Charles Mann wrote a book about this, called The Wizard and the Prophet.The magician thinks that through innovation and inventions we can cope with climate change, and the Prophet thinks that we are all doomed if we do not decrease and do not return to a way of life that is less burdened by the earth.
In The book he looks at two people who, according to him, emits these two visions.The Prophet is William Vogt, a scientist who, early in 1948, published a book on how man is destroying the Earth. This book, Road to Survival, inspired important voices today in the Prophefood camp, such as Rachel Carson and Al Gore.
Vogt predicted that by overpopulation and the way we use nature as an inexhaustible source, we would see a worldwide famine in the years 60 and 70.And this did not happen, because of innovations in agriculture, such as the creation of artificial fertilizers, which allowed us to grow more food, and ways in which we could keep more cows per square metre.
Yes, you can say that here the Wizards were right, because a solution was found.But these solutions, more cows, more manure, more globalization and large-scale agriculture and industry to maintain this exponentially growing world population (a world population of which Vogt in the years 50 did not keep it possible to survive) have Led to a much bigger problem. Namely, climate change.
Perhaps the solutions to climate change are going to lead to a much larger crisis.What if we all move to nuclear power, and something goes wrong in even a fraction of those nuclear power stations? What if we are going to store carbon in the ground, and this poisons the ground in such a way that nothing can live on it? That is what is going on now with the extra artificial fertilizers that come into the groundwater, it is a major factor in the disappearance of so many species of flora and fauna.
What if something happens that no one can foresee, as happened with climate change?On the other hand, it turns out to be so impossible to urge people to listen to the prophets, that there is no other option anymore than to go on the side of the sorcerers.
The magician in the book was Norman Borlaug, named the father of the green Revolution.He worked with grain in Mexico during the same period that Vogt wrote his book, and he was the first to have used the so-called “shuttle Breeding“鈩?in agriculture.Before that, the general wisdom was that you were cultivated a crop and further cultivated at the place where it was supposed to grow, making it very long before a crop was optimally adapted to the environment.
Borlaug began to grow in different places, and, instead of holding a yearly cycle, to grow several generations per year.This accelerated the cultivation process. He also brought the drought-resistant cereal crops that he had invented to Pakistan and India, giving these countries all much more food security. Later, his techniques were also applied to rice. He was the one who ensured that the global famine predicted by VOGT did not happen. According to some calculations, he saved 60 million lives. He won a Nobel peace Prize for his work.
But his techniques also brought inequality; Agriculture suddenly increased, with the result that many farmers in developing countries are still being exploited by large multinationals who bought their land, and many farmland has led to soil nitrogen poisoning.And it was a big factor in the current climate crisis.
To make a long story -a whole book even -short, it’s not one or or story.If we want to solve the problems of today, we will have to eat both less meat and invest in growing meat (just to mention one example). Or.. Well, I cannot think of another example, but it is wise to look at how we can inflict less harm on ourselves in the here and now, as investing in technology. Because new techniques can always have unforeseen consequences, there must be a plan A or B if it is in the soup.
So you’re not a villain, or climate-defexpert, but I think that by relying only on technology you are somewhat naive, judging from lessons from history.
You are a climate-expert if you deny facts about climate change or climate change by human influence.
The fact that we are damned is a personal opinion of how heavily you tilt the effects of climate warming worldwide.The damage it is already targeting for millions of people. It may be an opinion that the Netherlands and Belgium are not yet damned, because we do not have much to deal with the effects here. I am not behind this opinion.
You can put your hopes on future technology and that should.But, that also means investing now to make that technology. And the technology that already exists to use it fully.
Are you a villain?If you can make a position with power and policy, then it is a bad position to lay down facts next to you and invent “alternative facts” (which is nonsense).
Not a villain, but a Dommerik.
And damd 鈧?娄 Oh well, that’s but how you look at it huh.
The earth does save it.The Earth is not damned. That’s because the earth is a thing and what can the one thing do care about what happens to him.
But we make life for man very difficult and if we do nothing in the end is simply impossible.
Climate change is so fast that many species cannot keep up with the changes.We people will not be damned as soon as this is concerned, because we have a lot in house to extract artifice so that we can live with the effects.
But there is, for example, a theory that the quantity (both in numbers and in species) of insects is declining. This has not yet been proven, but there are strong indications.Suppose we do not know how to deflect climate change, what could that mean for the insect booth? Well, that could mean that insects are as good as or even completely extinct.
Yes, you think, delicious, no more mosquitoes on a summer night!Yes, and so never again swallows. And also never more leaves that are eaten when they have fallen off the trees. And dead animals that are no longer eaten if they have fallen dead. That’s not just a mess, but simply very unhealthy. You have no idea of the amount of beasts dying, because they are all neatly eliminated. Great work by the great beasts, and the Little work 鈧?娄. Well the little work remains. And then bacteria come from it. A lot. Anywhere. Ever. And so it never ceases to be good.
Apart from that we have to fertilize all the apple trees ourselves.And each grape. Everything.
It could be that man is going to suffer a lot more from that than from the direct effects of climate change.
Although that is bad enough if everyone from the equator has to go north or south because the temperatures are really unsustainable.
So damned?Ach. But in a rock position? Yes absolutely.
And that would have been just to avoid huh. If one had not listened to the beautiful talk of the oil industry (which has been knowing for years and years and years that climate change is real, and has been hiring people for years and years and years to keep lying that it is not real, so that they remain their cents but We could have done with ease.
And now?No, no more now. The estimate is that with 12 years the point of no return has been reached: the point at which we will have to face the worst consequences of climate change. And that’s really not best.
All the REAL scientists who are concerned with climate are in agreement.
Yes, there are lists of scientists who do not agree.But there are very few climate scientists in the country. These are people who are not aware of their profession in such a way that their opinion is more important than that of the climate scientists.
Thinking that climate change does not exist is stupid.Thinking that it is not caused by man is stupid. And thinking that we don’t have to do anything is really stupid.
And if you are a politician, and you think these three things, then you are not only stupid, but also dangerous.Because we really have to do some things. The Netherlands is going to get wet feet. Really.
Denying that we are damned does not make us climate change Disexpert or a villain.But deny that the Earth warms up, or a disexpert! When I stab my hand in boiling water, and I argue that the water is not boiling, the blisters on my hand will say the opposite.
I think that this is mainly about the extent to which we think or know that we as humans are the cause and to what extent technology can absorb this.
As far as the cause is concerned.The chance is very real that overcrowding and its impact (over-consumption, more fossil fuel consumption, larger livestock etc.) contributes to the warming. Technology can absorb this, but it is not enough. Not because of the technology, but because of that not every human being carefully jumps with that technology. If you would oblige everyone to use all technological means as they were foreseen and nothing else, you can also impose birth control as well! They both require a dictatorial approach. And of course we don’t want that.
In the worst case, a disexpert can only be said to be stupid. That does not make that person a villain yet.
To make it a villain, you need a frame of reference, coupled with the values of an entity and the actions undertaken.
Given: We want to survive on this planet as humanity, and we agree that we must respect nature for this, then any action taken by you to go against it will make you a villain.
Given: it does not give us a nut, let nature but its course, we are not important here on earth and we do not ask you, then you are not a villain.Rather a fellow victim.
If the other entities on this earth can ask those questions, then you are facing a conflict of man against the other animals.We are just fortunate that the other living organisms cannot ask these questions.
These are problems that you cannot solve as loner.Both opinions are scientifically underbuilt I read so everywhere. Instead, I hear no one about that IE uses phosphate-free detergent like myself, and the plastic bags at the Appie are almost always at the end of the day. The wrong thing about the discussion is that it puts the control at 鈧?虄the Mensheid instead of realizing that you can do something about it now, today.
It depends on your position, I think.
If you are concerned about nature, you will face these developments.
Are you happy with the technological advances, aul you find it less, that warms the earth up.
If you hate hot summers, you’ll find global warming terrible.
If you hate cold winters, then you are happy with the warming of the Earth.
Of course there ookmpeople who are in between.
But whether we deny that we are damning or not, history teaches us that in the past millions of years the ice ages were interspersed with a tropical klinaat.
We are not so long here yet.I think that after warming up (and the total destruction of life, as we know it, the earth is quietly running and starting again.
But that will take quite a few million years.Unless an idiot performs it to press the red button and the world as we know it will no longer exist.
Whatever happens about it鈩?a long time, we don’t make it any more.But we would be more economical to deal with what we have.
Yes indeed, a 鈧?艙climate negationist 鈧? this is therefore not yet 鈧?艙badterik 鈧?as such, but a person who has no problem that the sea is going to rise for BVB to 7 m as Greenland melts and that there are folk removals taking place because it is under way or too is too hot.People in Wallonian or central France see fewer problems there: 鈧?艙far from their bed 鈧? The Netherlands could still live in the Ard猫che permanently? One then considers them to be just another 鈧?艙equicht 鈧? In Baghdad, Kuwait, in the vicinity of Sharm El Sheikh, central Algeria, Libya, central Egypt, Middle Indies, now already run the temperatures above 50 掳C in July: You would move for less. However, the oil companies are the leading tractors to reduce methane emissions. Schell (The Netherlands runs under?), Exxon: The largest refinery complex in the world, Houston, Texas runs, Statoil: In Svalbard The houses are sagging by the melting of the permafrost.
What is striking is that negationists cannot or do not want to count, but theses defend exactly as if it were only a political choice without consequences.If necessary, a bit of reasoning to find a counterexample: e.g. Find a place where it still gets colder somewhere, or extend the 鈧?艙arctic region 鈧?so far until it no longer stands out that it heats up more than 3脗 掳C, or does not know the reduction of ice on to the Arctic. Arctic Sea Ice Graphs . The maximum thickness is by the way only 4m. If that is the way, then the Arctic is no longer white and heats up the surrounding area. Then Greenland melts at an accelerated pace, size order 3m ocean rise per century, goose melting is 7m. The edge of Greenland is already above zero, but the middle is 3000 m high.Once melted, however, there is no return: a part is not melting yet because it is so high. When we follow Trump, the Antarctic also melts faster, which has 8x more surface area, but it barely heats up or does not. It is not with electric cars that it is dissolved, but with many lighter vehicles: making batteries gives a lot of CO2, and the electricity In Europe is still largely fossil. Heating people instead of very large spaces; 150 Lux in offices and no 500 or 1000 lux, it is not necessary with computers anyway. Use a lot more PV, and the consumption according to the Sun plans, so no night rate, but use zontarief or yourself directly, without battery, without mains injection: (PDF) “Direct use OR PV panels” We have yet to learn, But in India there are already 500 000 Grain Mills 鈧?艙according to the zon 鈧? 鈧?艙as and when the sun shines 鈧? what can we think of?We are still in a more 鈧?艙developde 鈧?world?
It is not because of climate change that we are extinction, but because of the enormous famine that will come when the world population has passed the 20 billion.
With high water we will just move to Suriname.
Look Celine, questions to ask in this way is extremely suggestive and comes quite manipulative about it.Why? Well, because you suggest t so in each other that you have already replied that someone is suggesting person to be a villain if IE denies your own assertion 鈧?艙that we are damned by global warming 鈧? Something like this means 2 things.
- You discouraged people who else think about responding because you have already suggested that someone who denies that is a villain.
- It attracts individuals who would quickly condemn others but still feel more confident because you link between notions such as climate, change, denial, doomed, man and villain to each other by way how you ask question, as if the boulder hard Fact is by global warming we are doomed.
And well on climate change topic I recommend you to watch this college: