Dear Ecologists,
In the scientific community, catastrophic climate destabilization (a.k.a. climate change or global warming) is almost undoubtedly the most serious self-inflicted threat of harm to human civilization and the survival of hundreds of thousands of species on earth. Yes, almost . . . thank goodness for the scientific method. Otherwise, there would be no wiggle room for naysayers like myself to make a wager.
I did not want to have to bring up the fact that the ever-present possibility of a nuclear holocaust has given global warming a run for its money for more than half a century. I am saving that as my trump card. In the race to extinction one always needs to hedge a bet.
Gamblers of the world unite!
True, it has been an uphill battle on all sides. Trying to dissuade millions of people from changing their lifestyles, debunking nearly irrefutable scientific evidence, and demobilizing nations from taking substantial action to avert the smoldering carbon crisis has been incredibly taxing, figuratively speaking. However, there are many things that could have been done better with far fewer hassles, and affect engineering has helped me realize them.
Let us say the entity being valued is human civilization, and catastrophic climate destabilization is threatening to end it. What sorts of arguments should one make to alleviate concerns about perfectly legitimate hazards? Here are some samples.
Self-Distinction and Identification: Discouraging people from even identifying with civilization is a brilliant first step. The supposedly doomed human civilization is sometime in the future, not the here and the now. People have a hard enough time trying to identify with present-day society; what on earth could have made one think they would identify with future ones? Why overestimate their vicariously felt affect? Why encourage them to identify in the first place?
Existence and Attention: A tried and true favorite. If no one knows about catastrophic climate destabilization, then no one will think twice about it threatening civilization. If one stops talking about civilization, then maybe people will stop thinking it exists too. Time to stop using “How’s the weather?” as an icebreaker. Problem solved.
Uniqueness and Uniqueness: There could be plenty of civilizations out there, maybe in outer space too. What’s the harm in losing one? Another one will show up. There are probably extra ones already had that nobody even knows about.
Sufficiency: Civilization alone is not enough to make anyone happy. People will need something else too, perhaps some new land that no pioneer has despoiled.
Sentiment: There are other things more important than the survival of the species, like having the newest car model or a vacation getaway.
Severity and Susceptibility: Catastrophic climate destabilization is not that bad a thing, it might even miss earth.
Response Efficacy and Self Efficacy: Whatever one person could do to minimize catastrophic climate destabilization would likely be ineffective, and nearly impossible to achieve besides.
Benefit Intensity and Susceptibility: Climate destabilization might be a good thing.
Reasoning and Entropy: There are plenty of other things to worry about, like the economy. Why fuss over things that cannot be controlled? Best to divert one’s energy elsewhere.
Sincerely,
A Catastrophic Climate Destabilization Naysayer
P.S.
If a writer has to point out sarcasm, then the reader’s discernment has been overestimated.
If a writer has to point out sarcasm, then the reader’s discernment has been underestimated.
Both of these statements are true.
1) In the case of the former, the reader does not know that sarcasm is at play. The writer learns this and knows the point was lost.
2) In the case of the latter, the writer doubts the reader knows that sarcasm is at play. The reader learns this and knows the point was lost.
Pointing a finger at sarcasm is the only way to kill it.