“We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.” Michael Crichton
"Take nothing for granted. Question every belief of yours". Today, Environmentalism is known to be a scientific discipline and a person is considered to be modern and educated only if he is aware of Environment Issues and does his bit to save Mother Nature. We would like to challenge this widely held opinion. Interpretation of any belief or perception depends on one's philosophy. Everyone responds to the same situation differently. One may believe environmentalism as science or a religion. We are not debating which one is correct. What we say is that one should be aware of different beliefs regarding it, and then make a decision! We now define the important terms.
Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the state of the environment.
A religion is a set of beliefs regarding cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, devotional and ritual observances, and a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be gained from religious leaders, sacred texts (scriptures), and/or personal revelation.
Science, in general is a systematic evidence based technique used to provide explanations for natural phenomena. It aims to provide correct predictions for such things. Science acquires knowledge through the scientific method, which seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way. This is done through controlled experiments or analysis of observed data and is used to test hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it becomes part of scientific theory. Any hypothesis is falsifiable at any time, if a counterexample is observed. Scientific theory thus differs from mathematical theory as it is empirical and falsifiable (based on ‘a posteriori’ knowledge). An extremely important principle is that observations must be reproducible in both space and time, coherent and independently verifiable by various researchers. Philosophically, science is materialistic, believing that there are real existing objects, whose properties we can measure directly and quantitatively. Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena.
Environmentalism as Science
The various chemical, physical and biological aspects of environment are all explainable and based upon scientific phenomenon and have to be seen as per science. Us take the case of Global Warming.
Scientists, dig down snow cores in Antarctica. When snow falls, it traps CO2 from atmosphere and through isotopes of O2, the temperature can also be estimated. By plotting temperature vs. time and CO2 vs. time, an exact correlation between the two graphs is seen which shows the two are directly related even against a time scale of 650,000 years.
Scientists such as Tim Bell, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, and Fredrick Singer consider Al Gore and others as naive, they claim that from 1940-60 during slow economic growth, temperature increased while CO2 decreased and the vice versa happened in 1960-90.
Also they claim that though the two graphs correlate but it’s quite the reverse and it’s the temperature that determines CO2 content and not the reverse. Another argument is that CO2 lags behind temperature at least 100 years on the graphs on time scale.
It is very disturbing to note as a believer of science, that the results of climate studies are manipulated for political gains, as in the case of Dr. James Hanson, Director, NASA Goddard Institute in an inquiry set against him.
Environmentalism as Religion
Many facets of religion are similar to features found in today's environmentalism. For example, religions claim their holy books to be ultimate sources of knowledge and they debate over the metaphorical or literal meaning of the words contained therein. Similarly, environmentalists have their 'data' as the source and have their own interpretations to explain them. This is humorously unveiled by the parody religious movement of the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' which claims that the increase in global temperatures correlates exactly with the decrease in number of pirates in the world. Religions tend to use fear of hell/cycle of births/apocalypse etc to motivate their followers while similarly environmentalists are constantly propagating scenarios such as global warming, mass flooding, extinctions, ice ages, resource depletion etc (even when they have been wrong before). Rituals play a huge role in religion, and in environmentalism, turning off lights for World Earth Day is no less a ritual. Religions believe in an ideal, for example attaining Heaven, Nirvana etc. Environmentalists believe in a perfect state known as 'Sustainability'. Extreme religious fundamentalism has led to terrorism and so has radical environmentalism led to 'eco-terrorism' where coal power plants, oil rigs have been attacked.
To support the institution of religion, the following argument is often used; “Faith was to supply the beliefs that reason could not supply, beliefs which were vitally needed as the only way to provide an effective sanction backing the moral law and so stabilize society” Similarly, environmentalism is supported by many scientists just because of the fact that it instils 'good' human virtues such as taking care of our surroundings, reducing waste, being frugal or prudent. Hence the utility of environmentalism gives it support of a consensus of scientists, rather than the questionable scientific methods it uses.
To conclude, environmentalism, like religion, is based on the strongest human emotions and not on concrete verifiable facts as a science should be. The climate change debate has been around for quite a while now. In the late 1970's there was speculation of a coming ice age, and that temperatures would drop considerably if people didn’t act fast. That of course didn’t happen and within a matter of five years with rising population and industrialisation this fear was effortlessly and rather conveniently replaced by fears of global warming. The predictions made by environmentalists have failed consistently. The earth is a complex dynamic system and there are bound to be changes, many species have come and gone out of existence, we are just one such species. If there was no life to start off with, then it might as well end up that way. Environmentalism is one of those mock purposes that we have invented for ourselves to keep us busy so that we would not find life utterly meaningless. What business does this species, that has no clue of the meaning of its own existence, have to save the planet? (If it really needs the saving in the first place)
No comments:
Post a Comment