Human’s restrictions on natural domination
Issues such as war and peace, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and economic oppression are the result of human interaction with other people. These dysfunctions are as old as humans, and they cause great pain and suffering. As an optimist, I hope they are fading, but as a realist, I know they will never disappear. As my colleague Peter Coleman has observed, humans have been fighting, but more often, they coexist peacefully. We cooperate more than fights, even in historical fights. As reporters often say: “If it bleeds, it will lead.” When someone helped mom lift the stroller up the subway stairs, it was no longer news. Pushing that mother down the steps, there is a photo on the front page of the New York Post. In any case, carrying a stroller is commonplace; attacking, fortunately, it is not. The interaction between mankind and mankind is an ancient story. The same is true of our efforts to use the earth’s resources for food, clothing and shelter. But there is something new in the world-not only do we use the earth, but our technology has begun to enable us to change the earth and its basic systems.
For at least half a century, human technology has affected the elements of our planet. When sailing ships transported Europeans to the American continent, they brought diseases to which Native Americans were not immune. Many people died of European diseases “invasive species”. Today, global air travel and trade accelerate this process, so we find ourselves the victims of a virus to which we have little resistance. On a larger scale, our chemicals and plastics invade the earth’s soil, water, and air, and damage organisms that depend on these resources. Some of the effects of our technology are large-scale, physical and well-known, such as climate change. Other impacts of technologies such as coronaviruses and various attacks on biodiversity are more complex, less researched, and less well-known.
Our economic philosophy is to introduce new technologies and chemicals into our daily lives, and then worry about their impact on health and the environment. In the global economy, the pressure of innovation and competition is increasing. Applying the precautionary principle to new technologies like new drugs will slow down the speed of innovation, thereby reducing economic growth. In our current economic-centric mentality, there is no time to measure the side effects of new technologies like new drugs. Since most of the economic growth of the last century was the result of the commercial application of new technologies, our economic system aims to ignore environmental impacts until they are extremely dangerous, which is undeniable.
In 1970, at the beginning of our serious management of environmental pollution, there were 3.7 billion people on the earth; today, there are nearly 7.9 billion people. Although our population has more than doubled in the past half century, our planet has not. It is the same size as ours in 1970. Technology allows us to increase production while reducing pollution. Our technology also allows us to use more earth resources than ever before, speed The population growth rate has declined. In some of the more developed areas of the world, the population is decreasing. But as our economy develops, resource consumption continues to grow.
There is no doubt that human activities have destroyed and sometimes dominated nature. But it turns out that domination of nature is more difficult than some people think. Facts have proved that the power of the natural environment system is beyond the range that current technology can handle. We inadvertently and deliberately destroyed the natural systems that provide us with the biological necessities: food, water, and air. Some scientists discuss “geoengineering” or efforts to influence natural systems at the planetary level. Fortunately, there is no market for geoengineering or obvious commercial applications of these technologies. Large-scale technologies such as carbon capture and storage will require government funding at the level of the US military budget. It may happen, but I won’t bet. For a long time, people have been seriously discussing geoengineering to deal with climate change.As Fred Pearce wrote a few years ago Yale Environment 360:
“The discussion of geoengineering climate to stop global warming is almost as long as the threat of warming itself. As early as the 1960s, American researchers suggested that billions of white objects (such as golf balls) float on the ocean to reflect sunlight. In 1977, Cesare Marchetti of the Austrian International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis discussed capturing all carbon dioxide emissions in Europe and injecting them into Sinking Atlantic ocean current... In 1982, Soviet scientist Mikhail Budyko (Mikhail Budyko) proposed to fill the stratosphere with sulfate particles to reflect sunlight back into space.this First experiment In 1995, British researchers implemented the idea of fertilizing the ocean with iron to stimulate the growth of carbon dioxide-absorbing algae.Two years later, Edward Teller, the inventor of the hydrogen bomb, proposed to Giant mirror Into space. Nevertheless, until recently, many climate scientists still considered these proposals to be marginal and, if not heretical, they believed that they undermined the reason for the urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. ”
The arrogance of geoengineering advocates needs to be understood as scary Given our current level of knowledge of earth system science and ecology. We cannot even predict the indirect ecological impact of the construction of seawalls. Why do we believe that our knowledge of the Earth is sufficient for engineering design at the planetary level? Nonetheless, if one of these conceited billionaires figure out a way to profit by manipulating the basic systems of our planet, we may eventually miss current existential threats such as climate change.Our ability to destroy the environment on a global scale is limited, but Grow. our understand The impact of our planned and unplanned outages is also limited, and the growth rate is much lower than needed.
What our economic system and its technological foundation lack is humility and awe of the universe. To some extent, the universe may always be beyond the scope of scientific understanding. It is possible to study creation and our own evolution, but in my opinion, science may always give way to what I may call spiritual, while others may call it religion. We have established our social, political, and economic order around science and technology. This is a path that we cannot avoid. We need more funds for science education and research—especially about our planet and its amazing complexity. We need to pay serious attention to the impact of human activities on the environment, build sustainable human settlements, and minimize our impact on the planet. But we also need to build awe of nature and the environment in our value system. We need to invest more ideas and resources to protect and protect natural systems.
In the sci-fi franchise Star wars, The home planet is a world city. There is no nature.Cartoons I watched when I was young The Jasons it’s the same. Dogs are walking on treadmills, cars are flying in the sky, food comes from machines on the walls, there are no trees or gardens. If the past is the prologue and the trend continues, then the era when human technology will replace nature will finally come. We are still far away, but the question we need to solve is: Are we willing to live in a world without nature?Although I doubt someone will always plan Eradicate our natural ecosystem, no one has ever plan Warm the earth or flood the ocean with plastic. Although we don’t know how to monetize geoengineering, we have monetized nature. A house with unspoiled natural landscape and water features, park access, and clean air is more expensive than the same house without these facilities. Tourism in the natural environment is a multi-billion dollar global business. Human beings cherish nature and are willing to pay for the protection and enjoyment of nature. Generally speaking, I am an advocate of technical remediation of environmental problems. Technical solutions are usually the best way to solve the problems caused by technology. But there are restrictions. Geoengineering is where I draw a line. Instead, let us teach and learn about humility, spirituality, and reverence for the magical planet we have been given and must keep for those who follow us.
