I've been following (and adding to) the comments beneath Rob Dunbars TED speech on climate change and ocean acidification. In those comments there is a relative war being waged between two sides who pretty much agree with each other on all but the smallest of points. We aren't talking about High school students here either, these are adults who have full careers as scientists, engineers, artists, etc, etc... and they are arguing quite intensely over the most semantic of issues. And whats more is both sides are well versed and steeped in research which backs their points, stemming from notable sources. So what is the answer? Well if we can't solve the minor arguments between likeminded forward thinkers than how do create the conversation which solves the problems which stems from idealogical disparity?
Well first I'd like to assess what this battle is:
There are seemingly two sides, those who believe that the CO2 being produced by humans and thrown into the air is affecting great climactic change and will be the harbinger of our ultimate demise, and the others who believe that climactic shifts are simply naturally occurring phenomena of planet whose temperature has seen fluctuations for more years than we can conceive of. Both sides agree that great problems such as pollution, poverty, overpopulation, economic distresses, disease, hunger and so on, are all problems facing humans as a species. So they agree on most points, but when it comes down to our inconclusive knowledge about what CO2 emissions is actually doing, a war is being waged. A simple difference in standpoint is enough to create a vehement rivalry between two groups who could otherwise be spending their time hashing out theories for more globally minded change. Those who don't think CO2 emissions are a problem feel that those who do are zealous "Environmentalists" who think that humans need to regress to the stone age in order to get ourselves back on track. Those who think CO2 is affecting the world, believe that the "Deniers" are selfish and close minded and cannot see beyond the immediate present. Both parties are right, and both parties are wrong. The judgements decreed about their rivals are, just as the slander of any war would be, way off. But the ideas that both groups represent are inherently correct: The "Deniers" may actually be the more forward thinkers, they see that environmental problems are last on the list of things that are facing us at the moment, they see that the exponential growth rate of our population is where our major failing lies and that any problem is symptomatic of that. The Environmentalists don't believe that we should regress back to the stone age, but rather that our advanced technology should harmonize with the world we live in, so that there is no issue regarding what exactly CO2 emissions will one day do when paired with the ever growing needs of our ever growing population.
So both groups see the need for change, but refuse to open up the proper dialogue because of how vehemently the are opposed to each others minutely different perspectives. So this again brings up our intense need for a better platform for which these well honed minds can argue, in front of a larger, more interactive audience, who can interject and add and actually come to some sort of agreement and than go from arguing about semantics to dialoguing about actual problems.
6 comments:
I think your over simplifying the argument. There actually many more viewpoints than you bring to light. These two warring represent a very narrow portion of whats out there.
forgive my poor punctuation and grammar.
True. But that actually makes what I'm saying even more relevant. The fact that the spectrum is so large and that these two ideas fall into an area where reason is paramount.
I mean there are ideologies that conflict so much more intensely, but you can never get them to have a reasonable debate, because one party won't even entertain the ideas of the other. In this case both parties entertain almost all but one minute idea, and that causes the most heated and intense debates.
I am just asking for these debaters to step back and assess who they are actually fighting against (usually intellectuals, scientists, philosophers [self proclaimed or otherwise] and so on). It's a waste of words, and becomes too intense and combative for people who should be indicative of the precepts of reason. I mean the fact that these arguments take place on TED.com is enough to realize that the person you are fighting against has got something going for him.
Discussion and debate is never a waste of words. You probably know the adage "talking brings people together" ?
The fact is, that in the case of climate change we simply can't risk it to assume nothing bad will happen, just to discover later that we are wrong. It's not like voting for the wrong party, a decision you can reverse after a few years if it didn't go the way you expected.
Climate changes, are complex and long term changes with implications that might very well exceed our capabilities to comprehend. So, it's better to err on the save side.
Climate change deniers usually have an agenda. Either they are lobbying for an industry that profits from our current way of doing things or they are politically motivated or they are afraid about their money (e.g. carbon tax). Either motivations are short sighted.
I agree. Debates are excellent. I think they are one of the foremost ways to enact any coherent change. However at this stage in the game I think that particular debate is a waste. I think there are certain factors which allow the argument to stagnant and for nothing to change in one direction or the other, the general disconnect between peoples. I think when there is a rational audience aware of the debate and viewing the positives and negatives of each argument, than can there be a determined answer.
If in fact the "Denier" are lobbying for something than they should automatically be discredited, but if there views have some merit, and they see the global warming issue as a smaller concern in a sea of large concerns, than we should hear out the argument. And if they coming at with a scientific and non-biased point of view, than both parties should be able to debate about it rationally, without stooping to childish name-calling, and to be judged (polled?) by an interested audience.
I will oversimplify but I will make it much more concise and to the point.
Let me use some of your words for a moment please.
"Those who don't think CO2 emissions are a problem feel that those who do are zealous "Environmentalists" who think that humans need to regress to the stone age in order to get ourselves back on track. Those who think CO2 is affecting the world, believe that the "Deniers" are selfish and close minded and cannot see beyond the immediate present."
Back to me.
One side is right and science makes a clear point of it.
Your entire argument only helped to delude the real point. Climate change IS happening. You say it yourself.
So what is your reason for writing here. You say that the ideologies clash too much for a discourse, and try to take a high and mighty perch of civility and understanding. It really shows that you are pretty much..
I'll let your words speak for you again. You said them so they should be held in such high esteem.
"If in fact the "Denier" are lobbying for something than they should automatically be discredited, but if there views have some merit, and they see the global warming issue as a smaller concern in a sea of large concerns, than we should hear out the argument. And if they coming at with a scientific and non-biased point of view, than both parties should be able to debate about it rationally, without stooping to childish name-calling, and to be judged (polled?) by an interested audience."
Read it.
Read it again. Maybe slower... and oh snap! You be a hypocrite son!
Post a Comment