A Transcendent Idiocy
Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, was interviewed on NPR this morning.
When I was a boy, NASA represented the pinnacle of scientific and engineering ability. Apparently, that was long ago. Now the NASA Administrator is saying, essentially, that, yeah, global warming is happening, and we're causing it, but we wouldn't want to do anything about that because, well, it would be arrogant?!!
So, after years of deciding that it knows enough to intervene in the most private matters of life-and-death, as with Terri Schiavo, and confidant that it knows the right thing to do with unwanted pregnancy, and certain that homosexuals getting married would be the end of civilization as we know it, the administration has chosen this moment to 'get sensitive' to other people's feelings. We wouldn't want to try and sustain this particular climate, because that might arrogantly assert our choice over all those other human beings out there.
Now, some of you may be thinking, "Uh, isn't that horse already out of the barn?" Administrator Griffin poses the rhetorical question of which human beings are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that the climate we have right now is the best climate for all other human beings. Sadly, that decision would be moot.
Americans, as the largest creators and beneficiaries of Western Industrialization, have pretty much already guaranteed that we can't keep today's climate, even if we wanted to. No matter what we do from here, we've already, without asking anyone, started a process that will change the climate dramatically. Talk about arrogance; the true arrogance would be to not do everything in our power to mitigate that.
Mr. Griffin also might be surprised to discover that global consensus exists on what climate would be the best for the people of the world. In general, people agree that the best climate would be one in a band within which humans can survive. You know, more or less the same as has been prevailing since say, the Paleolithic.
I know, I know, there is the occasional 9-year-old boy who would vote in favor of something more Carboniferous, if only for the giant dragonflies, but usually when you explain to them that they might have trouble breathing a different proportion of atmospheric oxygen, even they are willing to accept a climate similar to one of the many options available from the late Holocene.
So, getting to work on what it will take so that our climate stays within say, an order of magnitude of that experienced over the last 10,000 years or so seems pretty unlikely to ruffle any feathers, arrogance-wise.
Meanwhile, once that's in progress, we can discuss the climate-choosing criteria that Mr. Griffin would like to see articulated. I myself would argue in favor of one that ensured the survival of oceanic phytoplankton and krill, because I think that functioning foodchains and ecosystems are pretty cool. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but I'm also in favor of maintaining the ability to grow crops and house populations in roughly the same places as we do now. It just seems like it would be a pain to have to move billions of people and recreate the entire infrastructure of the civilzed world. Along those lines, it would probably be nice to keep enough ice in the Arctic so that the North Atlantic currents stay mostly where they are. I mean, sure, we could adapt to freezing cold weather all along the Eastern Seaboard and Europe, but I'd rather skip it.
On the other hand, I am aware that climate change might bring unexpected benefits to some people, even as others lose. Sure, when the oceans rise, the downtown portion of my city will be drowned. But I live on a high hill, so I'll get some nifty waterfront out of the deal. Maybe Mr. Griffin thinks he's just looking out for my interests.
STEVE INSKEEP: It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?The mind boggles.
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.
STEVE INSKEEP: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.
When I was a boy, NASA represented the pinnacle of scientific and engineering ability. Apparently, that was long ago. Now the NASA Administrator is saying, essentially, that, yeah, global warming is happening, and we're causing it, but we wouldn't want to do anything about that because, well, it would be arrogant?!!
So, after years of deciding that it knows enough to intervene in the most private matters of life-and-death, as with Terri Schiavo, and confidant that it knows the right thing to do with unwanted pregnancy, and certain that homosexuals getting married would be the end of civilization as we know it, the administration has chosen this moment to 'get sensitive' to other people's feelings. We wouldn't want to try and sustain this particular climate, because that might arrogantly assert our choice over all those other human beings out there.
Now, some of you may be thinking, "Uh, isn't that horse already out of the barn?" Administrator Griffin poses the rhetorical question of which human beings are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that the climate we have right now is the best climate for all other human beings. Sadly, that decision would be moot.
Americans, as the largest creators and beneficiaries of Western Industrialization, have pretty much already guaranteed that we can't keep today's climate, even if we wanted to. No matter what we do from here, we've already, without asking anyone, started a process that will change the climate dramatically. Talk about arrogance; the true arrogance would be to not do everything in our power to mitigate that.
Mr. Griffin also might be surprised to discover that global consensus exists on what climate would be the best for the people of the world. In general, people agree that the best climate would be one in a band within which humans can survive. You know, more or less the same as has been prevailing since say, the Paleolithic.
I know, I know, there is the occasional 9-year-old boy who would vote in favor of something more Carboniferous, if only for the giant dragonflies, but usually when you explain to them that they might have trouble breathing a different proportion of atmospheric oxygen, even they are willing to accept a climate similar to one of the many options available from the late Holocene.
So, getting to work on what it will take so that our climate stays within say, an order of magnitude of that experienced over the last 10,000 years or so seems pretty unlikely to ruffle any feathers, arrogance-wise.
Meanwhile, once that's in progress, we can discuss the climate-choosing criteria that Mr. Griffin would like to see articulated. I myself would argue in favor of one that ensured the survival of oceanic phytoplankton and krill, because I think that functioning foodchains and ecosystems are pretty cool. Call me a stick-in-the-mud, but I'm also in favor of maintaining the ability to grow crops and house populations in roughly the same places as we do now. It just seems like it would be a pain to have to move billions of people and recreate the entire infrastructure of the civilzed world. Along those lines, it would probably be nice to keep enough ice in the Arctic so that the North Atlantic currents stay mostly where they are. I mean, sure, we could adapt to freezing cold weather all along the Eastern Seaboard and Europe, but I'd rather skip it.
On the other hand, I am aware that climate change might bring unexpected benefits to some people, even as others lose. Sure, when the oceans rise, the downtown portion of my city will be drowned. But I live on a high hill, so I'll get some nifty waterfront out of the deal. Maybe Mr. Griffin thinks he's just looking out for my interests.
posted by Paul at 4:14 PM |
|
email this
