Michael, I did read the url's you cited. The ones I noticed the most were the ones written by John Daly. Daly made it clear that his primary agenda is making sure there is no redistribution of the world's wealth, not the environment. In other words, his overriding concern is that, and he cites figures on global temperature variations over time to justify his position.
My primary concern is preserving the planet for future generations. When I was little I never dreamed I would have to think about things like that!! I am not always sure what is really helpful, and I basically support fairly free markets, because I think they work best to create prosperity, but if redistribution of the wealth is the ONLY way we could save the earth as a viable, thriving, place, I would support that, because survival is absolutely more important to me than how wealth is distributed.
So I try to look at as many statistics as I can find, and figure out what the truth probably is, but not with any particular thing I am trying to prove already in my mind. I would be delighted if there were no cause for alarm, but most scientists believe there is, and I can see some evidence around me also. So I am motivated by survival of the species, rather than a political position.
The other thing I notice running through the url's you provided is the point that global temperatures have always fluctuated. As many have pointed out, you can cite statistics to prove almost anything, and I do not have the scientific expertise to take these apart one by one. I do notice in your sources that they are citing statistics just about climate. Even if you contend that the temperature has been widely variable over millions of years, to me global warming is more than just a question of climatic temperature. I notice your sources do not debate glacial melting, water levels rising, higher incidences of skin cancer, frog mutations or other sudden changes in plant and animal behavior. I suspect it is because even though one can argue about the significance of temperature changes, there are rapid, huge changes going on that seem to some of us to be almost irreversible, and they are observable in such wide varieties of species that it is pretty obvious all of this is reality.
As I told you the other day, I got most of my information from "Business Week", a pretty moderate-to-conservative publication. They concede that scientists were inaccurate about exactly what would happen when as the ozone is depleted, but that the sum total of statistics is now overwhelming, and that these planetary changes are a fact. Contrary to your perception of me, I am not exactly a liberal. I like to read very mainstream, moderate publications for the most part, because they present a more balanced view, and are not hysterically biased in any one direction.
When I asked you about the role your church/religious beliefs might have in all of this, it was because you said some people from your church attended the international conference on the planet, and came back and reported what had been discussed. This made me curious as to why they were doing this--you know, what their position was. Because you often seem to be very consistent in your beliefs even though to me, or to people who are pretty scientific in their approach, the position you are arguing isn't very logical, I wondered if there was a philosphy your church had on the future that might explain the way you believed. Most of the people talking on the environment here right now do not base their beliefs on their religion, and if that is where you are coming from, I thought it would be better to understand that. Scientific proof and religious beliefs operate in two different realities, and there is no point in just arguing without knowing where everyone is coming from. I agree that talking about religion can be pretty devisive, and I wasn't exactly asking you to do that.
Then I went back and reread some of your recent posts, and your underlying motivation does seem to be that redistribution of the wealth is something you are adamantly against. As I said, I believe in personal responsibility and free markets, but you know what? Thomas was very right when he pointed out that in order to get to a place where clean air and clean water are important values, you have to have enough education to understand the benefit, and enough free time and peace to enjoy them aesthetically. If you are burning the rainforest to keep warm and clear land to grow food to feed your family, you are so desperate to survive you don't care about the ozone layer disappearing, or maybe even know about it.
It's the same thing as all the campaigns to stop pregnant women from smoking. It sounds right, and logical, to middle class social workers and doctors. But to the pregnant woman, if she is very poor, very stressed, struggling to keep a roof over her head and maybe get off drugs at the same time, quitting smoking is a VERY low priority. Basic survival needs need to be met before you can concentrate on changing things like that. I think everyone is usually doing the best that they can. If everyone is healthier, maybe they can do better.
So by leveling the playing field--making sure people have reasonable chances at health and security and prosperity if they work hard--it also ultimately benefits the environment, because then they care about keeping everything clean and pretty and livable. And don't forget that if too long a time goes by without equitable distribution of the wealth, revolutions happen and it is redistributed anyway, often violently. I would rather be as fair as I can, not too selfish, and have a huge middle class, because the middle class is more stable, having a stake in preserving things.
So I guess what I am saying is that different people have different motivations to promote various statistics. I think survival is more important than preventing redistribution of the wealth, and some people disagree.
I am not a pessimist!!! I am very practical, actually. I really appreciate what is good and working well about America. There are a lot of things that we could still do to improve it, so I try to look objectively instead of from a patriotic view. Incidentally, maybe American farmers produce a lot of food per acre, but I have read that the farmers of South America and Southeast Asia, in the areas where there is very little tillable land, and they just have to farm terraced hillsides, actually have the world's most efficient food production. (This was awhile ago, so I don't have the statistics available, and cannot prove my statement.) And out of necessity, they have been doing it for hundreds or thousands of years, without pesticides or destroying the topsoil.
I am not in any way saying that you don't care! The fact that you write a lot at SI, and are willing to discuss these things, shows you care a lot. I do have a different view of business and the government, however, than you do. I think that since the motive of business is to make money, business has to some degree be regulated by government, because they have no incentive to make products safe, or tell the truth about dangers, or stop their manufacturing waste from polluting the earth, unless there are penalties for doing so. Unregulated, they operate from a pure profit motive. So I think I like more regulation than you do, but I think it is for a good reason.
And I don't dislike farmers, Michael. I actually wanted to marry one in college, because I like living close to the land, with chickens clucking at my heels and goats running around creating havoc. Being really close to the land relaxes me, and I hope within the next couple of years to be in a space where I can have barnyard animals all around me, and grow my own food. I talk to farmers a lot when they bring their produce to the market to sell. But these are organic farmers, mostly, on small farms, and their ties to their land seem as emotional as economic. I don't think huge corporations that farm have the same bonds that small farmers do.
I hope you don't think we are fighting, or that I don't respect you, because I do. Or I wouldn't spend all this time writing to you!!!
I would like to understand more what harm you think environmentalist lobbies do, though. They are trying to make things better for everyone, I think. A few people may have selfish motivations, like big egos or the desire to earn a nice salary promoting the environment, but most everyone is volunteers who just believe in what they are doing. I think most of them are just motivated by their concern for our future, and they are acting on their political beliefs, just like John Daly. But to me, his motives seem a lot more selfish, because they are for money, not animals and people. |
