are not especially bright or, from what I can tell, especially aware.
Basically the entire organization is a collection of spoiled middle class (and upper class) brats with small minds. So certainly it is of no surprise to hear this sort of thing.
Nothing that comes out of the mouth of anyone in that organization, past or present, makes any sense.
I don't really follow this guy, although of course I am aware of his support for nuclear energy. Anyone who thinks that the effects of global climate change is "just more arable land." Of course the solution to the problem Just like a clock is right twice a day, Moore has managed to be right about nuclear power but not much else, apparently...
I note that the idea that global climate change cannot be stopped by building lots of websites about the perpetually arriving solar nirvana. Neither can engaging in silly "look at me" acrobatic acts of the type now so depressingly familiar:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Greenpeace_protestors_put_solar_panels_on_British_Deputy_Prime_Minister's_house. Neither is applying for a Darwin award a real environmental solution:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/300681.html) Greenpeace is an organization for spoiled children too much time on their hands, and little technical capability or awareness. The founding of Greenpeace was an activity, in the end, conducted by and for complete jerks.
The issue is energy, and for the immediate future, the atmosphere, which is at clear risk and is increasingly
beyond prediction. There is no doubt to anyone who is looking at the news that global climate change in general, and habitat destruction (which is also a function of global climate change) will make it more difficult, and not less difficult to support the planet's 6 billion people.
The real task is to find an ethical solution to reduce that population, via attrition, to a manageable level. This of course, affects not just the atmosphere, but every other issue that environmentalists hold dear. We are far beyond the earth's carrying capacity, and we intuitively know it, irrespective of blab about how we
might live in and adjust to a post meltdown world or about amounts of infinite energy that can run our stereos and tvs for a billion years. Of course, such a solution will not yield to simplistic approaches, and the likelihood of total success is, by this time, a near impossibility. It is now almost inevitable that population reduction
will, probably for the greatest part, take place through the agency of tragedy. The die, more or less, is cast.
All that is possible now is to minimize the scale of the tragedy.
One may well argue - and be correct - that the over-population of the planet was a function of technology, particularly civil engineering, and easy access to seemingly inexhaustible energy. The myths of Faust, of Daedalus and Icarus, of Midas and Prometheus: All came out of a fundamental truth that we now are all living on a global scale.
Still we all know the luddite position - being against
everything except that which has not happened (and probably never
will happen) is not really an option either. Everyone will argue that the technology on which they themselves depend is either acceptable or essential: Most will expect sacrifices to come from someone else. A return to pre-agricultural conditions - an era of mysticism and brutality - is therefore simply not an option. Therefore we cannot destroy technology or reject technology simply because some rich white boys with poor educations hate it. Instead, we must
evaluate technology, and choose wisely and carefully among the options available.
The methods by which we make such choices should be through that form of combinatorial optimization known as risk minimalization. I would expect that the axes of the probability space in question would consist of variables like sustainability, species survival, maintenance of maximal genetic diversity in surviving species, planetary scale stability, habitat maintenance. We will be less well equipped to undertake the actions consistent with whatever plans evolve if we ignore similar combinatorial optimization of human issues, issues that are familiar to all liberals, issues like justice, economic well being, strength of communities, peace, health and safety.
Random walks through probability spaces, the sort of game through which combinatorial optimization is sometimes - and in this case must be - obtained, seldom result in the location of a global maximum, the global maximum being the ideal solution where every variable combines to give the ideal solution and everyone and everything achieves the maximal success. Ideal solutions are the province of Greenpeace fantasy and other religious fantasy. We, however, are condemned to live in reality. The best one might hope for is a
local maximum - that solution which is better than all others
immediately available. Any localized maximal solution necessarily involves trade offs - we must sacrifice something of the ideal to prevent being stuck in a
minimum where everybody and everything loses.
We are stuck in a minimum now.
The Greenpeace shits - and isn't funny how most of them are boys? - of course, will be totally useless in addressing this task, much as they have
always been useless. They are, at best, barely literate. They are unethical. They are immoral. Therefore the actions and mouthings of Patrick Moore should not surprise us. His remarks are on a level with his peers. When they founded Greenpeace, they were self-serving grandiose twits mainly focused on garnering attention for themselves - and they all, apparently, still are.
I will not die satisfied with the safety of the environment - I am have far too short a time left and the problem is far too big and far too intractable. Sometimes I very much doubt that
anyone, my children included, will live long enough to see the environment safe. It may never be safe again. The decline of the environment is great enough that all humanity is at risk, that even the death of
everyone may result from the mixture of myopia and credulity that characterized these times. Moreover, as I am a human being, particularly as I have seen and accepted a share of wealth much greater than the world average, I bear personal culpability for what the world has become.
I will flatter myself to say, however, that I feel I have done
something. I have searched for the truth, and reported it as best as I can see it.
In some sense though, if I have not been to the mountain top, if I cannot even hope to get there, I have seen other travelers embarking on the only trail that might lead there. Most people now recognize that the reality is not a circus and tiresome antics are not on the same level as doing
work, work consisting of collecting and successfully interpreting data, proposing changes based on data, and of effecting changes based on data - including changes in attitude and approach. The pathetic Greenpeace ideology has been swept aside, including the dunderhead anti-nuclear position. Reactors are being now built on a grand scale, and I have worked hard to see that this would happen. This, of course, is a good thing, and to the extent that I have seen this, I feel I have done some part to avoid whatever tragedy can still be avoided..
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
