On global warming

I  haven’t written in a little while because I have been quite busy with organising things for a change in job (location, not career) and also some personal difficulties which I won’t go into just yet. But I have managed to give myself 2 weeks off work to just settle the pace in the last few months, and I have been watching some mostly mind-numbing television but also some interesting stories. One that particularly surprised me was a debate on nuclear versus fossil fuel derived energy. Here’s the link if anyone is interested in watching it.

What I found particularly interesting about the debate on fossil fuels versus nuclear energy are the premises and assumptions the debate (for both sides) are founded on. You see, every debate argues that one “thing” is better than the opponent’s “thing”, but there is also common ground – there has to be. So one opponent may say, for example, “I’m trying to do the most just thing for everyone and this ‘thing’ I represent is better for justice than the thing that my opponent is backing. The other opponent goes and makes the same argument, but proposes his thing is better for justice. The debate is interesting and relevant because it focuses on a common ground: justice. And you know what I found interesting in this fossil-fuel vs. nuclear energy debate? That the common ground that both parties were intent on protecting was climate change. Yes, here were big energy industry representatives arguing that they wish to protect the environment, prevent further climate change / global warming, and therefore nuclear energy is bad. On the opposite side of the debate were nuclear energy proponents arguing that they wish to protect the environment, prevent further climate change / global warming, and therefore fossil-fuel energy is bad (and also that other non-fossil-fuel energies are non-viable). I was fascinated not by the points of argument each team debated, but that suddenly global warming and climate change was a given, not the point of argument itself. No one was debating whether climate change was real in and of itself!

In political and legislative forums, the existence of this concept of global warming is negated by representatives of the fossil fuel industry. Now, in a debate whether on whether nuclear energy or fossil fuel energy is worse, global warming and climate change is taken as a fact – and the people arguing these both these things are almost the same people. That is what I find quite interesting. Environmentalists get invited to these events to present the debate on behalf of nuclear power companies, mining companies, and “green energy” companies (which are usually owned by the mining companies themselves). Of course, for the sake of arguments such as this, all the types of energy companies claim to have one thing at heart: the environment. In reality we all know that thing at the heart of any company are monetary profits. I mean, that is exactly the reason why mining companies invest heavily in “green energy”: because if the market happens to shift and “green energy” becomes more profitable than fossil-fuel energy, then you want to be the guy that owns this market already...

It’s all nice and interesting, but now I’m more confused. Is global warming considered a real thing or not in Australian politics? If so, then what are we (including the energy industry and other big carbon emitters) doing about it? If not, why not if even the energy industry can at times concede that it is a real thing?

On an environmentalist

A monkey masturbating!

There is one man I credit with helping me lose the respect I once had for environmentalists. I won’t say his name, but he was a lecturer I once had for a bioethics class at university. Now, this man’s great passion was protecting animal rights, especially as they related to scientific research. He spoke of it all so passionately and realistically. He enjoyed the work of philosopher Peter Singer and he was also a vegetarian. Why do I mention that? Because it means he was a knowledgeable and “true to his cause” environmentalist. Anyhow, it was well understood knowledge that he was a very well accomplished ethicist and so he had the attention of all of us students. And then he let me down.

He, like many scientists and philosophers, admitted he was an atheist. Is that wrong? No; a person believes what they choose to believe and as long as it’s not coerced or misinformed, then there is nothing wrong with what they choose to believe. I in fact believe that there are few true atheists, but I’ll discuss that at a later stage. To this man, a “good” man I was lead to believe at that stage (he was an ethicist and an environmentalist, to say the least), the protection of nature, earth, and living creatures on, above, or beneath it was very very important. Wow, there’s a good human being! However, as the lecture moved on, he for some reason I can no longer recall, moved on to the subject of discussing religion. Ok, so he had already made it well known that he didn’t believe in “God” or that religion wasn’t of his preference. But he started to discuss a neighbour of his, a man he didn’t like: a man who was a Jehovah’s Witness in Christian belief.

So let me frame this for you so you understand why I found what he said so offensive and despicable. Firstly, he comes in with a reputation that he knows inspires respect and influence. Secondly, his reputation is that of a “good” man: one who cares about and defends defenceless animals and the natural environment. Thirdly, he is put in a position to educate very keen and suggestible young adults. It would be a great and excellent platform to incite some passion or at least enthusiasm for a good cause. He could have chosen to inspire us to defend the environment, to protest, to petition higher authorities for change and justice, to be kind to animals, to support the defenceless, to acknowledge the inherent power of a human being who is passionate in his pursuit of a definitive goal, etc.

What did he do instead? He told a story of his neighbour who is a Jehovah’s Witness. Now, the neighbour was a “bad” neighbour because he insisted on greeting him pleasantly over the fence between their properties, was always so jolly, and always wanted to make friendly conversation about anything at all. You know, the kind of guy like Ned Flanders from ‘The Simpsons’ who irritates because of his good nature. Similarly, this Jehovah’s Witness was a ‘bad’ man, he had us believe, for doing just that. So then this guy, this great ethicist, disclosed a fantasy of his: he said he would love to collect a whole bunch of leeches and set them free onto his neighbour until the leeches had sucked away all his blood, and given that he was a Jehovah’s Witness, watch him then die as he refused a blood transfusion. He laughed after telling this story. He laughed and then after a short awkward silence, the whole auditorium laughed with him. And then he continued the lecture on how a good person must ensure to promote the wellbeing of the environment and animals.

I was not at that stage a fully convinced Christian so I wasn’t offended for that reason, but I found his behaviour to be almost an abuse of power. Sure, in the right context it could have been considered a funny joke, but what was disturbing is that he was in a position of teaching, and we all learn best by example whether we believe it or not. Knowing he was an influential man in front of an impressionable crowd, he chose to spread disdain and hatred instead of promoting a humanitarian cause, or even just doing what he was being paid to do and teach us about the ethical use/care of animals in science. And what further aggravated me was the hypocrisy of claiming to be for the very humanitarian causes of protecting the environment and non-human species, and at the same time being capable of such great non-humanitarian discrimination, if not hatred, of a group of people. I say a group of people because he never said his neighbour’s name, he referred to him as “a Jehovah’sWitness”. I lost all respect for that man that day. I still consider it a shame that he is allowed such an awarded role in the university and still exposing impressionable students to his dichotomous, and somewhat concerning, views of the world and the creatures on it.

How is it possible that a person be able to love animals, to want to preserve and protect them from harm, and yet be so careless about the dominant animal species: humanity? If I wanted to keep a mouse alive, wouldn’t I consider it an equally respectable aim to keep a human being alive? If I considered it wrong to cruelly beat an animal, then why would I support or even promote the discrimination and abuse of a group of people? A lot of people who are passionate about the environment tell me their passion is because these animals, these trees and lakes and oceans, can’t protect themselves. And not only that, they do no harm to anyone. A human being, on the other hand, can not only defend himself but also launch an offence / attack towards other humans, towards animals, and towards even the very environment that keeps us alive. Yes, human beings are capable of evil, no doubt, but to admit that a person can be imperfect and to say he warrants death is a massive leap. 

^^^ Hilarious tattoo! - why you should think twice aboout what you put out there :P ^^^