"Cynical" doesn't quite cover it

[ciroccoj]

Gosh, I am ever so glad I've never bought in to those totally hysterical doomsday screechings of OMG if we don't do something about global warming the North Pole might be almost melted in summertime within 50 years and OMGWTFF what will we DO THEN?!! There could be hotter and longer and dryer droughts! And increased forest fires!! And stronger hurricanes and storms!!! Within our kids' lifetimes!!!

Arctic Ice Cap could be gone in summer by 2012, says NASA

Of course, this is NASA saying all of this, so really, what do they know. Buncha hippie faux-scientists and mouthpieces of the granola establishment.



There's this post I've written and rewritten in my head so many times in the last few months/years with every other news report. But I can't write it, it makes me too ill. Basically it's a explanation of why I'm no longer so proud to be Canadian. I'm pretty miserably ashamed of my country and my countrymen and women and my leaders. I can't think of us as the good guys any more.

I think history will judge us with the same baffled disbelief that we currently judge the people who came to the Americas and slaughtered millions in order to enrich their home lands; the people of Easter Island, who blindly destroyed their own ecosystem and their culture in the quest for bigger and grander statues; the slave traders who brought humans to be brutally used and discarded for their cheap labour. The disbelief of How the hell could you be so blind, how could you not see the harm you were doing, how could the pursuit of things make you so blind to the destruction and suffering you were causing to others - or even to yourself and your children?

How could you not see that? And when you did see, how could you not care?

Yeah I'll have to stop there. It's too fucking depressing.

Comments

[daf9.livejournal.com]

I think part of the apparent indifference is that the world has been going to hell in a handbasket from one thing or another since civilization began. People become desensitized.

Take global warming for example. Is it a problem? Probably - but it isn't clear how much of a problem it is (as all predictions are based on imperfect models) or what the best thing to do about it is short of killing off 90% of the human population.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I think part of the apparent indifference is that the world has been going to hell in a handbasket from one thing or another since civilization began. People become desensitized.
True enough... but then, the world has actually gone to hell in a handbasket in some areas, a number of times. See above for examples. And each time there were clear indications that what was going on was wrong, and could and should be changed... but since changing, fixing, and averting disaster/gross injustice entailed making sacrifices, it was much easier to simply say, "We don't know enough to decide for sure" rather than actually do something about it.

but it isn't clear how much of a problem it is (as all predictions are based on imperfect models) or what the best thing to do about it is short of killing off 90% of the human population.
We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one. It isn't clear how much of a problem it is, that's true - just like it isn't clear exactly how big a detriment to health is caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't get into a tizzy and tell people to stop smoking until we absolutely know for sure that it's bad for them? Or can we say "We're not 100% sure exactly how bad it is, but all indications point to Really, Really Bad. So, um, stop. Now."

As to not knowing what's the best thing to do about it, you're right - we don't know what's best to do about it. But it appears that we take that and run with it and say that we just won't do anything. Or we do so little that we almost may as well not bother.

We know how to make cleaner cars. We don't make them, and to a large extent we don't buy them. We know that public transportation is a good thing. We don't invest in it. We know large cars are harmful to the environment, even when they're supposedly fuel efficient. We have no penalties for buying them. We know urban sprawl is a problem. We don't rezone. We know air travel is harmful. We don't make airlines and air passengers pay more to (inadequately) offset their pollution. We know how to make houses that use less power to heat/cool themselves. We don't pass laws to make using less power part of regular building codes.

Many other places in the world are doing all of the above, sometimes at some sacrifice to their own economies/comfort levels, based on the exact same access to scientific evidence for global warming that we have, because they choose to focus on the overwhelming scientific evidence of the considerable environmental cost of doing nothing. We choose to focus instead on the few credible scientists here and there who say there's very little/no problem, and the many politicians who tell us that doing something will likely cost us money/energy/comfort, and continue our business as usual.

That, to me, is shameful.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

just like it isn't clear exactly how big a detriment to health is caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't get into a tizzy and tell people to stop smoking until we absolutely know for sure that it's bad for them? Or can we say "We're not 100% sure exactly how bad it is, but all indications point to Really, Really Bad. So, um, stop. Now."

Smoking is a good example. It is clear that smoking is bad for some people; it is equally clear that smoking isn't bad for everyone. Obviously smoking increases the incidence of emphysema and lung cancer in populations but not everyone who smokes will develop either of these problems. In fact the majority of smokers won't. So we should be honest about that and not make it sound like everyone who ever takes a drag on a cigarette is going to end up dying of lung disease. Overstating the problem just makes a lot of people believe there is no problem.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

True enough, they won't all develop lung disease. They will be more likely to die of all types of cancer, have heart problems, be more likely to develop complications after surgery, during pregnancy, while on the Pill, etc etc etc. Not to mention harm others around them who don't even smoke. Such as their babies, who are more likely to be smaller and sicker and premature and die of SIDS; their children, who are more likely to develop asthma; their coworkers, who will have to work around their increased sick days and longer work breaks, and who are more likely to develop cancer, etc.


Overstating the problem just makes a lot of people believe there is no problem.
Especially when it's in their best interest to believe there is no problem. Such as smokers who blithely say, "My mom smoked till the day she died and never got lung disease, so what do those scientists know anyway?"

"Um. Right. Except she died of heart failure at age 58, after using up all her sick days every year, two of her kids had asthma, and her husband died of cancer. Probably none of that was related to her smoking. What do those scientists know. You're right, don't mind me, do light up."


(This is a bit of an eeeep topic with me here BTW - my mom and her husband, both smokers for decades, both died of cancer.)


It is a good example, I agree.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

"Um. Right. Except she died of heart failure at age 58, after using up all her sick days every year, two of her kids had asthma, and her husband died of cancer. Probably none of that was related to her smoking. What do those scientists know. You're right, don't mind me, do light up."

The death of this hypothetical woman might have been related to her smoking or might not have been. Lots of non smokers die of heart failure. Nor are all sickly people smokers, not all asthmatics have smoking parents and not all spouses of smokers die of cancer. I'm not arguing smoking is good for anyone, I'm just saying that as with global warming, the media makes the case against smoking far more black and white than the data justify.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

The death of this hypothetical woman might have been related to her smoking or might not have been. Lots of non smokers die of heart failure. Nor are all sickly people smokers, not all asthmatics have smoking parents and not all spouses of smokers die of cancer.
All true. And the data - and the media - do not say that all smokers will get those diseases, or that all people who get those diseases are smokers. They merely say that the chances of getting those diseases are so much higher if you smoke, that smoking is a very bad idea.

Driving after drinking too much will almost certainly do you no harm. You will, in all likelihood, make it home alive and safe. But the chance of doing yourself or someone else damage is so much higher that it is illegal to drink and drive. Because as a society we believe that the harm caused by drinking and driving - even though it's relatively rare, even though most people who drink and drive are perfectly fine - is not something we want to tolerate. We believe that the inconvenience of combatting drinking and driving (having to take cabs, have designated drivers, paying cops to do road checks) are worth it, for the harm they prevent.

As a society we have decided that the overall harm of smoking to all of us (more sick days, higher rates of cancer, yadda yadda) is bad enough that we want to do something to reduce smoking. We raise taxes on cigarettes, let insurance companies charge smokers more, ban smoking in public buildings, etc.

Global warming? In North America we have decided that it's not that big a deal. So we say the data isn't sufficient or clear enough, we point out that Katrina and Wilma could have been just as bad even without climate change (true), we point out examples of droughts or bad fire seasons or odd warmings or migration pattern changes that all happened before climate change was an issue (and there are many)... and we steadfastly ignore the signs that say that there are more and stronger storms now, ice caps are receding much faster, etc etc.


I'm perfectly aware that my mother, and her husband, might have died of cancer even if they'd never smoked a single cigarette in their lives. I know Chris' grandfather lived to a ripe old age even though he smoked like a chimney. I don't therefore decide smoking can't be as bad as the studies say. Statistics are about general trends. And while they can be misleading, and can be manipulated, and can be just plain wrong, when you have a whole bunch of studies almost all pointing in the same direction and almost all saying pretty much the same thing, maybe it's time to take them seriously instead of waiting for them all to say exactly the same thing, with 100% certainty. Because that is never going to happen.

It's like continuing to smoke until you can be shown, with 100% certainty, that you, personally, will die of lung cancer that was caused by your smoking. You can do it, but you'll just look like a bit of an idiot when/if you do get lung cancer and try to say, "But there wasn't any really conclusive proof that it was dangerous!"

[daf9.livejournal.com]

The problem with the smoking argument is that everyone's going to die of something and for any given individual who dies of natural causes, whatever kills them will in one way or another, at least tenuously, be linkable back to a lifestyle choice. When my mom stopped smoking she started on the high fat sweets, her cholesterol went up and she eventually died of a heart attack. Direct consequence of quitting smoking? Probably not but it may have been a contributing factor. There is no way of knowing for any individual, whether an alternative lifestyle choice would have been better or worse.

Back to global warming. I'm pretty much convinced that global warming will cause major climate changes. What I'm less convinced of is that those changes will necessarily be disasterous for either human beings or the planet. For example, global warming may delay that overdue ice age we're expecting. I'm even less convinced that we CAN stop global warming, at least while maintaining current rates of human population expansion. So I'm doing my bit by having chosen not to have children.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

What I'm less convinced of is that those changes will necessarily be disasterous for either human beings or the planet.
I... honestly never know what to say when people say things like this. For some reason it always kind of stuns me, so I say nothing for a very long time.

I actually believe (and tell my kids) that global warming will in all likelihood have little or no real negative consequences for us. And by "us" I mean mostly me and Chris and our boys, but also most white North American professionals, and, to a lesser extent, most North Americans. And most Europeans. If anything, some of its effects may be kind of nice. I'm not exactly a fan of Canadian winters; it might be very nice to not have to shovel as much, or endure as many consecutive weeks of bitter, icy darkness.

I firmly believe that we will, in all likelihood, be able to adapt to most of the unpleasant changes. Some kinds of foods may become scarcer as some arable land becomes unusable. We'll learn to cultivate them elsewhere. Drinking water may become scarcer throughout the planet; we've got a hell of a lot of it up here. There may be droughts and severe storms. I doubt many of those will hit Ottawa.

What I tell my kids, though, is that we are not the only ones who matter. We can find ways around crop failures and water shortages and severe weather events; much of the rest of the world doesn't have that luxury. Re. the changes not "necessarily being disastrous for either human beings or the planet"... there's already people in Bangladesh, Darfur, Europe, many Pacific islands, and New Orleans who might not agree with that assessment. I know most of them are/were poor and dark, and I know many of them were probably fated to die early and painfully of floods and water shortages and heat waves and severe weather events anyway. But most indicators point to the fact that more of them are dying of these things than ever before - and not just because there are more people on the planet - and that they will continue to suffer and die, in greater numbers, as the planet's climate changes in unexpected ways.

I won't even bother to address whether we should only be concerned about other human beings, or whether we should also give a damn about other living beings that are already suffering and dying as the world changes too quickly for them to adapt.

I'm even less convinced that we CAN stop global warming, at least while maintaining current rates of human population expansion.
See above re. cleaner cars, cleaner homes, reorganizing urban patterns, etc etc. That's only the tip of what we could and should be doing, the things that we could do without much sacrifice. There's a crapload of other stuff we could do if we actually cared, but since most of it would involve us giving up some of our creature comforts and cool stuff, I don't bother to bring it up because that's just a no-go area for most North Americans.

So I'm doing my bit by having chosen not to have children.
Which is an admirable choice. I'm choosing to teach mine that we have a responsibility to the planet as a whole, not just to ourselves and our country, or even our species.

We choose to locate most of our activities (extra-curriculars, medical care, groceries) within walking distance, and walk there unless there's a good reason not to (and no, "I don't feel like it" isn't good enough.) We keep our house slightly uncomfortably cool in winter and don't have air conditioning in summer. We drive the most fuel-efficient car we can afford. We try to stay informed, and find other ways of reducing our negative impact on the environment.

And, more importantly than all of that, we vote for politicians who promise to do things like try to meet Kyoto's feeble goals, or invest in public transportation, or pass other laws that will make it so that we're not the only idiots walking while our neighbours drive their SUVs to the corner store for milk because hey, why not.

[(Anonymous)]

Re. the changes not "necessarily being disastrous for either human beings or the planet"... there's already people in Bangladesh, Darfur, Europe, many Pacific islands, and New Orleans who might not agree with that assessment. I know most of them are/were poor and dark, and I know many of them were probably fated to die early and painfully of floods and water shortages and heat waves and severe weather events anyway. But most indicators point to the fact that more of them are dying of these things than ever before - and not just because there are more people on the planet - and that they will continue to suffer and die, in greater numbers, as the planet's climate changes in unexpected ways.

I think the argument can be made that those people in Bangladesh, Darfur and certainly in New Orleans were the victims of political mismanagment and/or government corruption not global warming.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Oops. The above comment was not meant to be anonymous. Thought I was signed in.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I think the argument can be made that those people in Bangladesh, Darfur and certainly in New Orleans were the victims of political mismanagment and/or government corruption not global warming.
It could, and it has. I don't buy it. My opinion is it was unhealthy doses of both. And I can't see governments suddenly becoming un-corrupt any time soon, especially when it comes to helping people deal with these types of crises.

Which is why I can't see most people faring terribly well through the changes that are going to keep happening; Ottawa's, and Canada's, government might be able to pull up its bootstraps and dig us out of most messes, because we've got the cash and the political will. Most African governments? Most southeast Asian or Pacific governments? Most impoverished inner cities? Not enough money to deal, not enough infrastructure to withstand disasters, not enough commitment to social welfare of all (not just the ruling class), not enough impetus to help from the rest of the world.

They're poor and powerless and nobody will care if they get wiped out through mismanagement or war or climate change. And we'll just shrug and say it wasn't our fault for heating up the planet, but their own for not knowing how to manage themselves.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

I think our basic disagreement here ciroccoj comes about because I'm more of a cynic than you are. I give to local and international charities and do a number of things to reduce my carbon footprint (the fuel efficient car, the warm in summer cool in winter house, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, energy efficient appliances, walking or public transportation when feasible, recycling etc.) but I see that stuff more as paying lip service to a social conscience than an effort that will significantly ameliorate the world's woes - particularly not those of the Third World.

Anyway I have no doubt said more than enough on this topic already.

My best wishes to you and your family for a happy holiday.

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

Oh my God.

Oh my God.

That's...that's in FIVE YEARS. OH MY GOD.

it's a explanation of why I'm no longer so proud to be Canadian. I'm pretty miserably ashamed of my country and my countrymen and women and my leaders

::sigh:: Life in modern-day North America: realizing that we are the Evil Empire.