Well, I don't think anyone wants to blame people for mistakes of the past, however, they are right to blame people for mistakes in the present. Apparently, we still have time to try and turn the tide, but it's not going to happen when the people who are currently responsible for the speed and heading aren't even listening to the fact that someone saw an iceberg looming just ahead and we need to turn the ship NOW.
Ah, but the point is that many of the mistakes of the present are direct response of mistakes of the past, and that will take time to correct.
exarch wrote:If nothing changes for another decade, disaster might no longer be avertable, even if it takes another 30 years for that disaster to fully materialize, and even if we all went back to living in wooden shacks and stopped using any technology 2 years past the deadline.
I actually don't think things are quite that drastic yet. But if things don't change in our lifetime our great grandchildren will definitely have the challenge of figuring out how to survive in an inhospitable world.
Also, going back to wood shacks and lack of technology will only make the problems we see worse, not better. Heck wood shacks and our reliance on fossil and polluting fuels are one of the many reasons we are where we are with the environment. Through technology and innovation, we can decrease the amount of land it requires to support a human being and improve our use of resources and find renewable, less destructive methods.
exarch wrote:The problem isn't change taking time to occur, it's change not even being considered by some of the people in charge as being important at all (and yes, I am talking about Dubya here).
I disagree with you. Change comes in not only our practices but in our attitudes. And that takes time to change people's attitudes including Dubya's. We do need to change our ideas, we need to move away from fossil fuels and deforestation and find better solutions, and there are people working on these very issues, but the attitudes are hard to change and convincing someone like Dubya who appears to think, "Well it was good enough for Grandpappy, so it's good enough for me!" is the hard part, but because one behaves in that manner does not automatically mean everyone is blind and doing nothing to make change.
I think it's rather selfish to not care too much because hey, we will probably survive anyway. I'm not saying you don't care, but I think that defeatist point of view has no merit. Sure, maybe it would be nice to have warm weather in Alaska, maybe people will find a way to survive harsh conditions, but to use that as a way to put your mind at ease is just lame. It's not going to be a pretty sight, a lot of irreplaceable fauna and flora could be lost, and I think we should feel pretty darned ashamed of ourselves for how far we've let it come already. To let it get even worse would be a disgrace in my opinion.
I actually don't think it is either selfish or defeatist to accept that human behavior is a natural behavior and that we have the ability to make a change to how we behave.
It is sad to me to think of loosing so much, but unfortunately that is how the world, evolution and everything else works. We must accept that we are just as much a part of the worlds processes as the male lion who kills off a competitor's cubs despite the fact that they are an endangered species.
Quite frankly, I don't see the situation as bleak as you do, and I think we as a whole are working to rectify our mistakes, but that doesn't mean that every individual will be at the same phase at the same time, but as long as there is work to improve the situation, that is what will save us and our living environment in the long run.
BTW, although I know you weren't directing the comment directly at me, I would like to clarify that I do care. I care very much. I want for myself and my children to see the wonders of the world and I would hate for them to never have seen some of the amazing creatures and plants that live in this world.