The invisible science of our future
Of all the aspects of America’s conservative culture that make me anxious, the most troubling is the fierce reaction that many traditionalists have to the science of our collective future.
We know from a vast body of research that the earth has entered into what a growing number of scientists call the anthropocene, the age of man.
This is an epoch where we collectively influence the nature of life on our globe, replacing natural phenomena (glaciers, volcanoes, solar cycles) as the most powerful force.
In large measure because of the conservative movement, a serious civil discussion of what this means has ground to a halt. Democrats and Republicans who once talked productively about climate change have fallen silent.
Population growth is a taboo subject, even for many environmental groups.
The irony, of course, is that we know more and more about what our planetary civilization is doing to the planet we rely upon for, well, everything.
We know that fishing pressure and pollution are literally altering the bios of our oceans, making them more acidic, eliminating whole species with an efficiency that would be impressive if it weren’t so bleak.
We know that human commerce is rapidly spreading invasive species around the globe, so that the Great Lakes begin to look more like the Black Sea and whole forests in America fall prey to insects from Asia.
We also know that by the end of this century, there will be another 2.4 billion of us sharing this rock.
To put that in perspective, that population growth will require the construction of four additional New York City’s per year, every year, until the year 2100.
That’s four NYC’s this year. And four NYC’s the next year. And four more the year after. And repeat.
Economists also expect the standard of living to rise for billions of humans. That’s a good thing, except that it also means more consumption of resources and food, and likely far more emissions of carbon and other forms of pollution.
Balanced against these facts are two human traits that make it very difficult for us to confront what the science of the anthropocene will mean for our civilization.
First is the fact that for many of us our basic cosmology — the mental construct that we use to imagine our world — is still based on a world where humans weren’t such a big deal, at least in scientific terms.
In 1804, when the grand experiment of the United States was just hitting its stride, the population of the earth was one-seventh its current size.
It stood to reason that mankind could “use” and “master” the natural world around him without considering the wider consequences. We like to think of that kind of behavior as “freedom” and a part of our “manifest destiny.”
When a pointy-headed bureaucrat, or an egghead scientist, suggests to us that it might be a bad idea, say, to dump a factory’s toxins into a river that now has tens of millions of other people living along its banks, that sounds to us like “big government” and “regulation.”
The second thing that makes it difficult to grapple with the new science of life on earth is what some researchers call “shifting baseline syndrome.”
This is our tendency as a highly adaptive species to see the world around us as “normal.” Generations growing up now in China and India have no visceral sense of what their countries were like before human activity overwhelmed the natural world.
Here in the US, we like to tell ourselves that we’ve tackled some of these problems. In recent decades, we’ve restored much of our environment. We’ve protected forests and rivers to a remarkable degree.
But the truth is that we accomplished many of those gains simply by shifting the burdens we place on the planet to other places. And we now know that what happens in China doesn’t stay in China.
There are also signs that our impact on the planet is entering a new, more unpredictable phase.
The Gulf oil spill was a vast science experiment in what happens when the anthropic system hiccups. We still don’t know what the long-term impacts will be on the Gulf’s vast ecosystem.
The idea that we might generate energy for the next century by pumping caustic chemicals into the groundwater table is another big lab project.
And it’s inevitable that as our population grows the search for energy, and food, and other resources will force us to take bigger and bigger risks.
It’s also worth pointing out that the 2.4 billion population increase now projected could be wrong. The best estimates suggest that population growth will begin to plateau, and reach some kind of long-term stability.
But if birth rates are just a tiny bit higher, and life expectancy grows just a little bit more, the number of humans relying on our world could easily double.
I suspect that for a while longer, we’ll avoid talking about the ramifications of all this.
The cosmology of a world where humans — beautiful, precious humans — must also be reckoned as a burden and a problem, is just too frightening. It forces us to think hard about basic moral questions.
And the ramifications of what it might mean to be required to think globally are just too complex. We’ll have to re-examine what a healthy family looks like and what a healthy nation-state looks like.
But as scientists will tell you, it really doesn’t matter in the end what we believe, or what we want to talk about. The earth is a closed system, finite and ultimately fragile.
As more and more of us look to share the world, we will sort out how to be good stewards, respectful of the facts of life. Or we will watch in dismay as it breaks under our weight.
Tags: analysis, environment, politics, science
.jpg)
There are a lot of institutions in society that are as important as government. Certainly this will likely be a partnership I would grant that, but for us to start with the idea that we have to pass laws, sign treaties, enforce rules all done by the force and power of government, I think is a major problem.
The price of oil and our individual decisions will impact global warming just as much or more than any government decisions. Discovering oil fields in the US that rival the size of some of the largest Middle East producers also through a wrench into our thinking. The future is not predictable, who would have thought with all of the peak oil talk 10 years ago that we would discover in North Dakota an oilfield that could potentially rival Saudi Arabia?
There will be surprises.
i think it’s important to keep in mind with this climate change stuff that there’s an excellent precedent for government intervention working. acid rain and the ozone hole* have both essentially been solved through government action, and at relatively minimal economic cost.
*the ozone hole is still there, but it’s getting better and better and i think everyone expects that to stay the case.
Mervel 6:26 makes a good point. Capital in the US is in private hands. That is a reality that anyone who wants to try and solve some of these problems has to deal with. Peter made a good point above (my point there that would be lost on certain commenters). Solyndra was a drop in the proverbial bucket. It was a big deal to some because it was public funds and they are few and far between and needed for other things right now like education as one example. That means if we continue to alienate private investors and think of Wall Street (and shout from the protests) as the bad guy who needs to be regulated into submission than an important opportunity to solve problems with new technology will be lost during this generation. There are tons of good ideas out there. They can address these issues and the fastest way to implement them is working with the folks that control the capital in the country.
Here is a fun idea I was thinking about on my bike ride home from work (yes some of us conservatives do what we can). The In-box should do an exercise (I am sure this is a debating team thing). All the folks that usually take the liberal side have to make good arguments for the conservative side and the same goes the other way. It would be fun to hear folks like JDM trying to make a point for someone like hermit thrush same for me and Walker. You can probably learn a lot from this type of shoe switch. Brian Mann, what do you think? Crazy? Do it on a weekend we gotta have time.
Many people both liberal and conservative have been trying to make the arguments about market solutions for a long time. The problem is that the markets often refuse to accept the real costs of their operations until everybody else does at the same time because they believe the other guy will then have an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Then when someone suggests an idea like selling carbon credits it gets very little traction because it has always been basically free to pollute but expensive to deal with waste.
And there is still a lot of education to be done in societies like China where they prize things like shark fin soup, which probably wasn’t a big deal when there were only a few thousand Chinese who could afford it but becomes a real problem when 100 million can. And why do the Japanese insist on whaling?
It seems to me that a central issue here is the deeply held belief amongst liberals that conservatives are somehow against everything good, productive or progressive. That doesn’t make sense and isn’t true. What we are against is the failed theory that more government intervention can slove all problems, that increased taxes can fund any initiative and that good science is whatever the liberal media says it is. It just isn’t so. We were told 40 years ago that we would soon run out of oil; we haven’t. We were told that the Gulf Oil Spill was an ecological calamity: it wasn’t. In the absence of observable calamity we are next told we don’t know the long-term consequences. If it’s a debate you want we should stick to empirical evidence. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so.
Paul, I think I make conservative points all the time. I believe in a free and fair market, but a free and a fair market demands educated and informed consumers who haven’t been brainwashed by advertising, who haven’t been subjected to propaganda, and who are able to exchange money and goods on a level playing field. An example of a playing field that isn’t level: health care.
When a person goes to the doctor they don’t know what their illness is, they don’t know what rates various doctors charge, they don’t know the costs of various tests or the accuracy of the tests, they don’t know the relative costs of treatments, and they don’t know whether their doctor has been unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies.
In the realm of this post, because I know you don’t like getting side-tracked, when you buy an item at the store you have to choose between items made in various countries that have differing degrees of oversight in labor regulations and regulations to protect the environment. Do you choose the cheapest? Do you buy goods that you don’t even need because they are cheap beyond belief and it costs you very little to throw them away? Do you buy lawn ornaments for every holiday that use electricity to run and cost money to store and are made with plastic that should really be saved for medical devices instead?
Walker: I think the Interstate Highway system was a good use of government funds. I believe it was a domestic defense department thing, which if it was, is a double-whammy good thing.
OK, so it’s not impossible to spend taxpayer money wisely. That’s a start. How about toxic superfund site cleanups? Worthwhile?
Walker: I truthfully don’t know enough about it to make a reasonable judgement call.
In general, I don’t think of the federal government as the best place to look when something goes wrong. Sometimes, it’s the worst place to look.
knuck, like I said the capital is in private hands. If we want to make progress we have to work with the system we have.
Larry, we still are running out of oil. Because of increasing scarcity the price per barrel increases making worthwhile to pump a bit more out of fields that were shut down when the price was lower. Also, technology has improved the ability to get more out of a well than before and to drill for oil in places it wasn’t possible 40 years ago. There will always be some oil available at some price but that price will keep escalating. Right now we are benefitting from the low price of natural gas that is being used to refine oil and keeping the price of gasoline cheaper than it might otherwise be. But every barrel of oil that we use waste fully is depriving our children nd grandchildren of a resource that will be more valuable to them.
Maybe the definition of “soon” is the problem. If a scientist thinks that all of the easily obtained oil will run out in (I’ll make up a number) 100 years that is only one lifetime. Maybe you won’t be around but your kids might or your grandchildren.
As for the Gulf oil spill, if that wasn’t a calamity I don’t know what is. People died. It cost enormous amounts of money to plug the well. Oil spread all over the Gulf and killed untold numbers of creatures and sickened even more. Fishermen were put out of work. Oil is still out there needing to be cleaned up.
How is that not a calamity?
knuck, not sure I understand all your questions, but the iPad I am typing on is not the cheapest alternative. I juts thought it was the best option. I don’t think I am in the minority?
sorry just not juts.
Paul, the system we have places no value on many things like the value of a species of bird or fish or mammal. It places no value on the suffering of the poor. It places no value on the needs of those not yet born.
It is funny that some people will be insist on the right to life of a zygote and then will happily turn around and steal the clean air from their unborn lungs, or prison the water that unborn zygote will need to drink.
I reject your notion that we have to work with the system we have. I want a better system. I want a system with better rules and better oversight. I want a system that is based on need not greed.
Poison the water. Stupid autocorrect.
Al Gore touched (barely) on the problem of population growth in “An Inconvenient Truth” but quickly slid on to the demands of consumption without directly confronting the fact the rising population inevitably will result in increasing consumption. Instead he suggested that population will naturally “level off”.
When the population reaches that level however the “natural” limit will be starvation, lack of enough clean water, etc., not to mention wars over the remaining available resources. As long as we think in terms our individual lives and the lives of those near and dear we will continue to characterize the threat to humanity as a whole as impinging on our freedom.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_owen
Distributed solutions, no need for treaties or force or telling us how to live, but maybe some research money, but things like this are what is going to define the solutions not government.
Beautiful essay, Brian. “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.” I often despair when I think of the world we are leaving to our children.
But I also hold out hopes for the coming generations. The earth is still a wondrous place, we can still reverse damage when we face things in rational manner (recovery of some commercial fish stocks is a good example), and technologies not yet dreamed of may change the course of history.
There have been times of upheaval in the past, and the new paradigm that grows out of crisis is usually one that no one anticipated. Time moves only in one direction; we are where we are, and we will continue to mold and to adapt to our environment. As we always have, for better or worse.
JDM, take a look at Love Canal, and tell me what you think would have been a better approach for the residents to take. (It’s a longish article; if you like, skip down to Health problems, activism, and site cleanup.
Not that it will change anyones mind but here’s a story about global warming.
April 2012 heats up as 5th warmest month globally
The last time the globe had a month that averaged below the 20th Century normal was February 1985. April makes it 326 months in a row. Nearly half the population of the world has never seen a month that was cooler than normal, according to United Nations data.
“A warmer world is the new normal,” Oppenheimer said. “To me, it’s startling to think that a generation has grown up with global warming defining their world.”
Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/05/15/3974718/april-2012-heats-up-as-5th-warmest.html#storylink=cpy
There is a tendency in both liberal/conservative camps to run around screaming, “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!” There are fanatics on both sides.
Mankind is indeed very, very small in relationship to the universe. But from down here, we look pretty important. But the wisdom of God always trumps man’s wisdom (whether you believe in God or not).
The earth has an incredible ability to replenish itself and if you’re the type to figure God into the equation, you are less likely to be swept up into extremes. There are just some things that are much bigger than us – and our reliance on our own wisdom can get us into trouble. We’re drawn to sensationalism and perhaps can get overly dramatic.
We should be sensible. Yet, I cannot help but think of God’s words to Job:
Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Who spoke to the sea this far you may come and no farther?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=NIV
The earth is a blip on the radar screen in comparison to the vast universe. And here we are wringing our hands. Why? Because many do not consider God in any of this and His ability to sustain us.
The last time the globe had a month that averaged below the 20th Century normal was February 1985. April makes it 326 months in a row. Nearly half the population of the world has never seen a month that was cooler than normal, according to United Nations data.
It’s been suggested that the earth has warming/cooling cycles. How can we make an intelligent assessment when we don’t have data from other centuries?
Karen –
I think your post is another great illustration of the traditionalist view of these matters.
If one believes — as many Christian conservatives do — that the best way to think about these things is through the prism of a set of religious texts written a couple of thousand years ago, when man’s footprint on earth was, essentially, marginal, then there’s no point in wrangling over things.
If, on the other hand, one is interested in the science, then we do know a lot and a lot of the data is very worrisome indeed.
You mention that we don’t have data from other centuries.
But in fact researchers have been able to use incredibly accurate techniques to measure warming and cooling trends over tens of thousands of years.
There are aspects of the science that remain in debate. But the overall picture is now clearly established.
Humans are now so numerous, and use so many resources, that we are changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and oceans.
–Brian, NCPR
Brian Mann: “But in fact researchers have been able to use incredibly accurate techniques to measure warming and cooling trends over tens of thousands of years.”
1) There was some fudged data circulating around a few years ago.
2) There are assumptions in these “incredibly accurate” techniques. That means the incredible accuracy is only as good as the guesses taken for these assumptions.
One day away from reading the In Box blog — and yet another hot topic!
(Brian, please: although you’ve been admirably patient in responding to JDM, it’s time to stop feeding trolls who mostly want to score rhetorical points.)
The original question is excellent. I always look forward to Natural Selections and other science reporting about the environment here.
@Terence,
JDM is not a troll. He comes to the table with a certain set of beliefs, as we all do, but he’s here at the table. The question for JDM (and all of us), “Is there anything you could learn that would make you change your views?” If the answer is “Nothing,” then there is no longer any reason to continue the discussion.
If one believes — as many Christian conservatives do — that the best way to think about these things is through the prism of a set of religious texts written a couple of thousand years ago, when man’s footprint on earth was, essentially, marginal, then there’s no point in wrangling over things.
If, on the other hand, one is interested in the science, then we do know a lot and a lot of the data is very worrisome indeed.
My view is not solely through the prism of religious text. While written a couple of thousand years ago, it still stands today. Point being, the scripture defines us, the earth, and the universe through the prism of God’s eyes. I will defer to him!
Secondly, it is inaccurate to infer that Conservative Christians are not interested in the science. My view is to interject another perspective so we can look at this at all angles.
But if one is not willing to believe God has a role in this through acknowledging His omnipotence, then the debate will continue, perhaps with tragic results. Man left to his own counsel often makes things messy. The suggestion I’ve heard in recent weeks of denying 70+ certain kinds of health care may become a reality. That’s a slippery slope.
“The earth has an incredible ability to replenish itself…”
Yes, but mankind has developed pretty incredible ways to ruin things. Consider the species we have obliterated, such as the Passenger Pigeon; there were 3 billion to 5 billion Passenger Pigeons in the United States when Europeans arrived in North America. We nearly wiped out many more species with DDT before it was banned, something the chemical industry fought against tooth and nail for a solid decade. See Silent Spring.
Consider how close we came to annihilating most life forms on earth with atomic weapons during the Cold War years (a danger that is not entirely past).
Read about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a recently discovererd continent-sized patch of floating plastic particles that may well be poisoning the world’s oceans: “As the plastic flotsam photodegrades into smaller and smaller pieces, it concentrates in the upper water column. As it disintegrates, the plastic ultimately becomes small enough to be ingested by aquatic organisms that reside near the ocean’s surface. Thus, plastic waste enters the food chain…
Some plastics decompose within a year of entering the water, leaching potentially toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A, PCBs, and derivatives of polystyrene.”
It is true, Kathy, that we are but a dust spec compared to the universe. But unfortunately, within our own little corner of the universe we are an extremely potent little dust spec. Consider how tiny a virus is relative to the size of a human body; yet the microscopic influenza virus killed up to 100 million people in 1918. Don’t be too complacent.
@erb: thanks. My impression was that some commenters were playing word games rather than discussing, but I could be wrong.
Once example: Brian never said that people themselves are “more powerful than volcanoes”: rather, that human activity overall is the greatest single force exerting consistent pressure on the world around us, day after day. To pretend otherwise, or to demand a showdown between people and a volcano, or to point out that we can’t stop a single rainstorm, etc., just seems silly.
As for biblical science (although I have sworn to stay out of any more religious discussions, and am breaking my resolution already) I will say this: the Bible may have accurate insights into some aspects of morality, but it is worthless as a scientific guide to the physical world. I can’t believe that people in 2012 would claim otherwise.
Terence, liberals preach tolerance but your comment seems to be very intolerant of the view of others.
erb, I am teachable and am very willing to change my views but always recognizing “God governing in the affairs of men”.
The bottom line is this: if we are locked into our liberal/conservative mindsets for the sake of identifying with such, we are doomed.
Another thing highly worthy the attention of all who wish to promote the order, peace and stability of government is, that as much as in them lies, they cherish and cultivate a spirit of unity and concord, and avoid and discourage that unreasonable jealousy, and party zeal, which throws the members of the State, into different factions, pursuing different interests of their own, and often both of them very different from that of the public. -Election Sermon; Matthias Burnet; 1803
“I want a system with better rules and better oversight. I want a system that is based on need not greed.”
Knuck, I guess while we are waiting for this we better move to higher ground.
Walker, I agree with you. I am all for taking steps to be good stewards of our environment. I do not suggest complacency.
I do resist fanaticism when I see it and believe acknowledging God in this brings some balance. The tendency to over compensate is always there – on both “sides”.
Terence, the Bible has much more to say beyond morality.
Kathy, I don’t mean to offend you. I don’t think the Bible is a worthless book. It has beautiful passages and a lot of moral wisdom. What I mean is: the Bible has no value as a scientific guide to the physical world around us. This seems incontrovertible. Try comparing the Bible and a scientific explanation of just about anything and report back. Science is committed to observation using the best instruments available, and is open to change as new information becomes known.
Now, acting on that information usually involves moral decisions, and that’s where Biblical values may come into play for believers. But I still maintain that it is foolish to stick your head in the sand and expect God to come along and sort out a mess that we are making for ourselves. Maybe he will, and that’s great.
Or maybe he expects us to use the intelligence and curiosity he gave us to find a solution ourselves.
The bible was not meant as a scientific text book, the bible shows how humans through the grace of God have been given gifts enabling us to understand His creation (which is very very complex but yet worth understanding).
But anyway there are a bunch of really cool solutions being worked on. Some of the solutions will be challenges to energy authoritarians. Both on the Left and the Right you have the power and control freaks, who want to tell us how to use energy or to sell us energy or to control our interactions with the earth in general. Many of the most promising solutions are distributive energy models where we decide as individuals not relying on Exon or Kyoto to tell us how to live our lives.
Brian Mann, I applaud the forthright tone of your essay. I know I am not alone in hoping that you will make this an enduring subject to which you will attend future periodic essays.
I have pointed out previously, on this forum, that I harangue family, friends, neighbors even strangers ad nauseam with concerns over the future of the Earth’s fauna and flora.
Please expand your points of concern with individual future essays both in print and over the air/electromagnetic spectrum. Without dialog, leading to concern and action, the all too real precipice of widespread species collapse, including homo sapiens, toward which we race looms ever nearer.
erb: “The question for JDM (and all of us), “Is there anything you could learn that would make you change your views?” ”
Well said, erb.
I think Terence is not used to dealing with people with opinions different from his own.
Instead of engaging in discussion, which I admire Brian Mann, and others here for doing, it is it their preference to attack the messenger.
Of all the aspects of America’s conservative culture that make me anxious, the most troubling is the fierce reaction that many traditionalists have to the science of our collective future.
It may be unfair to lump all conservatives into a science denying group. But, can anyone show me a conservative political leader in the USA who is willing to go on a Sunday talk show and admit they accept the evidence for evolution and climate change. Unfortunately, even if they actually do accept the evidence for evolution and climate change, and state so publically, they will likely be identified as a RINO and will be tossed out of office at the next election. They will be voted out by a majority of conservative voters who presently do not accept scientific evidence for evolution and climate change.
JDM, among many other nuggets of wisdom here, you said that the effects of the Gulf oil spill were “apparently nothing” because it’s “over.”
You may say that’s your opinion.
I say that you’re ignoring facts, and that your “opinion” on the matter has no value.
Terence: fine. Please present the facts that you say I am ignoring. I would like to see them.
Terence: Or maybe he expects us to use the intelligence and curiosity he gave us to find a solution ourselves.
I agree.
But there is controversy within the scientific community regarding global warming or if the earth is going through a cycle.
Pnelba: even if they actually do accept the evidence for evolution and climate change …
Evolution is a theory. While there is evidence to support it, there is evidence that supports creationism, too.
Do your own research into the Gulf oil spill if you would really “like to see” the facts. You’ll find all sorts of fascinating information from reliable sources only a click or two away.
Terence: That’s what I figured you would say. I stand by my remarks.
Kathy –
Your last statement is simply and bluntly and factually wrong. No gray zones, no muddles.
There is no controversy within the scientific community about climate change. None. It is accepted that climate change is real, significant and human caused.
It’s fine to debate what this means, or to say that you think other sources of information warrant more weight than the science.
But the scientific consensus about climate change is unambiguous.
Even where controversies have occurred (“climate gate” for example) review panels have re-examined the data and determined that no new information existed that muddled the overall picture.
–Brian, NCPR
You’re right, JDM: everyone else is responsible for furnishing you with information. Absolutely no reason to trouble yourself.
Case in point: Hiroshima. Have you seen pictures of this thriving city 64 years later?
And the Gulf Oil spill? Doom and gloom proponents predicted catastrophic results. Were there consequences. Yes. Did we use our intelligence and resources to deal with the best way possible? Yes.
However, there is something beyond our understanding and wisdom that speaks of a merciful God who is involved with our earth.
Additionally, some of us think that there are fanatical activists out there who have gone overboard with the environment thing to the point of making more rules and regulations that are absurd. It encroaches on our freedoms.
“Humans are now so numerous, and use so many resources, that we are changing the chemical composition of our atmosphere and oceans.”
History always repeats itself!
New studies indicate that dinosaur flatulence contributed to global warming in the distant past:
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/dinosaur-farts-contributed-global-warming-150-million-years-ago-study-suggests.html
I guess all we need is another asteroid and that will reset the clock!
It is a little disturbing that we are spending money on studying dinosaur farts when we are in this predicament!
Brian Mann: “There is no controversy within the scientific community about climate change. ”
This statement is a tough one to make. No controversy? I could post at least one hold out in the scientific community. I hesitate only because it may come down to your definition of the “scientific community”.
It is possible that all journals-of-record has conspired not to publish any nay-saying articles. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
OK, I officially call “troll” again on JDM. And off to enjoy the natural world outside.
There is no controversy within the scientific community about climate change. None. It is accepted that climate change is real, significant and human caused.
They do walk among us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Come on, Terence. Lay off, please. If you want to participate in the discussion, you are free to do so.