Blog #117--Arguing Preferences Misses the Point

If you’ve been around as long as I have, perhaps you remember a commercial that argued whether a product was a breath mint or a candy mint. Maybe you also remember the light beer commercial where one group said it tasted great, while another group argued it was less filling. The commercials ended by claiming both sides were right. I am reminded of them when I hear arguments by some claiming we are experiencing global warming, while their counterparts prefer the phrase climate change.

Climate change is a constant phenomenon on Earth. We go through cycles of hot and cold every year, and there are periods of time where the degree of hot and cold varies in intensity. Earth has experienced multiple long-term cycles of warming and cooling over the millennia. So those who prefer the term climate change are correct, as far as that goes. However, corporations and individuals that may be contributing to climate extremes have a vested interest in saying this is a natural phenomenon to deflect blame and prevent the costs required to change their behaviors.

Those who study world-wide temperatures over time also recognize that the average temperature overall has increased in the last few years. So it is also correct to say there is global warming, even though some locations are experiencing colder than normal conditions during this time. Both warm and cold are normal since all things in the universe exist through an interaction of opposites. If there is more warmth in some areas, other areas become colder to balance the scales and perpetuate some degree of overall normalcy. But right now, the Earth in general is experiencing a period of temperature increases greater than in the recent past.

It is becoming harder for polluters to deflect blame for global warming, but their selfishness requires it whether it is true or not. They may hire scientists who are more interested in maximizing their incomes than in arriving at truth. Scientists who lack moral integrity will defend company denials, even if quality research suggests otherwise. This is all standard operating procedure in our world. The ego tends to protect itself at all costs, so it will fight mightily against anyone seeking to blame it for problems in the world.

The way I see it, if this world is real and not an illusion (a possibility discussed in my book “It’s a Secret, So Pass It On: a Toolbox For Life”), we no longer have time to debate the issues or discover who may be to blame for the problems climate changes create. After all, a majority of credible scientists say our environment is on the precipice of collapse. The Earth itself must maintain a balance, and humans have contributed much over the centuries to create imbalances. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground we walk on are all suffering from toxicities that could eventually make life unlivable.

As long as we continue to debate causation, we don’t have to do anything about these toxicities and imbalances. I imagine CEOs of many large corporations gamble they will have departed from the Earth by the time any major destruction occurs, but guarantees are impossible. Perhaps they think they have a place they can go that will safeguard them against the ravages of environmental degradation. Will they have time to make the move?

In the long run, it doesn’t really matter who, if anyone, is to blame. What matters is that the human species knows without doubt it has done everything it possibly can do to minimize damage and enhance the environment for everyone’s benefit. As long as we deny our collective responsibility for our environment, we run the risk of reaching a point of no return. When that happens, all life is potentially destroyed.

I don’t know if this is still a law in New Jersey, but in the early 1970s those most capable of avoiding driving accidents were the ones ticketed for them, even if someone else crashed into them. In other words, if two cars were at an intersection and car #1 got there first, car #1 would be ticketed if it saw car #2 come out into the intersection too soon, could have stopped in time to avoid a crash but didn’t. This law may seem unfair to car #1, but the law likely reduced accidents since all parties had to be more observant and careful at all times.

Perhaps we could use a similar rule to govern environmental problems. Regardless who is harming the environment, it would be everyone’s task to remain unselfish and consider the needs of the environment and those who wish to live in it. In such a scenario, selfishness would no longer be rewarded. We would have to consider the needs of others when we make decisions that could harm the environment. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.”

Those branded as environmental polluters could perhaps find it in their hearts to spend some of their windfall profits to reduce the impact of their businesses on the environment. Even if it doesn’t help much, perhaps it can at least encourage others to do likewise. If nothing else, they can use the money they now spend denying the problem to help solve the problem. Customers might actually favor self-sacrificing corporations in future buying decisions. If everyone works together to improve living conditions on Earth, credit can replace blame.

Maybe it is too late to do anything about worldwide pollution. Maybe environmental destruction is guaranteed despite our best efforts. After all, our world remains in balance thanks to the existence of opposite energies. There must be both destruction and creation. We all have our roles to play. Maybe we are supposed to help the Earth do a complete cleansing and start over, as it has done multiple times in the past.

But we can’t assume that inevitability yet. Maybe someday soon we can all cooperate enough to change things for the better. The key is to know we have done our best to help our whole world and not just our own egos. Of course, it would also be nice if we were proactive enough to prevent problems instead of delaying action until destruction prevents healing.

The “silent majority” may someday stop rewarding selfishness and greed, but don’t count on it. If we don't all cooperate for a common goal, we may be “a day late and a dollar short.”

http://dreamtime3.wix.com/jacktuttlebook

Comments and questions can be directed to dreamtime@insight-books.com.