Big Picture

It's raining here today. We haven't had any snow, and only one really cold day. This microscopic-level, anecdotal observation is insufficient to draw conclusions about global warming (you need more than anecdotes to prove a thing; in the case of global warming, there are more than anecdotes to support the not-too-surprising conclusion that the climate is being affected by our increasing interventions), but it's enough to remind me to think about it.

It will take more than anecdotal actions, too, to change the trend toward destruction of the environment. Sure, if every person does something, that helps, but what we're more in need of is large actions. The New York Times has an article about the relative value of various actions (they've had a significant number of articles lately; global warming is flavor-of-the-month right now, not least thanks to Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth and his proselytizing on the issue, but how long will that last?):

The Environmental Protection Agency kicked off Energy Awareness Month in October with the slogan “change a light, change the world,” and encouraged Americans to buy compact fluorescent lights instead of conventional incandescent bulbs. Useful as that may be, picking a large sport utility vehicle that goes two miles farther on a gallon of gasoline than the least-efficient S.U.V.’s would have an impact on emissions of global warming gases about five times larger than replacing five 60-watt incandescent bulbs. The dollar savings would be about 10 times larger. And the more-efficient light bulbs would have a negligible effect on oil consumption.

But the bigger issue is changing an entire economic and societal culture that is based on activities that consume large quantities of fossil fuels.

There are two points to consider as we look at this: One is that we must find a replacement for fossil fuel to power our lifestyle and our continued development of technology and industry. (By "our" I mean humanity's--when it comes to the global climate, we are most certainly all in this together, and the fact that the United States has chosen to deny that by not signing on to the Kyoto Accords is just blind--or willful--ignorance.) But the question is, what do we replace it with? And what if the thing we replace it with, faced with continuing increase in demand as more of the world becomes industrialized and the already-industrialized parts of the world continue to create more technologies that use energy, eventually becomes insufficient for the demand? Or turns out to have its own problems? It has to come from somewhere, somebody will probably have to create or control it, etc.--what if it becomes another thing to war over? Or has unforeseen hazards associated with it? What's our backup plan?

The other is to rethink what constitutes our lifestyle. We are going to create more technology to make our lives easier and more pleasant--that's what we have done throughout human history, and there's not much wrong with it. The more we are removed from mundane manual tasks, the freer we are to create. Technology has also opened the door to emancipation: when large quantities of cheap manual labor are no longer required to provide food or make things, it's easier for a culture to move away from slavery. When the preparation and maintenance of food and shelter are no longer full-time jobs, women are no longer chained to the house. And so forth. Technology is good.

But when it becomes a conduit for feeding us information and entertainment, when it interacts with the environment so we don't have to--when people stop thinking because there is no incentive to do so--that's less a good thing. I'm reminded of the short story "With Folded Hands" by the late,great Jack Williamson. (You may be more familiar with the novel he developed from the story, The Humanoids, but the short story is eerier and better.) We can cede our unpleasant chores to machines, but we should be aware what we give up for convenience (one experiences the world very differently on foot than by car, for example; and imagining is work, too--Rob can tell you from his experience teaching that imagination is all but gone from teens raised on TV and videos), and be aware of our dependence. I'm not in favor of limiting technology, by any means--you don't want to know how many computers there are in this house relative to number of people--but it is worthwhile, I think, at the same time that we make changes in our consumption by changing our lightbulbs and driving more efficient cars if we make similar small changes in our relationship with technology so that not every aspect of our lives is technology-driven and technology-dependent.

You know, so that when the oil runs out before we have an alternative, or catastrophic climate change wreaks havoc, or we just have rolling brownouts, we have a clue what to do with ourselves. Otherwise, all of us in the (over)developed world will find ourselves helpless compared to our neighbors in the undeveloped parts of the world.