I am a fairly opinionated person, but there are a few topics of conversation that cause me to slink into the background. Global warming is one of those things. No matter who I am talking to, I do not want to be caught agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. It is too easy to be pigeon-holed, and there are a number of separate issues that require careful consideration.
1. First there is the more general question to consider: is climate change an anomaly, or a frequent occurrence in the earth’s history? To the Doubters, I would say: since it is likely that climate change has taken place numerous times already, it does not seem reasonable to be so dead set against the notion that it could ever happen again. To the Believers: what kind of extraordinary pride would cause anyone to believe that we can prevent climate change from ever occurring again? There are some very interesting questions wrapped up in this issue that are completely lost in the discussion about climate change; chiefly, can humans ever completely control their environment?
2. Second, there is the issue of our treatment of the earth and its resources. One thing I don’t like about the global warming controversy is that anyone who does not jump on the bandwagon is charged with apathy toward environmental issues. In fact, I am very concerned about destruction, waste, and pollution. I believe that this, along with poverty, is one of the most horrific consequences of capitalism and industrialization. Furthermore, it troubles me that people allow their pro-business interests to trump any potential concern about beauty, sustainability, and health.
3. Finally, there are the very specific issues of the scientific basis of global warming and its perceived effects. This is where things really get interesting. For one thing, it irks me when people are admonished for being even remotely skeptical of the proclamations of experts. I thought that skepticism was something that our liberal society, and science above all, was supposed to value? Scientists are people, and science is a human activity. Thus, while I think it is entirely possible that some sort of climate change may be in the works, I do not think that scientific models and discourses necessarily correspond exactly to that reality. Most of all, I do not appreciate the expectation that I have to swallow hook, line, and sinker everything that scientists say. (Given the history of racism, sexism, and homophobia in scientific research, this should not be seen as an imprudent attitude.) Another thing that I find unsettling is the way in which Global Warming (as a grand unifying theory) is used to explain every minute meteorological occurrence. Perhaps it is only among my own circle of friends and acquaintances that any deviation in expected weather patterns is attributed to global warming, but it functions too much like the Secret Global Ruling Elite that conspiracy theorists use to explain all current and historical world events. We may have a desire to find unifying causes to simplify our confusingly complex existence (my own tendency in this direction – one that I work carefully to check – is to hold capitalism as a unifying cause), but hopefully we can recognize that such proclivities often cause us to distort reality and blind ourselves to some of the most interesting and mysterious aspects of our existence.
What I fundamentally dislike about the discourses surrounding this issue is that there is no room for complexity. You either Believe, and have some sort of shelter under construction for when the sea levels rise, or you Doubt, because you are a pro-business, uneducated, evangelical hillbilly who HATES the environment. There is barely even room for discussion because one side is so hellbent on proving that humans are destroying the earth, and the other side stubbornly refuses to accept scientific evidence (as each side portrays the other). This is another example of the way in which the construction of two mutually exclusive, extreme viewpoints can entirely crowd people’s consciousness with false dualities, such that any deeper, more profound, and potentially threatening considerations (e.g. the nature of human progress, the effects of capitalism, the social impacts of science, etc.) do not rise to the level of debate – and hence, awareness.
No comments:
Post a Comment