self-interrogation question #1
The human race does not seem to have ever embraced Green Communism on a global scale in the past, why do I think this can possibly happen now?
It's a gamble, probably a losing gamble, however many chips I put on this French Roulette wheel, I'm probably going to lose them. But I'm putting all my chips on the green number 0! (Odds are 1/36.)
As I read more about the ecological history of the human race, my pessimism deepens. Many on the Left tell themselves myths about prehistoric or indigenous peoples, believing these peoples lived in harmony with nature. The archeological record shows they did not. The fossil record shows they did not. The climatological record shows they did not -- the anthropogenic global warming trend actually started thousands of years ago. As we move into the period of written history, the historic record shows they did not. As we look at ourselves today, the global human race -- we are not living in harmony with nature. Why should we start now, homo sapiens has never lived in harmony with nature!
Betting on humans to change their ways is usually a losing bet. I've always been skeptical that humans can surmount the climate crisis. It would require too much sacrifice. It would require more sacrifice than the South giving up their slaves in the 1860s. I'm not the first to make this comparison. Others have said that trying to enforce abandonment of fossil fuels would require a World War -- and not simply between nations, but within each nation, across all nations, a Global Civil War between the Green Militias and the White Mercenaries.
There's $100 trillion in fossil fuel wealth at stake. You think those people are going to leave their $100 trillion in the ground without a fight? People have fought wars over far less.
This is a war I will not join. I'm not going to kill people over this. If persuasion, consent, and democratic governance are not the solution, then I'm not going to solve this.
-----
We've got the potential for technologies changing human behaviors. If renewable energy sources become so cheap that fossil fuels become uneconomic, and if inexpensive birth control becomes widely available everywhere, then enough countries may voluntarily give up fossil fuels and reduce births below replacement. So, maybe a Green science fiction fantasy will come true. But I think the more likely outcome is what we're already seeing as a result of new technologies -- we just continue to use more of everything -- technology makes fossil fuels less expensive also! and finds more of them! It doesn't even matter whether we stabilize human population during this 21st Century, because those 10 billion humans will continue increasing their consumption of everything at exponential rates via new technologies.
The problem with new technologies is that we still have to ban fossil fuels. Just like we still had to ban slavery to get rid of it. This is a political problem. We need a global ban on fossil fuels. I think the chance of this happening is, yeah, French Roulette: 1/36. I'm placing our entire planet on the green number 0. Let's spin that wheel ...
It's a gamble, probably a losing gamble, however many chips I put on this French Roulette wheel, I'm probably going to lose them. But I'm putting all my chips on the green number 0! (Odds are 1/36.)
As I read more about the ecological history of the human race, my pessimism deepens. Many on the Left tell themselves myths about prehistoric or indigenous peoples, believing these peoples lived in harmony with nature. The archeological record shows they did not. The fossil record shows they did not. The climatological record shows they did not -- the anthropogenic global warming trend actually started thousands of years ago. As we move into the period of written history, the historic record shows they did not. As we look at ourselves today, the global human race -- we are not living in harmony with nature. Why should we start now, homo sapiens has never lived in harmony with nature!
Betting on humans to change their ways is usually a losing bet. I've always been skeptical that humans can surmount the climate crisis. It would require too much sacrifice. It would require more sacrifice than the South giving up their slaves in the 1860s. I'm not the first to make this comparison. Others have said that trying to enforce abandonment of fossil fuels would require a World War -- and not simply between nations, but within each nation, across all nations, a Global Civil War between the Green Militias and the White Mercenaries.
There's $100 trillion in fossil fuel wealth at stake. You think those people are going to leave their $100 trillion in the ground without a fight? People have fought wars over far less.
This is a war I will not join. I'm not going to kill people over this. If persuasion, consent, and democratic governance are not the solution, then I'm not going to solve this.
-----
We've got the potential for technologies changing human behaviors. If renewable energy sources become so cheap that fossil fuels become uneconomic, and if inexpensive birth control becomes widely available everywhere, then enough countries may voluntarily give up fossil fuels and reduce births below replacement. So, maybe a Green science fiction fantasy will come true. But I think the more likely outcome is what we're already seeing as a result of new technologies -- we just continue to use more of everything -- technology makes fossil fuels less expensive also! and finds more of them! It doesn't even matter whether we stabilize human population during this 21st Century, because those 10 billion humans will continue increasing their consumption of everything at exponential rates via new technologies.
The problem with new technologies is that we still have to ban fossil fuels. Just like we still had to ban slavery to get rid of it. This is a political problem. We need a global ban on fossil fuels. I think the chance of this happening is, yeah, French Roulette: 1/36. I'm placing our entire planet on the green number 0. Let's spin that wheel ...