Cover of Critical Path
I am having trouble with the current arguments for, and the arguments against the theory of global warming, or the now recently renamed climate change. Today, by whatever name, these arguments seem to carry a specific affiliation to a particular political side; either the side of the so-called conservatives or the so-called modern-day liberals.
This side taking detracts from the most important part of the argument to begin with; the argument whether or not man is destroying, or, capable of destroying his world and himself along with it.
I do think that there is evidence enough to at least say that, yes, we are capable of destroying our environment. And that we have done plenty of harmful things in the past and still do in the present, and that we are also fully capable of reversing the effects of pollution and can regenerate damaged areas of our ecosystems through science and technology.
But in the end what we are really talking about is destroying ourselves. The Earth has a way with dealing with us one way or another. When we destroy the ecosystem we eventually destroy ourselves, and if that happens, I’m certain the Earth will reclaim itself in the end. So we’re not really talking about saving the Earth, are we?
I don’t want to argue “sides”, I want to explore options about what I can do and in turn what everyone can do about the problem, because I also think that the problem isn’t only about the environment, it’s about economy as well. It’s about viable alternatives in energy and choice in everything from the kind of transportation we choose all the way to the type of food we are able to buy and or grow ourselves should we choose to. It’s about cutting our total dependence upon petroleum, and that’s a lot of cutting. Petroleum isn’t only about the gasoline we invariably pump into our gas tanks every day (not that we have any other choice in the matter). Petroleum is in nearly everything you use on a daily basis, including the food you eat. Many Americans are completely unaware of the connection to corn and petroleum and its relation to the “food” you eat from the grocery store. I recommend “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan for a more in-depth look into this side of the story.
I am not certain that we can plausibly argue against varying forms of environmentally destructive human activity by simply denying that it even occurs at all. In addition, one of the many platitudes on the subject, ‘it is not as bad as they say’, carries little merit with it at all in this argument, and for that fact any argument. Ahh denial…
But also I think that to clamour to political “parties” for their support, on either side of any issue, and that the use of their platforms and rhetoric to create consensus -which eventually winds up becoming “party” issues in the end- that this politicizing is acting in an unproductive way on this as well as many other subjects. The consensus, which political over-involvement creates that otherwise would not exist, is not an honest and ethical means of scientific resolve, unless we consider creating a misinformed mob an acceptable resolution to societal matters.
I think “climate-gate” is a great example of how the statistical facts are alterable when a particular “side” wants the results it needs to develop the ends to its means; and this goes for either side of an argument or debate. I do not know very much about climate-gate other than what I read in the news -seems to me either side could manipulate the “facts” through the various mainstream media sources which also prove to carry bias in many politically driven issues- and with that, I will say that this lends validity to my argument about politicizing subject matter such as pollution; it becomes yet another means for politicians to rob the rest of the public to serve their political ends. Pollution and systematic destruction of our ecosystem is what we are talking about in the end and the concern is real, any sane person should see the logic in this. It would be a fallacy to argue by simply saying that pollution is not a problem.
It would also be an error in judgement to confuse me with someone siding with the global warming crowd. I’ll explain:I do not prescribe to the pandering for more government involvement, at least not the type of economically destructive involvement we are witnessing with such schemes as “Cap and Trade“. This proposal is only another way to tax and dominate a naïve public and has little to do with remedying pollution. This proposal, and possibly eventually global treaty, is more about funding a bankrupt world government and its system of self-perpetuating expansion. Cap and Trade is about state-ism on a global scale, and state-ism is a major contributing factor to where humanity is today. (Read the link.) If you think we have economic and ecological problems now, what do you think will happen when government runs the entire show? I would like to see everyone to stop buying what the television is selling and please think deeply about all this.
I’m going to throw this little quotation in for fun: “The capitalists are the communists, the communists are the capitalists.” Hopefully it will tempt you enough to want to read “Critical Path” by Buckminster Fuller for more on the meaning of this. Critical path articulates an uncommon and profound view of the world’s power structure and how harmful and illusory its mechanisms of power are to our future and that there’s a better way for the future, but that the human condition is continually manipulated and hindered from its full potential to self-support and self-sustain by the acts and institutions of the power structure. This is a wonderful review of the book.
And of course on the flip-side to what I am saying about global warming, I will add that those so ardently in favor of the “Drill, baby, drill” approach, those who would seemingly completely deny there’s a problem at all, that maybe looking a little deeper into the petroleum problem would help to better understand that ingenuity would be a better way; new technologies may never surface if we fight so hard for things as they are. Protectionism kills invention. Though I would applaud a move toward independence of foreign oil, but that care would be necessary to avoid ending up right back in the place we are in now; with limited choice in energy and therefore beholden to an oil monopoly and locked into a polluting and metered energy source with no end to its instability in price.
Maybe remedy to any current crisis would be all one can hope for until the next problem arises, as problems will always arise because within every form of energy discovered, and the Human action involved in these discoveries, there lies a by-product and reaction that will need yet another remedy and another resolution. But when we become congested by state-ism and bureaucracy, we are unable to solve anything. (Unfortunately we may already be in that position.)
Government and corporations cannot be trusted to help solve social problems, its like asking criminals to solve their own crimes, and come up with their own punishment. We must all be able to act on reason and explore the knowledge available to us at the time of any crisis. And because man cannot know all things at all times, and science changes through discovery, that to create permanent mandate and policy based upon current knowledge is counterproductive and dangerous. And to expect government to act objectively, if political objectivity could even exist at all, in all such matters is absurd and naïve. Government has little incentive to create sound solutions, unless held accountable for its actions, and any accountability by government is almost non-existent, government seems to have more power and wealth to gain by perpetual social problems to “experiment” with anyway.
I am uncertain exactly what the solution is at this time but I will continue to argue against any further government intervention and corporate involvement in the matter. Both political and corporate sides of the argument are selling fear in exchange for a false sense of “security”, all based on the fallacy of scarcity, that’s what the power structure does, and the government and corporations capitalize on it. We get so caught up in who is right or wrong, we forget what the argument is really all about, then we lose sight of what can actually be done about it, leaving the institutions who helped create the mess to supposedly clean it all up. This presents a conundrum I understand, but I would actually recommend a sort of pressing of the ‘pause’ button, and maybe a consortium of real thought on these matters to take place before any more ‘policy’ or commercial rigidity to take root on this situation. The people whom all these policies and ventures effect need be included in the process to include insight and perspective to come up with foresight on this whole issue. A real grass-roots effort where localities enter in the remedial efforts from their position, as opposed to being undermined by any central power which cannot supply the same insight and perspective for their regional needs and requirements. This process could work in many other human endeavors. Maybe we would have less war in the end as well.
What we need to strive for is a results-driven leadership, a leadership of people who carry with them the environment as well as the Human condition as its main priority. To reach this goal government and at the same time monopolistic corporate institutions which hold each other so dear need be put in their place. The limits of our government, as delineated in the original contract, The Constitution FOR the United States, could get us back on track and this contract does not need any further perversions by those “acting” on our behalf. We need no more obscure and ambiguous interpretations of this document. What we need is adherence to the original Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments. This would be a great place to start, since it is our American government’s duty.
But I do not want to inundate this topic with further political rhetoric. I want to do what I can do, and at this time that would be to generate positive discourse on these questions. As I have attempted to illustrate above, I am not trying to take sides on this topic, but I am taking a stand. And that stand is against further robbery by the power structure by use of propaganda which creates false consensus toward the goal of more involvement and more control of you and I and our children’s children by the great Government Incorporated under the illusory guise of “protecting” us against ourselves. OK, I did it again…but you get the point by now I’m sure.
In the end I hope to see real markets move into alternative energies, alternative transportation, alternative homes, alternative work and of course keeping the environment in mind. And along with all this, the free will for the people to choose these things as they come alive in the economy as a result of a real free market economic system.
Availability of alternative clean energy would create entire economies in of themselves creating a need for useful products and services and a need for more people to do the work that goes with it all. No one need be put out of work as the protectionists, and socialist unions propagate. All the work once needed in an antiquated industry simply re-tools for the next new industry that replaces the old systems. Business could come alive in so many ways and so many could benefit from a real free market system, a system of choice and free will.
The funny thing about socialism: There is seemingly no cure for capitalism except the complete perversion of the system until we are all chained to a wall of equality by government. Until we are all equally chained together in poverty, scarcity and fear, we won’t have the socialist utopia the capital manipulating socialists so desire. Petrified by legal codes at every instance of possible positive action, as our human reflexes want to better our situation, but cannot because we have become chained to emotional irrationality sprung up from ignorance and sealed by law.
If we do not have freedom in choice of what we would prefer in alternative energies, if these energies are not available how are we to lower our so-called “carbon footprint”? If science does not have the freedom to solve problems through technology due largely to protectionism and bureaucracy and the tyranny of socialist policy, how can any of us hope to ever solve the environmental issues we face today? Rather than moving forward by what was once American ingenuity and creativity, we are now regressing into a backwards society where we have no choice and scientific resolution is under arrest by the government propaganda machine.
To embellish my point further: Often in the beginning of any technological advancement, when a new invention goes into production, it is extremely expensive and can often only be purchased by the wealthy. These purchases build the capital necessary for the research and development needed to help bring the product to market in a less expensive model for all to enjoy. Through the envious behavior of redistribution of wealth the government employs so readily, do we think the government can perform all the R&D necessary to bring out the best products? To bring all the latest and greatest to the public? This is extremely doubtful because government cannot seem to even manage a trillion-dollar cash heist and property theft industry. They always need more money, like a child stealing money from your wallet on the nightstand and then asking for more allowance the next morning and they have not even done their chores. They’ll keep doing it if you let them!
It’s 2011, and we are still pumping gas, why on earth do you think that is? If you look back for more than thirty years we’ve heard the same story about petroleum and its harmful effects on the environment as well as its scarcity. The pollution, greenhouse gases, oil rig disasters in the ocean, tanker spills, wars fought over oil, price instability, etc., there’s nothing new here, these problems have haunted us for decades. It’s would seem it’s not about solving a problem. It’s all about the metering and profit! We need to change our perspective of “profit” and “value” and concede defeat to our self-destruction as the ends of the current means, and I am certain there is no value in that, a zero-sum game for all involved. For more perspective here please see my related article which discusses the false value of our currency that we work so hard for, and the problem of measuring the value of our work and goals by contemporary monetary standards: “Earning Good Money”.
And one last note to think about: Some of the wealthiest and most powerful Americans are politicians. Think about it. Government takes the wealth that people create, not the other way around. The hypocrisy of the benevolent socialists.
I’m sure some will say that I’ve contradicted myself and have taken a side against socialism. And that this could be one way to discredit everything I am attempting to point out and distract from the merit of my contention. I will argue that would be an error for two reasons:
1) I see no side in many of the political circles who argue against socialism; no one, no politician, really calling it like it is, therefore no real political side to take. And because many Americans do not even seem to recognize socialism and simply do not know what it is. Many do not understand that we officially began our journey toward socialism in 1935 when the American government started the Social Security System, a government mandated and controlled retirement system. So many Americans seem not to understand the value of knowing what any of this even means; that this is a socialist system and it is failing miserably. It perplexes me that most Americans think this system is not a socialist system. (There are ways to wean America off social programs without completely cutting programs leaving those dependent on them in the streets. Please read this article as well)
2) I am taking a stand, not a side.
We have seen the west deteriorate economically, and the global environment along with it for decades under socialism, and I do realize that America’s version of socialism is more of an embryonic version, but it is still socialism. And for some reason there is a clamour for more of the same. I think this defines insanity.
There is no such thing as a ‘little socialism’. It is either present or it is not, and it is and has been present in America far longer than I have been alive and it is proving a miserable failure and will prove further with time if not turned around as soon as possible. Maybe we should try a more open approach. Maybe we need to take responsibility and bring forth the change by positive Human action. We cannot solve the massive problem of pollution and its effects on our environment if we cannot change the way we think of the institutions which create the pollution and then admit the part we play individually in the scheme of things.
It’s time for a massive re-orientation of thought. And above all actions government and corporations take, it is your actions and my actions that really count. Human action, as opposed to Human waiting around.