Tag: Ecology

Posted on

Living In the Shadow of Doomsday

Fresno Bee, September 11, 2022

Down in Antarctica, a massive glacier is rapidly melting. The media have dubbed this 80-mile-wide ice sheet “the doomsday glacier.” Reporters warn that when the glacier collapses, it could raise global sea level by 2 feet. The collapse could happen as soon as 2031.

We are a long way from Antarctica. But it’s easy to picture the ice melting during our roasting September heat wave. My car thermometer hit 117 the other day.

It does seem like our “house is on fire,” as Greta Thunberg put it in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland a couple of years ago. Thunberg said, “I want you to panic.” She continued, “And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.”

When speaking to the elites at Davos it might help to ring the alarm bells loudly. Our leaders are currently throwing a few buckets of water at an advancing wildfire. They need some political heat to get them moving.

But what about the rest of us? Should we panic? Eco-anxiety is a serious problem, as I discussed in a previous column. Nihilism and despair are as deadly as the rising heat. If doomsday really is right around the corner, we might be inclined to crank up the AC, pull down the blinds and abandon hope.

Doomsday is pretty depressing, after all. But let’s think critically about our language for a moment. Words like “doomsday” cause panic and despair. Two feet of sea level rise is bad. But the world won’t end. Media literacy can help prevent overreaction. Doomsday is just a word. It was chosen by the headline writers to capture your attention.

It also helps to recall that human beings are adaptable and inventive. We likely won’t prevent climate change from re-shaping civilization. But human beings change and adapt. The history of civilization is a story of our adaptability and inventiveness. The future won’t be easy. And there will be pain. But it’s better to embrace the inevitability of change than to hide in the closet.

We had some practice in dealing with radical change during the COVID-19 pandemic. Things fell apart for a time. Remember the fear? The uncertainty? The toilet paper shortages? But we adapted. The response wasn’t perfect. Many people died. Political life became polarized. And we’re still recovering. But here we are. Life goes on. It’s different today than it was a few years ago. But each dawn is different.

We need to develop a kind of Stoic resolve, leavened with creativity, humor, love, and joy. One of my mentors, the philosopher John Lachs, described this as “Stoic pragmatism.” He encourages us to confront tragedy with “equanimity born of joy.”

We need endurance and acceptance but also good humor and energy. When things get rough, as they always do, it helps to smile into the pain. Shake off the suffering and keep going. That’s what marathon runners do. It’s what inventors, entrepreneurs, and artists do when they hit a roadblock. Make a joke, suck it up, and get back to work.

We have strayed pretty far from the doomsday glacier. But the end is never really far away. On any given day, millions of people experience their own private doomsdays. Loss is inevitable. Everyone you know and love eventually ends up dead. And no civilization lasts forever.

In admitting our mortality, there is the risk of despair. But it is better to look into the abyss with open eyes than to live in denial. And once you accept the inevitable, you can discover acceptance and even joy. John Lachs put it this way in a book he wrote about death and dying: “Of course we die, but why should that spoil breakfast?”

That cheerful nugget of wisdom is helpful. This doesn’t mean that we should just smile and wave without taking action. The house is on fire. There’s work to be done. And we’re going to have to adapt. But freaking out doesn’t help. When doomsday arrives, it’s better to greet it with creative good humor than with anxiety and despair.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article265519076.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Dream of Leaving Earth

Humans need to care for Earth before blasting off to Mars

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2017

As this planet overheats, some people are planning to leave. Billionaire Elon Musk wants to start colonizing Mars. He imagines 1 million people migrating to the red planet within 100 years.

Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies

Musk argues that we should become a “multiplanetary species.” He says that there are two paths that humanity can take. “One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event … The alternative is to become a space-bearing civilization and a multiplanetary species.”

The most likely extinction event is global warming. An asteroid could wipe us out – or a deadly virus. But climate change is already happening, posing a threat to the human future.

Global warming gives us a reason to worry about the ethics of interplanetary colonization. Until we can prove that we are able to care for this planet, we have no right to colonize another. Until we evolve ethically, we ought not leave this planet and destroy another. The colonizing impulse is connected to the hubris that created the climate catastrophe.

We are living through the hottest years on record. Deadly heat waves have killed tens of thousands of human beings. The World Health Organization predicts that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will contribute to 250,000 excess deaths per year. In addition to the heat itself, risk factors include malaria and other diseases exacerbated by climate change.

But we mostly ignore this. Malaria and hyperthermia don’t make headlines. Perhaps we think common-sense measures provide adequate solutions: drink plenty of water and use mosquito repellent.

The problem is that the poorest people do not have access to clean water or mosquito repellent. The laboring masses live and work outside in the elements. Most of the people who will die from the changing climate are in countries we don’t care about – in Africa and Asia.

Americans will be the last ones affected. We can simply crank up the AC, sip icy beverages and avoid mosquitoes by staying inside. But many humans don’t have such luxuries.

It will be the rich few who will venture off planet, seeking a new start on Mars. Musk wants to get the price of a Mars trip down to around $200,000. At that price, affluent Americans can save or borrow to get on board.

Such a trip is beyond the wildest imagination of those living on $2 per day. But those impoverished people are the ones least able to cope with the world we’ll leave behind.

This is a question of what we call “environmental justice.” Environmental justice is concerned with the fair distribution of environmental benefits – and harms. It seems especially unfair for rich people, who already burn more than their fair share of carbon, to head off planet, leaving behind a ruined world inhabited by poor people with no hope of departure.

Planetary escape is a fun summer fantasy: a diversion to chew on while fishing in a cool mountain stream. But our extra-planetary fantasies should not distract us from the stark reality of the present. Global population is increasing. Fragile earth resources are overexploited. And the climate is heating up.

A harbinger of our hot future is seen in California’s fisheries. California trout, salmon, and steelhead are threatened by increased heat, which changes river flows, even in wet years. Combine the heat with overfishing and increased need for water for agriculture and you’ve got a recipe for fishery collapse.

An old adage about eliminating poverty says, “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The problem is that this assumes that there are fish left to catch.

This is also a problem of the Mars dream. There are no fish on Mars. And no flowing water. Musk suggests that life on Mars would be “quite fun.” But human happiness occurs within our ecological niche. We have evolved in a Goldilocks world. It is not too hot and not too cold. It contains clean waters abundant with fish.

The Goldilocks days may soon be ending. Our ethical task is to fairly distribute harms and benefits on this hot, crowded planet, while preserving an inhabitable world for our grandchildren.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article157750589.html

Posted on

Earth Day

Earth Day reminds us of the challenges of cooperation

Fresno Bee, April 22, 2016

  • Earth Day was not always on the same date
  • The history of Earth Day shows us the challenges we face
  • The goal is peace, justice and living well on a stormy Earth

 April 22 is Earth Day. Or is it? People disagree.

One version of the Earth Day story begins with a peace activist named John McConnell. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, McConnell came up with the idea of pausing for a “Minute for Peace.” This idea evolved. In 1969, McConnell proposed the idea of celebrating an entire day dedicated to what he called “Earth-keeping.”Activists celebrate the global climate change agreement reached in December 2015 in Paris. Officials from more than 170 nations came to New York on Earth Day to sign the pact in a ceremony at the United Nations.

McConnell was inspired by a picture of the Earth taken from space that appeared on the cover of Life in 1969. McConnell designed an “Earth flag” using that image. He set the date for Earth Day as March 21, 1970, the vernal equinox.

Meanwhile, Gaylord Nelson, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, had a similar idea. In 1969, Nelson proposed the idea of a national environmental teach-in to be held on April 22, 1970. Nelson called this “Earth Day” without giving McConnell credit. McConnell was encouraged to sue. But a lawsuit was against his idealistic principles.

Nelson is now widely viewed as the father of Earth Day. He explained his vision of Earth Day in 1970 as creating “an environment of decency, quality and mutual respect for all other human beings and all other living creatures.”

For many years, the United Nations commemorated Earth Day on the equinox, as McConnell had imagined. But the April 22 date has caught on. This year, for example, the latest international climate change agreement – the Paris Agreement – was open for signatures Friday.

The date of Earth Day is unimportant – after all, Nelson and McConnell were both on the same side and agreed about much. But the fact that we squabble about a date reminds us that there is always more than one point of view – even among like-minded people. McConnell was an idealist. His original Earth Day proclamation called for love as well as peace and justice. Nelson was more pragmatic and political. He was more strategic and incremental in his approach.

OUR PETTY SQUABBLES AND POLITICAL MACHINATIONS ARE MERE DUST IN THE COSMIC WIND. THE STORMS OF EARTH WILL EVENTUALLY OVERTAKE EVERY SPECIES. THE CHALLENGE IS TO LIVE WELL WITHIN THE MAELSTROM.

If this sort of conflict arises among folks who basically agree, we might despair of creating truly planetary cooperation. But we might also suggest that friendly disputes and mutual competition are actually beneficial. They provide us with motivation and inspiration. At any rate, a good idea remains a good idea, no matter who thought it up. And Earth Day is important regardless of the date.

To my mind, the vernal equinox is nicely symbolic as a moment of planetary equipoise. The April 22 date has no symbolic resonance. It was originally chosen because of practical scheduling concerns. Some critics complain that April 22 is unfortunate because it is also Vladimir Lenin’s birthday.

But on the other hand, this is the day after John Muir’s birthday, which is April 21. Long before the Earth was photographed from space, Muir had imagined viewing the Earth from a cosmic vantage point. He wrote, “when we contemplate the whole globe as one great dewdrop, striped and dotted with continents and islands, flying through space with other stars singing and shining together as one, the whole universe appears as an infinite storm of beauty.”

Muir’s image is worth consideration. He sees beauty in the cosmic storm. The Earth is indeed a tempestuous planet. It is a closed ecosystem containing antagonistic elements. There is conflict throughout the whole. The shining dewdrop of earth also contains nature red in tooth and claw. Competition is woven into the web of life.

Our petty squabbles and political machinations are mere dust in the cosmic wind. The storms of Earth will eventually overtake every species. The challenge is to live well within the maelstrom.

McConnell’s Earth Day proclamation wanted to create “a global feeling of community” and awareness of “our mutual dependence on each other.” This may seem like a nostalgic hippie dream. But more recent globalization means that viruses, pollution and new ideas are of planetary concern. We are increasingly aware of our terrestrial interdependence.

This should lead us to be more sensitive to the fragile balance of the whole. We have no choice but to care for the Earth and each other. The storm clouds are gathering. And there is nowhere else for us to go.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article73310167.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Space exploration, religion, and ethics

Exploration of outer space prompts philosophical reflection

Fresno Bee, July 24, 2015

  • Pluto’s icy world reminds us of earth’s fragility
  • Search for alien life creates complex problems for religion and ethics
  • Are are we conquerors or compassionate collaborators?

NASA is planning a mission to Mars in coming decades. And this week, a group of scientists announced a new effort to discover extraterrestrial life. At the launch of the new initiative to find ET, physicist Stephen Hawking said, “there is no bigger question” than whether we are alone in the universe.

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would certainly open new horizons. Space exploration prompts deep philosophical reflection, even if we find that we are utterly alone in the universe.

Consider how the discovery of alien intelligence would alter our understanding of our place in the cosmos. The old stories that put humanity at the middle of things would be radically transformed by the discovery of alien intelligence. Intelligent aliens would not know about Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. An encounter with intelligent aliens would likely relegate revealed religion to the dustbin of history.

Now some may suggest spreading the good news of earthly revelation to other worlds. But we should be cautious about the urge to evangelize. How would we like it if ET came to earth with tales of an alien religion?

The history of colonial expansion here on earth gives us a reason to worry about the urge to explore the stars. Will we pollute, exploit and despoil the planets we colonize? Until we can prove that we won’t harm alien worlds, we should be cautious in our explorations. Let’s be good stewards of this planet before we venture beyond it.

We also have a difficult time treating terrestrial “aliens” well. We are not great at dealing with immigrants, strangers and nonhuman animals. Our tendency toward xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and anthropocentrism may cause problems if we make contact with extraterrestrials.

We should get our own house in order before leaving home. For too many earthlings, the biggest question is how to find food, water and happiness. For suffering humans, space exploration is a distraction from the terrestrial afflictions of war, poverty, despair and hate.

Consider what earthlings must look like from an extraterrestrial vantage point. Billions of us are hungry. We continue to kill each other in large numbers. And we are destroying our own habitat and changing earth’s climate. If ET is watching, she would have good reason to keep her distance.

Fifty years ago, at the dawn of the space age, Aldous Huxley, the author of “Brave New World,” expressed similar reservations. Huxley was critical of the idea of “man conquering space.” He cautioned against seeing ourselves as conquerors. Instead, he imagined that space exploration could help us develop a kind of cosmic consciousness. The hope is that we would learn to act as “responsible collaborators with the evolutionary process that is perpetually creating, transforming, and transfiguring the world.”

It is amazing that billions of years of terrestrial evolution have allowed earthlings to see Pluto. In one lifetime we have made it to the edge of the solar system. We must now decide whether we are conquerors or compassionate collaborators with the cosmos.

Hawking and others imagine that alien life must have evolved independently on some other planet in our vast universe. But at this point, as far as we know, intelligence is a unique product of terrestrial evolution. Understanding this should give us pause. We ought to be extremely careful with this precious gift. The universe may not get another chance to create an intelligent species like our own.

As far as we know, we are a singular species poised precariously on a rock careening through empty space. Understanding this, we ought to care more deeply for one another and for this planet. Our existence is the lucky outcome of a unique configuration of gravity, liquid water and freedom from the onslaughts of space debris.

The icy geography of Pluto teaches us that life is precious and fragile. As we begin exploring the galaxy, we also need to explore inner space — the heart and the mind. And we need clean up our own planet before leaving it behind.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article28614523.html#storylink=cpy
Posted on

Science, Religion, and Hope for Ecological Revolution

Science, Religion, and Hope for Ecological Revolution

Fresno Bee, June 26, 2015

  • Pope Francis’s ecological manifesto provides a source of hope that is foreign to science
  • The question of population control will continue to divide science and religion
  • The ecological crisis may demand a revolution in culture and consciousness that could unite science and religion

It seems like we have always lived under the shadow of environmental crisis. Climate change, ground water depletion, pollution, and other ecological ills have plagued us for decades. Political posturing, ignorance, and denial continue to impede action.

pope-environmentPope Francis’s recent ecological encyclical offers a bit of hope. Addressing the global community with the hope of stimulating a green revolution, the Pope warns that we are “reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation.”

The Pope blames this on a variety of factors: consumerism, worship of technology, and our Promethean faith in human superiority. He sees the ecological crisis as a sign of a broader “ethical, cultural, and spiritual crisis.” To respond, Francis argues, we need a “bold cultural revolution.”

Some scientists have been saying similar things for years. Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich argues, for example, that we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event, which could lead to the collapse of civilization. In the 1960’s Ehrlich warned of “a population bomb.” Population growth and environmental degradation have continued unabated. Ehrlich is not convinced that we will do what is necessary to avoid ecological collapse.

I asked Ehrlich via email whether there are any reasons for hope. He responded, “I hope we will take the well-known steps that would give us a chance to avoid a collapse of civilization—like humanely stopping population growth and reducing overconsumption by the rich.”

Ehrlich is, however, not optimistic, given the cultural and political status quo. He concluded, “I see little hope that we will do the things required, like giving full rights and opportunities to women everywhere and supplying all sexually active people everywhere with access to modern contraception and safe backup abortion, and rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

Scientists are not in the hope business. They deal with facts. Species go extinct. Past civilizations have collapsed. The earth has a limited carrying capacity. The concentration of climate-heating CO2 continues to rise. The most a scientist can hope for is that human beings will respond rationally to the facts.

But the Pope has a different source of hope. For the Pope, we are “not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos.” Rather, Francis believes that God “does not abandon us.”

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. Does God promise ecological salvation? Or is civilization a fragile product of evolution, which could die of natural causes?

Ehrlich would argue that theological hope misleads, especially when religious moralism about reproduction is part of the problem. But the Pope might argue that without religious hope there is no basis for his imagined ecological revolution of the spirit.

Hopelessness is a significant ecological problem. It breeds indifference and selfishness. If civilization is doomed to collapse, then why bother to fix things? If we are destined for destruction, then why not horde, stockpile, and consume in anticipation of the collapse?

Hope is clearly needed, if we are going to make progress. But theology is not the only source of hope. The final chapter of human history is not yet written. Unprecedented change can happen. Spontaneous decency can occur. And rational behavior is not impossible. To succumb to despair is to deny that the future is ours to create.

One hopeful sign is the considerable agreement between the scientist and the Pope. They both call for a quick end to the fossil fuel economy. They believe we have an obligation to distribute resources equitably across the globe. They are each appalled by consumerism, especially overconsumption by the rich.

Some differences are substantial. Ehrlich advocates birth control—including backup abortion. Francis just as clearly does not. While the Pope rejects population control, Ehrlich views such rejection as part of the problem.

Population control will continue to divide us. It is easy to despair about such differences. But there is hope in the growing consensus about the need for an ecological revolution.

We need to cherish the delicate beauty of nature and understand our precarious place on this perishable planet. Science and religion actually agree about our fragile mortality and about the awesome wonder of nature. Religion and science can work together to foster the ecological revolution. Let’s hope it does not come too late.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article25546198.html#storylink=cpy