"Climate Change" Is Real, Folks
I had this homey back in school, and we both graduated at the same time. Our lives then took two starkly different directions, as while I was becoming increasingly disenfranchised from the system, he rather was embracing it. So there were ideological differences between us and therefore a lot of debating.
During one of our arguments, the homey told me something I'd never forget, which is that the way I think was "too black and white". At first that statement offended me, like he was trying to make the debate we were having personal instead of focusing on the issue at hand. But, it stuck in my head nonetheless. And quite a few years later, I started realizing that in some respects he was right and set about opening my mind accordingly.
But this article isn't about me. I brought up that story to raise a point, which is that now, it's like the way the world at large thinks is too black and white. Perhaps the most-blatant, or let's say obvious example of this phenomenon is cancel culture. But what really brought that saying to mind is the way netizens are reacting to climate change.
The whole subject has become sort of this elite vs. the masses type of thing. You would think that in the Information Age, when more facts are available than ever, peoples' minds would be more open. But that hasn't necessarily proven to be the case.
Instead of really looking at the issue at hand, critics are rather focused on the likes of Greta Thunburg, Bill Gates and Al Gore, i.e. the types entities who are set to profit if radical climate change initiatives are widely accepted. And yes, it is kinda f*cked up when you try to monetize the world's suffering. But all because, say, Al Gore may be set make a lot of money if people are forced to reduce their carbon emissions, and some climate change advocates/scientists be deadass lying sometimes, that doesn't mean that what they're talking or warning about is completely false.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
What now is called "climate change" was, a few decades back, more or less referred to as "environmental degradation". And again, activists changing the name of the issue and trying to monetize/politicize it doesn't negate the fact the problem exists.
As far as I know, primarily due to modern consumption habits, the natural world is being f*cked up. Does that mean that man has the power to actually destroy the Earth? No, I don't think so. But the natural environment we depend on is being wrecked, some may even say irreversibly, and it's like no one really cares.
This type of modus operandi was acceptable back in the old days, because no matter how much you hunt, fish, cut down trees, etc., it's like mankind didn't really have the means nor desire to deplete the natural world. But then the Western Europeans took over - which is a subject for another day - and along with that phenomenon came capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, etc., i.e. changes in which harvesting or using more than necessary became accepted and in some ways even necessary.
Now, if I had written this article 20 years ago, I'd probably be on some naturalistic fallacy, 'the natives are better' type sh*t. But after now having lived an ample amount of time in the Third World, I can tell you that they don't particularly give AF neither. Indeed, the goal of most natives is to live like Western Europeans.
And the caveat is that the United States consumes more resources and produces more waste - a lot more, all things considered - than any other country. If you rely on web searches to verify those facts, you may not be able to grasp the severity of the situation, as they tend to be glossed over or presented in a way that makes it read like no no big deal. So I rather recommend, if you're truly interested in this topic, is this book, which is The World in a Day by Russell Ash. That's why it tickles me sometimes the way Westerners have embraced the advent of artificial intelligence, because the last thing America needs right now is to be judged by robots.
WHAT THEY AREN'T TELLING YOU
Hardcore capitalists tend to be the personification of businesspeople who care more about profit than the environment. For instance, no human being in history has been more instrumental to propagating the use of computers than Bill Gates. But of course, the manufacturing of computers in and of itself is a process that's messy AF.
So in their minds, it isn't only about how many resources people consume in terms of the negative-environmental impact per se. What it's also about is what's referred to in environmental science as sustainability. In other words, most resources are finite. So if people keep consuming them at a don't-give-AF pace, then eventually, in theory, they will run out, besides leaving a troubled environmental footprint.
To illustrate this point, here's a fact I learned awhile back that is totally mind-blowing. I can't remember the exact number or the precise reason why, but the Earth can only sustain somewhere between 500,000 and 2 million refrigerators into perpetuity. Meanwhile, most major cities alone likely have more than 2 million refrigerators. So eventually, something has to give. And the way the elite see it, that something will not be them personally giving up their fridges.
That's sorta what Bill Gates was getting as quoted in this article that Infowars published yesterday. Conspiracy theorists and the such are jumping down Gates's throat as if he's the enemy, but to some degree their thinking is too black and white, because what he stated is the truth. The "cost" of combating climate change is a "(recduction in your) standard of living". Or at least that's how the world terms it when comes to having refrigerators and cars and sh*t like that, as the "standard of living" - a term I believe has already been more or less proven to be based on Eurocentric ideologies, materialism, etc., but that's a story for another day.
CONCLUSION
So as a responsible global citizen or human being, you may not need Greta Thunberg or some hypocritical celebrity telling you what you do. You can go out, seek facts for yourself and make changes accordingly. That's always preferable because if it does get to the point where govvie himself is telling you how much and what you can consume, as is already happening in some parts of the world, then you''d be wishing that you'd had been more proactive beforehand. And here's a few recommendations I can make based on my personal experiences, for what it's worth:
1 - RECYCLE
After it became obvious that the system itself wasn't going to change to stave off environmental degradation, then the most-logical solution became recycling, and it's still a viable one to this day. And it's not only about plastic and metals, but recycle any and everything that you can (though I don't know about turning toilet waste into drinking water). I don't even know if recycling laws are still a thing in the US, and what I do know is that recycling, in general, is a hassle. But as you can see, it's sort of a necessary one these days.
2 - TURN OFF THE FRIDGE
I used to be an advocate of communal fridging, but not as much these days. What I will say though is that when perishables start to run low, instead of running out to the market to re-up, let them run out so that you can turn off the fridge for an extended time. This is not only considerate of the machine itself but also the electricity grid.
Also, regardless of what you have in the refrigerator, I can tell you based on experience that it's safe to turn the machine off for at least a couple of hours a day without the stuff inside spoiling. This is especially true if the fridge has a good freezer. A lot of times, I just keep drinks and condiments in the refrigerator. That way, I can even turn it off the whole night, and nothing inside is adversely affected.
3 - SHUN AUTOMOBILES
At this point in my life, I'm not compelled to speak out against car ownership. But what I will speak out against - for a number of reasons - is personal-automobile dependency. Many people will spurn this idea just for egotistical or materialistic reasons, and that's on you. The Most High Himself will "destroy those who destroy the Earth". But this is just something to take into consideration. For instance, I strongly advocate living as close to the workplace as possible, even within walking distance if circumstances allow.
REFERENCES
9 October 2023 - Natural News
How much "Western lifestyles" and "particularly Americans" are adversely affecting the climate may be a matter of debate, but that doesn't mean, as this article implies, that Pope Francis's entire argument is invalid.
Comments
Post a Comment