0
0 score
Re: Climate Change Denial and the Refusal to Accept Evolution
Global warming is real. But the future is analogous to a glass of water that can been seen as being half empty or half full. The consensus sees the glass half full of gloom and doom. The fear causes one to want immediate action. Fear is based on the fight-flight reaction and is the strongest emotional potential. It needs quick action to reduce fear as fast as possible.
Global warming also has a bright side, which analogous to the glass being half full. This side of the coin is not stressed. The lower emotional potential is longer acting in time, which is why some appear to drag their feet. It is denial, but in the sense of denying consensus fear in favor of a calmer emotional potential. If you had a fire in a theatre, the more we panic the more likely we create a stampede because we only think right in front of us. If you stay calm, everything is more orderly.
Relative to the bright side of global warming; some of the major concerns of the future of the earth is human population growth, food and water. A warmer earth with more CO2, means more rain and more fresh water, more habitable land, and more crops for food. A warmer earth can better support a larger future population. But the glass is only half full, and there will be natural disasters until we reach steady state. But with modern early warnings, fewer humans will die compared to not being able to meet the futures needs for food and water for billions of people.
For example, say hurricanes and flooding increases. We can evacuate people from critical areas. The average hurricane may cause 10-100 fatalities. But with cooler temperatures, the earth can't produce as much food or fresh water and that could lead to hundreds of millions of casualties down the line. Say we lose the parts of the coastline, but large areas of Siberia, Canada, Greenland, etc. become more open to farming, the world food supply will increase for the future needs. The change will occur like lava flowing; slow. With early warning it will be more of an inconvenience until it reaches the warmer steady state. Then the earth is posed for the future.
When under the spell of fear, urgency can only see the short term, because that is how far in time fear looks, since it is naturally designed for immediate resolution. The current solution may be the best choice, in terms of the short term mindset of herd fear, but it may not time project enough to be the best solution in terms of a longer time scale. The analogy that comes to mind is one feels threatened, reaches for a bat and clubs someone. Based on 5 seconds of time, this may be the best solution to resolve fear. But based on the next 10-20 years it may not be the best choice.
One of the differences between conservative and liberals is time scale. Conservatives, like the name implies is long term or long time cycles. Liberal is more short term, and rapid change, so I can see the basis of the dividing line, with fear more appealing to a lower time scale set point.
Last edited by HydrogenBond; 02-22-2009 at 08:48 AM..
|