The Philosophy of Global Warming

If you are interested in the relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth, individual and collective human purpose, evolution, cosmology, the nature of reality, astrology, spirituality, and how all of this relates to global warming & the environmental crisis of modernity, then I am sure that you will like my new book 'The Philosophy of Global Warming'. In the post below I have provided the book description, the list of contents and the first two sections of the book. You can find out how to get hold of the book by clicking on this link:

The Philosophy of Global Warming

Tuesday, 15 May 2012

The Need for a New View of Humans in the Cosmos

In my last post I finished by saying:

"As is normally the case, the geoengineering "result" is seen as a response to "failure". Instead, let us see the result as a cause for celebration, as the outcome which life has been seeking to attain for a very long time!"

Yesterday an article was published in The New Yorker concerning the question of whether there is a plausible technological fix to global warming. This article reinforces the point I was making; it also contains some material which concerns me:

Here is an excerpt:
Until recently, climate scientists believed that a six-degree rise, the effects of which would be an undeniable disaster, was unlikely. But new data have changed the minds of many. Late last year, Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, said that current levels of consumption “put the world perfectly on track for a six-degree Celsius rise in temperature. . . . Everybody, even schoolchildren, knows this will have catastrophic implications for all of us.”

The growing realisation of what we have done, what we need to do in the immediate future to rectify this (regulate the temperature of the atmosphere), and that this is a good thing for life on Earth, is the core of the position that I have been outlining in my books since Is the Human Species Special?: Why human-induced global warming could be in the interests of life was published in 2010.

This excerpt from the New Yorker indicates that we have now entered the state of "growing realisation". This stage will be followed by the second stage: "growing acceptance of the need for the active regulation of the temperature of the atmosphere". The third stage: "the widespread realisation that this is a good thing for life on Earth", seems to be still a long way off. Indeed, in the article, Professor Hugh Hunt (Trinity College, Cambridge) who is working on geoengineering solutions for regulating the temperature of the atmosphere states:

“I don’t know how many times I have said this, but the last thing I would ever want is for the project I have been working on to be implemented...If we have to use these tools, it means something on this planet has gone seriously wrong.’’ 

I understand why people have this view - they are "behind the curve". This view pervades contemporary thought. But this view is wrong. It is unhelpful. It is dangerous. If we don't replace it with a New View of Humans in the Cosmos the consequences for life on Earth, and for the human species, could be tragic.

It is our destiny, our purpose, the very reason we came into existence, to deploy/implement the technologies which Professor Hunt is working on. The deployment of such technologies would mean that everything on this planet has gone seriously right. The time of implementation would be a time of great ecstasy and excitement for life on Earth! Yet those developing the solutions which life so badly needs do so with a sense that what they are doing is a 'last resort', something done out of desperation, something done with a sense of regret! How nice it would be if these people, and the wider public, could appreciate that these people are the saviours of life on Earth. They should be treasured. They should be proud of what they are doing.

Those that are 'way behind the curve' are a danger to the survival of life on Earth. As the New Yorker article reveals:

Last fall, the SPICE team decided to conduct a brief and uncontroversial pilot study. At least they thought it would be uncontroversial. To demonstrate how they would disperse the sulfur dioxide, they had planned to float a balloon over Norfolk, at an altitude of a kilometre, and send a hundred and fifty litres of water into the air through a hose. After the date and time of the test was announced, in the middle of September, more than fifty organizations signed a petition objecting to the experiment, in part because they fear that even to consider engineering the climate would provide politicians with an excuse for avoiding tough decisions on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Opponents of the water test pointed out the many uncertainties in the research (which is precisely why the team wanted to do the experiment). The British government decided to put it off for at least six months.

“The scientist’s focus on tinkering with our entire planetary system is not a dynamic new technological and scientific frontier, but an expression of political despair,” Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, has written.

“When people say we shouldn’t even explore this issue, it scares me,’’ Hunt said.

These "50 organisations" believe they are doing the right thing; they clearly believe that they are acting on behalf of all of the wonderful life forms that have arisen on the Earth. How wrong they are! How deluded! How 'behind the curve'! In the future they will see the error of their ways. I am fairy sure that their actions will not have tragic consequences for the future of life on Earth. But if they could come to embrace the New View of Humans in the Cosmos, then we could move forwards more quickly, and speed is of the essence. The sooner that we can learn how to effectively fulfil our purpose the better.

As, Professor Hunt realises: these organisations, and their views, are "scary".

Let us embrace the New View of Humans in the Cosmos:



1 comment:

  1. the observation that the world is static....cements the argument that the atomic bomb has shifted the earth....causing what you speak of.....if the earth was loose it could have accepted the impact....yet rigid....impossible....the earth is aligned to the sun through the pyramids which have confounded science....due to ignorance....none of mans education can help you for man did not create earth.....please try to connect with the creator for the answers.....he is very open in helping his creation.....yet never asked....perhaps man thinks he is god.....yet what you speak of proves differently....note....his name is Jesus Christ....Stefan....