“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. (1) Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all thought that one way or another.” These were the words uttered by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer (2) when he later reflected on the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico, executed on July 16th, 1945.
This test ushered in the Nuclear Age and its attendant fears and paranoias. I grew up in a time that the fear of atomic war was very real. The “boogie man” was constantly hiding in our closet or business in the form of Communism. This political ideology wanted to come and take away our private property and put us in prison work camps: pure nonsense. During this epoch, however, the terror was palpably real. There was an enemy that we could vilify – them; and there were the good guys — us. This adversarial system has served us well since time immemorial. It is what adumbrates all history: the study of the victor over the vanquished.
As a human population, however, we are now segueing into something more unique: global climate change. There will be no winners or losers — just life itself. However: in what form? We must first acknowledge that not all scientists agree that the environment is changing precipitously: is the transfiguration real or, for that matter, dangerous? One of the more interesting actors in this seemingly endless melodrama is Patrick Moore. An eloquent and intelligent man, he was one of the co-founders of Greenpeace International, (3) the environmental behemoth. He left the organization in 1986 and has since been, essentially, an outspoken critic of the concept of global warming. “In 2005, Moore criticized what he saw as scare tactics and disinformation employed by some within the environmental movement, saying that the environmental movement ‘abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.’ Moore contended that for the environmental movement, ‘most of the really serious problems having been dealt with,’ now seek ‘to invent doom and gloom scenarios.’ He suggested they (the environment movement) romanticized peasant life as part of an anti-industrial campaign to prevent development in less-developed countries, which he described as ‘anti-human.’” You may find this film quite edifying, though you totally disagree: The Great Global Warming Swindle — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg.
“On the other side of this debate are the findings of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (4) The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (2008) states with 95 percent confidence that ‘humans are the main cause of the current global warming.’ Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years.” (5)
Great! I have two questions: what does that mean for me and what can I do to change this? The simple answer is, “a lot.” Your environment footprint, though small, is existent. Continue to recycle and be as restrictive in your usage of plastic and non-recyclable goods. The big point here, I believe, is that we have to doctrinally adopt and promote one of two views: either a biocentric view (man is just a piece of the environment like bugs, birds or bees – the Gaia approach); or the anthropocentric view (man is the center of the universe – what I would label the Genesis approach, from the Old Testament of the Jewish and Christian Bibles). Most certainly, “change is in the air,” both physically and spiritually. Are we ready for a dramatic alteration of the way we live? The answer had better be, “yes.” Preparation means that you must philosophically build a world that you want to live in, perhaps a less consumptive, more reflective, world, etc. Change is always a good thing; it collapses old edifices and allows new life and new thoughts to flourish: the destruction of the Roman Empire did allow the blossoming of the Renaissance and man’s evolution as a being. The great thinker, philosopher and humanitarian Dr. Viktor Frankl (1905-1997) leaves us with a thought: When we are no longer able to change a situation – we are challenged to change ourselves.
A closing thought: We all exist in a paradigm, a model. We are now being asked to accept violence, in any form — as disgusting as it is – as within our field of understanding, as normal. This is from the knife assault on the Taipei metro to yesterday’s bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan. I disagree: This is not within the human blueprint. These perpetrators, whatever the excuse for their violence, are not human. They are some form of humanoid monster. I am an old man: I have known hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people. I have never met anyone or any “thing” that would destroy life in this way, whatever the justification. The Homo sapiens I know are kind, thoughtful, earnest and, yes at times, fearful. But, they are not Lucifer personified.
A small joke: One day I overheard two parents talking, John and Bill. John: “I have the perfect son”. Bill: “Does he smoke?” John: “No, he doesn’t.” Bill: “Does he drink whiskey?” John: “No, he doesn’t.” Bill: “Does he ever come home late?” John: “No, he doesn’t.” Bill: “Wow, I guess you really do have the perfect son. How old is he?” John: “He will be six months old next Wednesday.”
This week, please contemplate your readiness for change.
Every day look for something magical and beautiful.
Quote: One of the most difficult realizations, I believe, is that you can really make a difference in the world, no matter how small or large: it is your effort and your contribution that counts. As Osho says, “There are no heroes or cowards only action.”
Footnotes:
2) J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904 – 1967)
3) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
5)Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans?