Listening to a naysayer to global warming on NPR today was profounding depressing. Basically, this teenage girl was never going to be convinced by any scientific evidence, despite being presented with plenty of such evidence. It’s a learned response, through indoctrination both deliberate and societal.
We have a world rapidly being contaminated by plastic, ecosystems being degraded, species dying out, overpopulation, pollution that creates accelerated cancer rates, and a host of other problems attributable to human activities, behavior, or inventions.
Even if you took global warming off the table–poof, global warming doesn’t exist–we would need to make major changes in our values, our attitude, our daily lives to maintain a liveable world.
So the questions are really
—Can we take the risk that, despite overwhelming scientific evidence, global warming isn’t occurring and isn’t mostly created by humans? I.e., if it is true, we’re headed toward catastrophe, so why take the risk of not taking action?
—Wouldn’t we want to reduce pollution levels, find alternatives to fossil fuels, reduce our population supersaturation, and protect ecosystems even if there were no such thing as global warming?
Related questions I keep asking myself are:
—Are we now so divorced from the natural world and our place in it that we can conceive of existence on an Earth without complex ecosystems, without non-degraded air and water?
—Are we so far gone that we cannot come around to a position in which we value animal life more, and therefore the natural settings they need to live? (All of which affects our own quality of life.)