Truth and the Devil

Global Warming denial among some conservatives has developed into a conversation with some of the most perverted ethics I can imagine. In an attempt to get out of taking any sort of responsibility for the health of the Earth as a whole, these conservatives have first denied that global warming exists, then denied that it was man-made (i.e. part of a natural cycle), and now are simply denying that we need to actually do anything about it.

A conversation with one conservative recently brought about this discussion. The argument goes something like this: since man is part of the Earth, i.e. natural, the activities of man on Earth are also natural and part of natural processes, therefore anything we do to the planet is no different from what happens when giant volcanoes erupt, or asteroids impact the Earth. Claiming that some of man’s activities are detrimental to the planet means that man is unnatural or some sort of anomaly on the Earth. This then is an offensive or otherwise uncomfortable idea, therefore no change in human lifestyle or activities is needed to make any sort of difference regarding the long-term effects of global warming, especially if it disturbs the short-term prosperity of the economy, or interferes with the ‘natural’ order of things.

Not only is this argument illogical, but it is inconsistent with other deeply-held modern conservative views. Many conservatives believe that man is special. Either that we were specially created by God or that our consciousness and free will make us different from all other species on this planet. First of all, even though something is natural doesn’t mean it is good. This is the naturalistic fallacy. Nature is filled with all sorts of very unhealthy and dangerous things like viruses, poisons, natural disasters, etc. I can understand any sort of comparison between humans and other detrimental aspects of the planet can be uncomfortable, but the argument itself should be the thing contested, not our emotional reaction to it.

But the thing that bugs me most about this argument is that it is completely devoid of ethical considerations whatsoever. Here’s an analogy to clarify my point: humans and all sorts of other types of predators on this planet kill, human history especially is filled with murder of every form, therefore murder is natural. Since murder is natural, therefore we shouldn’t do anything to stop it from happening because that would interfere with the natural order of things.

Anyone can see the errors in this kind of argument. Not only is it illogical, but it denies any sort of love or compassion. It proposes a human nature more in line with animal behavior than does any system of ethic based upon evolutionary biology.

I (hopefully) need not get into a discussion about why murder is wrong, but the ethics are similar when it comes to global warming. There are human activities that are damaging ecosystems, which we are a part of. Natural or not, I’m sure most conservatives would believe that we do have consciousness and the ability to choose our course of action in the world. That choice is what separates us from animals, and one of the reasons why we can actually make moral pronouncements about murder and other human activities. This is one of those choices that all of us need to make, and it needs to be made with ethical considerations in mind.

I, for one, do not believe that the legacy of human existence on this planet should be the equivalent to an asteroid impact or anything else linked with mass extinctions. I suppose it’s a possibility, but that was also the possibility during the height of the cold war. Humans have slowly made choices, thankfully, moving us further and further away from possibly annihilating ourselves through a nuclear holocaust and I am thankful for that. It’s within the reach of human potential to avert this disaster through good choices as well, and I think we can do it.