Thinking about things.

The topic of climate change is no simple matter, but hear me out. I’m trying to explain what I think about it as simply as possible. Be open minded. Especially if you do not believe that we are in any way responsible for global warming. There are some valid, rational arguments against the man-made nature of global warming and these will be taken into account. First things first, let’s define climate change.

1. Climate change is all about averages, not current weather. Climate is by definition weather over long periods of time, not weather at any given day. When the climate is changing it means that over the years some weather patterns change. Global warming does not mean you don’t get some to-the-bone-chilling winter days. It means that over decades, the average temperature rises a tiny bit. It is a trend. Maybe on average you will have two more really sweaty days in a year.

2. Climate change is dangerous... to ecosystems. Those two more sweaty days don’t sound scary, do they? We humans are extraordinarily adaptable both biologically and technologically. But the environment on the grand scale isn’t. Organisms, small and big that cannot adapt will kick the bucket. Us humans won’t, but we are somewhat dependent on ecosystems. Pollinators for instance. Those pesky sissy bees can’t weather a little heat? Screw them! Yeah, but our delicious fruits are utterly dependent on these sissy insects. So we will feel the negative effects of climate change on our skin, even if we could easily adapt ourselves.

3. Climate change is real. Now wait, even if you do not believe that it is real, just hear me out. See, belief is irrelevant here, because it is simply a fact based on measurable data. It can’t be faked. It can’t be propaganda. Academics wish it were propaganda and fake data, they love to tear apart their peers on these stuff. Just look up any scientific journal and you will see that data shows global average temperature has been rising steadily. No need to be fooled by anyone, you can check the data yourself. OK, so we now established what climate change is and that it is a thing. Move on to the controversial, political part.

4. Climate change is natural vs climate change is man-made: unprovable either way. The same data that shows global temperatures at the rise also shows that global climate has been cyclical. There have been hot aeons and ice ages in Earth’s history. So why people chalk this one up to humans? Well some scientists suggest that we are supposed to be going into an ice age now instead of a hot age. Well for all we know that could be just... hot air (pun intended). Climate predictions are notoriously unreliable because the planet’s climate system is just so damn complex. Saying that we are responsible for climate change is just as scientifically unfounded as saying that it is surely entirely natural. There is no way of proofing either. We cannot experiment with the climate, you cannot just shut off all human activity for 10 years to see how that effects the climate. Global temperatures have increased quite significantly since the start of the 20th century, just as human emission of greenhouse gases. But so did solar activity. However the greenhouse gas increase correlates more with warming than solar activity. This is why most scientists agree on that humans do have an effect on the climate. Again, check the data, draw up correlation charts and see for yourself. Correlation does not mean causation, but usually is a pretty damn good indicator. The most cogent assumption here is that the climate is warming up both due to natural and human-made reasons. It is simply the most likely scenario.

5. Denying or downplaying the effect we have on the climate might be reasonable but it is also irresponsible. Even if correlation is just a weird statistical fluke, it is too risky to assume that we are totally innocent. It hasn’t been proven that smoking leads to death, but it correlates with incidence of lung cancer and other medical conditions that lead to death or misery at best. Just because correlation is not causation we shouldn’t encourage people to smoke 3 packs a day. By the time they would realize that it does, it is already too late to be sorry. It is irresponsible. Now, people are free to kill themselves with smoking, but if other people’s smoking threatens your child due to passive exposure, you will take action. Even if your kid will live a long, happy life anyway. You act because you see a risk. Same thing with global warming.

6. Accepting the possibility of human-induced climate change doesn’t make your life bad. Let’s assume scientists were wrong and in 30 years someone will somehow prove that humans didn’t affect the climate at all. Would you regret not being in the denier clique? If yes, why? It did not cost you anything. Or if it costed, it gave you some benefit for it. Sure, driving that glorious 1969 Mustang felt real nice, but as a tradeoff you get to breathe clean, fresh air in the inner city. You can drive the LA highways with windows down. In the end you won’t lose anything. You won’t miss anything. But if scientists were right, and we as a people acted as soon as possible, we can sigh in relief that it could have been much worse. Maybe with a little regret that we didn’t act sooner.

7. Global warming is not the only “bad stuff” that is happening. It might be the most significant one for ecologies, but the production of the  prime culprit suspected for global warming - greenhouse gases - has some other nasty side effects. Getting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere almost equals burning stuff. Even if they didn’t contribute to global warming, why would we like stinky smokey cities to live in? People in the middle ages literally defecated on the streets. Sounds so damn yucky now, but at that time it was normal for them. Maybe our current-day London-type smog feels normal to us, but will most likely feel filthy to our great-grandchildren.

8. Global warming seems inevitable. But we can maybe slow it. Maybe we cannot. But it is worth a try. Just to be on the safe side.

9. You practically do not have to do anything about it. That’s how most people will behave anyway even if they are mouth-foaming green protesters. Our comfort in the short term is simply that important. If you want to do something about it, great, but nobody is asking you to keep compost in your living room. The ask is simply to be responsible and support the safe side. Or at least not hinder it.

One of the reasons of the loss of faith in the liberal democratic utopia I think is divergence. I specifically want to avoid the use of the word decadence, because I do not think this has anything to do with the decay of morality and probably it never had anything to do with the downfall of any society. 

Divergence in this sense is the opposite of social unity.

I think most humans are simply incapable of having a truly pluralistic mindset. Countless years of history backs up this statement and it is unlikely to be proven otherwise in the foreseeable future. Why? I think there are two reasons:

1. Most humans are incapable of truly fence-sitting. Whatever the issue, people tend to “pick a side” and go with it. Objectively being neutral is something we are really bad at. Taking sides build up our social identity. In fact people are willing to take sides they might not necessarily agree with just to have a sense of identity and belonging. This leads to two conjectures: people really stick to the sides they have chosen going into the extremes if necessary and they refuse to assimilate even if (or especially if) belonging to a minority.

2. Humans’ inherited pattern recognition and cause-and-effect association system. Simply put: blame. Humans, due to our intelligence are just as good at finding patterns as well as recognizing them. We are not infallible though and we sometimes find patterns that are not there. This is the very basis of racism among other things, but it has also helped our ancestors to survive ie. the “once bitten twice shy”-effect. Since we do not really need it anymore to survive it became more or less only a catalyst to conflict as it makes groups to become and remain hostile towards each other.

Now, put the above two together and you will find that it is very unlikely that someone will think in a truly pluralistic manner, people tend to think “us and them” pretty much all the time. Hence, true liberalism is a utopia much like communism or completely free market capitalism. It is not fully compatible with the human mindset.

Since liberal democracies allow for divergent thought (free speech, freedom of association etc.), nothing stops various ideologies to pop up. Ideologies are almost synonymous with “us and them” thinking. In the end ultra-feminists, neo-nazis, black power, communists etc. all preach an ideology whose bottom line is: “we stick together to hate everyone else in the name of <insert utopia/God/grand idea>”. Environmentalists hate industrialists, capitalists hate communists, keynesian economists hate classical economists, meat lovers hate vegans and the list goes on endlessly. The main effect of these radical ideologies or “-ism”-s is to hammer a wedge in society.

The “-ism”-s are part of people’s identities so they are not likely to let go and compromise with an opposing “-ism” and try to sway the more moderate people to their camp. How do these ideologies go mainstream? They typically attach themselves to larger political groups either because they otherwise would be excluded (eg. LGBT groups would not be very much welcome within conservatives in the US) or because their ideologies are a more extreme and/or focused version of the values of the main group. These radical “attachments” then influence the main group. This is called radicalization.

Radicalization is further sped up when one large political group adopts radical ideologies as its values. It doesn’t matter who shoots first, all groups get more desperate and more entrenched in their thoughts and values. For instance, Trump will likely evoke a more desperate, radical response from democrats which in turn will make republicans more radical and who knows what the end will be, but what is sure, is that radicalization will entrench the divide in society.

In this long and meandering series of posts I am going to explore whether they are failing to begin with, why are their failing (spoiler alert: they do) and what I expect to happen next. As will be the norm, I will rarely if ever back up my claims with sources as I will approach this more from a philosophical perspective than any other, based mainly on intuition and the occasional fact-checking.

Let’s begin: are 21st century Western(-style) ie. liberal democracies failing? First off, this is not a question whether the countries are actually failing, but rather the democratic system itself and people’s faith in liberal democracies. And in that sense I think they do.

On paper liberal democracy is the perfect system. It is inclusive, meritocratic, pluralistic while does not disallow security for society (economic or otherwise). People as individuals are appreciated, not forced to accept any dogma, not discriminated by anything, can think whatever they want. Ironically liberalism also tolerates illiberal thought. To put it simply: in a liberal democracy it does not matter whether you grow up as a transgender mixed-ethnic person or a racist xenophobe, you do not have to fear persecution.

Yet, in many countries majorities vote for politicians who openly make illiberal statements. Ironically they democratically vote for politicians with a penchant for autocratic behavior. Even though there might be plenty of foul play during elections, these are genuinely popular leaders. Turkey’s  Erdogan, Israel’s Netanyahu, Hungary’s Orban, Poland’s Duda, Russia’s Putin or USA’s Trump or the comes to mind just to name a few. A few?! Well, no, it is pretty serious that so many previously more-or-less democractic countries are on a more autocratic path.

And that is how they are failing.