Motivations to deny/affirm climate change

[Ondrej]

I'm not going to do a full response because it's bedtime but I wanted to write this down while I have it clear in my head.

It's nothing to do with what people would prefer. The link is not about preference, but about visible change to the climate. We can discuss how we feel about it after we've established the reality.

It has everything to do with what people would prefer. To suggest that it doesn't is to align with the idea that nature should remain completely untouched and it would be better if humans died off. If it doesn't matter what we prefer, why are you worried at all about climate change? The whole point of being concerned about climate change is so that we have a nice planet to inhabit. The earth doesn't care if it is an uninhabitable rock. We care. None of the life on this planet cares if it goes extinct (above just dying), we care. The whole thing is about preference. Human preference. It rests squarely upon us not wanting too much trouble in the future. We want to have things be easy for ourselves. And I'm not at all disparaging attempts to look into the future and plan for possible scenarios. I think this is a good and extremely valuable thing to do. The concern comes in when we forget that it is about our own comfort and we elevate some possible catastrophe as though it is a moral principle and not something we can take or leave as it suits us. So, it is not at all a stretch to suggest that people living in Canada could benefit from a great deal of warming.

[Barney]

My point was that we need to go one step at a time.

• First, is the climate changing not just a tiny bit but dramatically?
• Second, to what extent are humans the cause of this?
• Third, to what extent is this desirable?

My point in sharing that article was only to establish point 1, not to make any comment about points 2 or 3 because can't discuss them unless point 1 is already agreed on.

It has everything to do with what people would prefer. To suggest that it doesn't is to align with the idea that nature should remain completely untouched and it would be better if humans died off.

This is a massive leap of logic. There are countless other positions between these two extreme ones. For example, one could see value both in human wellbeing and in the planet's wellbeing. Why pit the two against each other, as if they are necessarily at war? Why can't the wellbeing of humans and of the planet each have its own rightful place in the table of values instead of one value dominating and destroying the other? Even more importantly, why can't it be seen that human wellbeing and the planet's wellbeing are interrelated, so that to care for one is to care for the other, within reasonable limits?

I don't know anyone who is suggesting that "nature should remain completely untouched and it would be better if humans died off." Why do you keep bringing this up as if it's the only possible way of being an environmentalist? Is there anything incoherent in the idea that there are boundaries and limits on how much we should manipulate nature, and also right and wrong ways of doing it, and that currently we have exceeded those boundaries and are doing it in a wrong way? To take that position is a million miles away from saying that it shouldn't be done at all.

The whole point of being concerned about climate change is so that we have a nice planet to inhabit. ...We want to have things be easy for ourselves. And I'm not at all disparaging attempts to look into the future and plan for possible scenarios. I think this is a good and extremely valuable thing to do. The concern comes in when we forget that it is about our own comfort.

It is really shocking and disturbing to me that you think this. Is that the purpose of our actions and lives, the ultimate goal of human existence? Our own comfort and convenience, having things "easy for ourselves"? For Christians our own comfort is low on the priority list. At the top of the list is obeying God's divine order, the only order by which we can live in harmony with ourselves and with nature. First of all, God entrusted us with the earth as stewards, to care for it responsibly, not to abuse it for our own comfort and convenience. Secondly, God entrusted us with one another in fellowship, so that we can show our love for other human beings above ourselves. Again, nothing about comfort and convenience there. Because the world is in a disastrous state, as every Christian believes, we are also called to restore God's divine order to the way it is supposed to be. This involves fighting for justice and peace among humans, and restoring the balance of human interaction with nature.

The image of humans having nothing better to aim for than their own comfort and convenience is quite nihilistic, as if we had no other purpose in life than to satisfy our own appetites and bodily pleasures at the expense of all other life and beauty in the world.

[Ondrej]

This is a massive leap of logic.

I don't think so. Care for the planet is defined by humans and held up as an ideal by humans. It is for our own sake that we want to care for the planet and preserve nature. Why is the whole planet turning into a desert bad? Because it is bad for us. Desert land is not morally better or worse than rainforest and the land doesn't care one way or the other.

If you take the position that somehow the earth itself determines its own goodness somehow then surely anything humans do to change this is bad. Unless we are somehow privy to know what this goodness is. I suppose then we could know and not act in ways that upset the earth. But then who's to say they know what is good for the earth.

It is really shocking and disturbing to me that you think this. Is that the purpose of our actions and lives, the ultimate goal of human existence?

No, not at all. That is the justification for concern over climate change. Things will be really terrible for humans in the future if we do not do something now. It is fear over what might happen and attempts to mitigate it to make things easier for ourselves in the future.

[Barney]

If you take the position that somehow the earth itself determines its own goodness somehow then surely anything humans do to change this is bad.

I still don't see how the one thing follows from the other. Can't the earth have a goodness of its own, to be preserved, and yet have a place for humans to affect it? Why is this such an impossible thought?

I do think that the negative effect on humans is one of the biggest reasons to combat climate change. And to quickly set this in context of the warming of Canada, the idea is very simple. Doubtless global warming will make a few places more inhabitable, but it will make many more places uninhabitable, so the net effect is still very negative for the world in general.

But let's pursue the other point for a minute: about the inherent goodness of the world. In The Four Loves C.S. Lewis lists three types of love: (1) need love, (2) gift love, and (3) appreciative love. The third of these is the kind of love someone might have for a beautiful painting, even if they were never to own it or to see it again. They would still be reluctant to destroy it if they were the last person on earth and themselves about to die, Lewis says. Because beauty has its own inherent value independent of the beholder. As a Christian, I would say that it is because in beauty we see God's delight in the things he has made shine forth more clearly and brilliantly.

Therefore, even if no human being were affected, I argue that it would still be sad if we trashed the planet, destroyed thousands of species, and left it a pile of garbage. Not just sad: wrong, and a violation of our stewardship of the earth. It is not ours to do with as we want. It is entrusted to us by its creator. No?

[Ondrej]

It would be sad. But sad to who?

[Barney]

To God, first and foremost.

But anyway, we don't have to keep harping on that. I agree with your central point which is that one of the main reasons for environmentalism is the future wellbeing of humanity. Now can we return to talking about whether or not the climate is changing, and if so, whether or not that is a good or bad thing for humanity?

[Ondrej]

But let's pursue the other point for a minute: about the inherent goodness of the world. In The Four Loves C.S. Lewis lists three types of love: (1) need love, (2) gift love, and (3) appreciative love. The third of these is the kind of love someone might have for a beautiful painting, even if they were never to own it or to see it again. They would still be reluctant to destroy it if they were the last person on earth and themselves about to die, Lewis says. Because beauty has its own inherent value independent of the beholder. As a Christian, I would say that it is because in beauty we see God's delight in the things he has made shine forth more clearly and brilliantly.

I think I agree to some extent with this sentiment. Let me just start to write some things down and see if I can sort out what is going on in my head.

The word "destroy" is important here. If the person destroys the painting, in his own estimation, then his actions have put things in a worse state than they were before his action, as evaluated by his own conscience. Suppose we substitute the word "change", suppose the person changes the painting. Now we don't know what to make of the situation. If it was a very famous painting one might argue that any change is at least a degradation, if not destruction, of the artwork. However, the original painter certainly changed it as he was painting it and this change we regard as positive. There is no way to tell a priori whether a change to the painting results in an improvement or degradation. And in the real world this is largely a matter of opinion. Some may value some change and others may not.

If a bunch of plants and insects are "destroyed" to gather the materials to facilitate the act of painting (creation of paints, paint brushes, paint tubes, canvas etc) one could just as easily argue that painting itself is destructive; that the abuse of nature to satisfy some silly urge to stare at colors splashed across a canvas displays the most abject selfishness. How do we tell who is "right"? What we are really talking about is that different things have different uses, some things have a variety of uses, each particular use case has its own valuation, and different people have disparate values.

The intrinsic beauty of nature: Suppose I see a flower and am struck by how beautiful I find it. What I have done in this instance is select by my attention something I find "more valuable" than the rest of the things I could pay attention to (in nature or otherwise). If I then go on to clear a patch of ground and begin to cultivate these flowers for my enjoyment am I destroying nature or appreciating it? I am certainly selecting which parts of nature I value and promoting their existence at the expense of the other parts of nature that might happen to spring up in that location naturally. If one holds that nature itself is of supreme value, then my actions to alter its course are imposing my will on the outcomes. If nature is intrinsically valuable then no valuation of desirability on my part should be used to change it. But this is not how we behave. Through cultivation we express the idea that wild nature can be improved upon and made more valuable. We cut down trees to build houses, clear land to grow food, and generally change our surroundings to make them more amenable to our existence. Beauty has value. But it is not the only thing of value. Moreover, it requires someone to behold it as beautiful. We do not regard rotting flesh as beautiful even though it is quite natural and a necessary process. Thus, nature as such is not intrinsically beautiful per se. I find copper to be quite beautiful but I value electrical distribution far more. In either case, unmined copper in the earth is of no value to me at all. Thus, it is not intrinsically beautiful or valuable. It only becomes so if it can be mined and formed first. I find the American flag to be exceedingly beautiful but it is nothing intrinsic to the flag. It is what is in me that makes it beautiful to me.

I think I've stumbled into a thought here. Beauty is that which points at an idea/concept that one values. Beautiful women, health and vitality (strongly tilted by biology no doubt). A beautiful painting may point to any number of things (patience, self sacrifice, excellence, futility etc.). The flag points to the nation and various national concepts. A beautiful flower points toward God. What is valuable is that it stirs within us feelings we cannot express about concepts and ideas we cannot articulate.