Warning: This is NOT an article about global warming! It’s about something much bigger.
Most of you that have read my previous blogs on global warming know my stance on whether or not it’s the fault of human interference. I have a problem with the unquestioning Soviet attitude of some people against the dissenters who are tired of the flip-flopping of ‘proof’ and ‘absolute and irrefutable conclusions’ of collected data. The arguments between scientists are irrelevant to the rest of us as a whole – it’s a little like accepting political sound-bites as absolute truth.
In my opinion, and that’s all I can proffer at this point, what is important is to accept that maybe there is a change in global temperatures taking place. Maybe it is caused by human interference, maybe it comes from a larger contributor, I don’t know. What I do know is that if we work on the principle that wasting less is a good idea, then we can overcome our ‘contribution’ to global warming without argument; after all, who could honestly think that waste can ever be good?
It was recently announced by the Nasa Administrator, Charles Bolden, that global warming is a very real threat to the human race, and that to ensure our survival we must colonise Mars. I think he has a point; whether the real threat is global warming or something else, I believe that by remaining on one planet we are in fact doomed to be wiped out.
In recent months we have had a number of significant hits by meteorites that were not detected as they approached our planet on a collision course. With the billions of huge lumps of planet flying around in space how long do you think it will be before one collides and takes us out? What if the solar events we are currently predicting take place and we are wiped out by massive planetary heating, irradiation, and destruction of the atmosphere as in the film Knowing? It would certainly put a crimp on global warming arguments. What if massive neutrino storms caused the earth’s magma to overheat, cause massive tectonic plate upheaval as in 2012?
I have been considering just this problem for the planet and the human race for a long time, in fact ever since I was a lad and they first invented the horseless carriage (what a day, I remember it well). Are we destined to progress as an intelligent creature only to be struck down by something we cannot defend against? In that case, if the answer is 42, then I still don’t get it.
In my science thriller, The Animus Portal, I have devised a character, Alexander Sergeyev, who is ostensibly dark, power hungry, and untrustworthy. But is he really? He is richer than Croesus, seems to have morals that reside somewhere south of Attila the Hun’s, yet there is something about his actions that seem strangely pro-human.
In this world we have seen unspeakable horrors; even now we are seeing atrocities in the Middle East rivalling anything Pol Pot or the Serbs could dish out; it seems that the only lessons mankind learns particularly well is how to finish off his fellow man, mass production being the ultimate goal. If you had enough money and influence to enable you to do anything you wanted, would your priority be to save mankind, even if you understood our baser and less worthy propensities? Are we worthwhile saving?
Like Alexander Sergeyev, if you did seek this goal, what would you do to achieve it? Would it involve indiscriminate mass death, or would you seek political approval and buy-in from all nations? Just how would you do it? Would you take steps to get the human germ (used in the proper sense of the word) to another planet or beyond the solar system? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Read “The Animus Portal” to discover one somewhat excessive approach to the problem.