Earth
is rapidly becoming uninhabitable by humans and many other species.
Lately, and most critically for humans in near future, the climate is
changing for the worst. Scientists interested in the truth are in the
process of determining its exact trajectory based on what they
continue to learn about the complex variables and systems that affect
it, but they have no significant doubt about the general direction
and the major reason why it is headed there: the atmosphere is
trapping more and more heat due to humans releasing large amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are also influencing the
climate in other ways, directly and indirectly; some effects are
positive (such as pollution causing more sunlight to be reflected
into space, having a cooling effect) and some are negative (darkening
ice, causing it to melt and reflect less sunlight into space). The
net effect is negative from the viewpoint of our ability to live
here, which includes: contributing to greater uncertainty in
availability of food and fresh water; increasing the amount and
severity of floods and storms; and increasing temperatures so that
more of us die from heat exhaustion.
The
most obvious response to this existential threat is to stop doing
what we're doing to cause it. This means abandoning our use of fossil
fuels, which is the main source of greenhouse gases. It also means
stopping our wholesale pillaging and destruction of other species and
their habitats, species who have evolved to keep the planet habitable
for themselves and others. On a deeper level, it leads to rewriting
the definition of civilization to prioritize coexistence over
exploitation, setting limits on our pursuit of resource-intensive
happiness so that members of all species, including our own, can
contribute constructively to maintaining a healthy, shared home.
Another
response to the threat is to try dealing with the direct impacts,
expanding our access to resources even more, so we can continue
growing both our numbers and the creation of environments that
maximize our happiness. Included in this response are various forms
of geo-engineering, such as the development of new foods using
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that can live in the
inhospitable environments we've created; removing excess greenhouse
gases from the atmosphere; and blocking sunlight to manage
temperatures at Earth's surface. Because this response doesn't
account for the complexity of the systems and processes it affects,
and proliferates the very approaches that created the current threat
in the first place, it has the potential to itself create many more
threats.
We
could, alternatively, try to escape the threat. This might involve
anything from building huge, underground habitats, to moving some
people to another world where they have a better chance of survival.
Neither option is practical for a significant fraction of our
population, even if they could be exercised at all (or safely) in the
time we have left before the threat becomes overwhelming, which could
be anywhere from one to eight decades.
A
fourth response is to deny that the threat even exists. This response
includes dealing with the threat's consequences without knowledge or
preparation, except to the extent that those consequences resemble
otherwise acknowledged conditions. It also involves opposing any use
of resources to support the other responses. Such a response has the
effect of increasing personal jeopardy and the jeopardy of others who
can be influenced to respond the same way.
If,
as some scientists fear, we have activated multiple natural processes
that are accelerating climate change, making it already too late to
take any action that avoids the total extinction of our species,
several other options present themselves. We could resign ourselves
to that fate, like someone with a terminal disease, and try to have
as much quality of life as possible until the end. For some, this
will be too much to bear, and they could consider suicide before
conditions become unbearable.
Based
on population collapses of the past, the "unbearable"
conditions following lack of success in reducing the threat (and
avoiding worse ones) would be accompanied by increasingly violent
competition for the remaining resources needed for survival. This
fate is a certainty if it's either too late, or enough of us postpone
significant remedial action until it becomes too late (such as
if we are in denial, or if we believe failure is inevitable when it
is not).
To
take remedial action, it is psychologically necessary to have some
hope that it will be successful. Among a growing number of people who
are convinced that our extinction is practically inevitable, this is
called "hopium," a drug that just makes us feel good. I
suggest that the alternative be referred to as "mopium,"
because acceptance of the ultimate failure can lead to listlessness,
depression, and in some cases suicide. Treating the symptoms of
moping toward oblivion may deal with the feelings, but it also
contributes toward making that fate more certain by inhibiting action
to deal with the cause, both directly and indirectly (by criticizing
others who threaten the failure worldview by believing action may
succeed).
Advocates
of remedial action have focused mostly on reducing what I call
"dopium": intentional ignorance characterized by belief
that the threat isn't real, and that remedial action itself
represents a threat. Its causes are many, including misinformation
campaigns intended to maintain the status quo, operated by a relative
few who stand to lose substantial economic and social power that the
status quo affords them, and stand to gain the most (in the short
term, anyway) by panicked responses to future disasters. We need to
instead focus on reducing both dopium and mopium if we are to marshal
the human resources necessary to deal with the imminent threat at
hand.