The Philosophy of Global Warming

If you are interested in the relationship between the human species and the rest of life on Earth, individual and collective human purpose, evolution, cosmology, the nature of reality, astrology, spirituality, and how all of this relates to global warming & the environmental crisis of modernity, then I am sure that you will like my new book 'The Philosophy of Global Warming'. In the post below I have provided the book description, the list of contents and the first two sections of the book. You can find out how to get hold of the book by clicking on this link:

The Philosophy of Global Warming

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

The Superiority of the Human Species

We live at a stage of the unfoldment of our Solar System in which it is fashionable to believe that the human species is not superior to the other life-forms of the Earth. In accordance with this fashion, I am sure that you will have heard people assert things such as "we are just one species among many", or, "there is nothing superior about the human species; every species of life on the Earth is unique or special in its own way", or, "the human species is a destroyer; so, if the human species were to go extinct then this would be a good thing for non-human life on the Earth".

This view is currently fashionable because we live at a time in which the human species is gradually coming face-to-face with the realisation of the magnitude of the changes that it has made to the Earth. This gradual realisation is a stage of unfoldment of our Solar System in which 'the human' is in a state of separation, of anguish, of isolation, of desperation. The purpose of the human species, our role as the precious saviour of life in our Solar System, has yet to be revealed, so we are left in the aimless wilderness of believing that there is no purpose, believing that we are just 'one species among many'.

Not only this, but we are currently abusing and murdering our fellow life-forms on an industrial scale, through such activities as vivisection, caging and factory farming. If we tell ourselves that 'we are just one species among many' how can we possibly simultaneously justify our actions in initiating such abuse and murder of those who are our equals? This is the paradoxically contradictory human situation in our current stage of Solar Systic unfoldment; this is the source of human anguish and desperation. We try and ignore the abuse and murder, we want it to be below the surface, we don't want to encounter it face-to-face; yet, it is tacitly accepted and simmers away below the surface where it eats away at our inner being.

Yet, this stage of Solar Systic unfoldment is an essential stage of Solar Systic unfoldment. It is not a pleasant time to be born a human; however, the age of the mass domination of non-human life by the human species is an age of euphoria for life. Life is in a blissful state when it has reached the exceptional modification ability that is represented by the form that is 'the human'. In reality, the human species is superior to every other life-form that exists on the Earth, and that has ever existed on the Earth; the 'human species' is the zenith of the evolutionary progression of life on Earth. The human species is the most precious and valuable life-form that will ever exist in our Solar System. Don't let any supposedly knowledgeable scientist tell you any different, because if they do, then they don't have a clue! Why this is so cannot be widely appreciated at our current stage of Solar Systic unfoldment. For, the achievement of our cosmic purpose necessitates that this is so. The widespread realisation of cosmic purpose arises in the age of the Spiritual Explosion which follows our current epoch - the age of the Technological Explosion.


Sunday, 31 July 2016

The History of Our Solar System

You will probably be aware that in my writings I provide an account of everything from the nature of the universe, the meaning of human existence, the processes through which everything evolves, and the cosmic role of the 'environmental crisis' and human-induced global warming. In this post I provide an excerpt from Chapter 4 of my book The Philosophy of Global Warming. The title of this chapter is 'The History of our Solar System'. Here is the excerpt:

The Earth has sustained life for most of its history. Life has evolved from simple beginnings to highly complex animals. Complex animals have evolved culture, and human cultural evolution has similarly evolved from simple beginnings to globalised technological society. Taking the Earth as a whole there is a continual evolution from the simple and unconnected, to the complex and interconnected. We are a part of this great unfolding and evolving process. You might have been told that the evolution of life-forms is solely down to natural selection and that humans evolved as a fluke. What a limited understanding! The evolutionary processes of life and of human culture are underpinned by cosmic forces. The Earth is the womb of Solar-Systic Life, but that life is propelled forward by the entire body, the entire Solar System. The development of a baby in the womb of its mother is not isolated from the actions of its mother. Similarly, the development of life on Earth is not isolated from the movements of the Solar System (as has been known by astrologers for a very long time). As the planets swirl through their orbits, life on Earth gradually evolves from simple beginnings to globalised technological society. Swirl, evolve; swirl, evolve; swirl, evolve. From the beginnings of the Solar System, the evolution of life on Earth, the evolution of the human species, and cultural evolution to the globalised technological society of today, was effectively ‘programmed in’. The formation of the Solar System can be compared to the programming of a ‘Sat Nav’ in a car; once it was formed, both the destination and the path to that destination were already largely determined.

Where does global warming fit into this picture? We have already explored the two different types of global warming. A fundamental part of the evolving Solar System is that as the Sun ages it sends out more solar radiation; the result is the global warming of the Solar System. This means that over time, as the Solar System ages, the planets closest to the Sun become increasingly hotter and even more inhospitable to life; whereas the planets at the extremities of the Solar System also receive increasingly more solar radiation, yet they still remain too cold for life to survive and thrive. There is only a limited temporal window in the unfolding of the Solar System within which non-human-induced global warming interacts with planetary location in order to enable the emergence, survival and thriving of life. In other words, the womb of Solar-Systic life comes into existence and then it either gives rise to a successful birth, or it goes through a painful abortion.

We have already explored how the Earth stored fossil fuels underground so that it could offset the global warming of the Solar System and thereby maintain the Earth as the womb of thriving life. We have also explored how humans have released a massive amount of these fossil fuels. It is best to think of this original process of storage as an instinctive, almost automatic, part of the unfolding ageing Solar System. In other words, the process didn’t require conscious knowledge or foresight of what was required to keep the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere hospitable for planetary life. This process is just what happens on a thriving life-bearing planet which is located in an ageing Solar System.


Tuesday, 19 April 2016

The Inevitability of the Extinction of the Dinosaurs

You might well be aware that some of my old colleagues at the University of Reading have been in the news recently because of their research into the extinction of the dinosaurs. You will almost certainly be aware of the idea that the reason that the dinosaurs went extinct was because of a meteor strike on the Earth. Those people who hold this view, a view which I have known to be false for decades, use it to draw the conclusion that the evolution of the 'human' was a fluke, because if that meteor had just missed the Earth then the dinosaurs would still be the rulers of the Earth and the 'human' would never have evolved.

If you have read my books, or previous blog posts on this site, then you will be aware that for years I have written that the evolution of life from simple beginnings to the 'human' is inevitable, and that 'fluke' events such as whether or not a meteor strikes the Earth make no difference whatsoever to this process, this inevitable evolution of the 'human'.

The opposite view, that evolution is directed by fluke, that if were not for that random meteor strike, that the dinosaurs would still be ruling the roost is still surprisingly common in the collective psyche. This is why the researchers at the University of Reading were so surprised by the outcome of their research, which is that the dinosaurs were well on their way to extinction before the meteor strike. The lead researcher, Dr Manabu Sakamoto, states that: "We were not expecting this result".

In other words, whilst doing the research the researchers had the belief that the dinosaurs went extinct because of a meteor strike! At least they are not so clueless now. You will see from the above link that their conclusion is described as "revolutionary". Well, not that revolutionary! Revolutionary suggests something utterly new. If you have been reading this blog since 2010 then you will have known since then that the extinction of the dinosaurs had nothing to do with a meteor strike.

The simple fact is that the primal forces which drive the evolution of life forwards to the 'human' are not affected by random events. As the Earth ages through time, there are stages of evolution through which various life-forms arise and fall away on the planetary and Solar-Systic journey towards the technological zenith that we call the 'human'. The dinosaurs had their time, their role in this unfolding process, and their demise had nothing whatsoever to do with a meteor strike,

This has been obvious to me, and hopefully to you, for a very long time. Despite the surprise of the researchers, there is nothing 'revolutionary' about this conclusion.


Saturday, 30 January 2016

The Goldilocks Zone

A few days ago I came across an article concerning the Goldilocks Zone in the latest edition of the New Scientist magazine. It is a terrible article. The author clearly has no idea what the Goldilocks Zone is, yet he has written an article about it which was published in the magazine.

The Goldilocks Zone is that part of a solar system in which life can survive and thrive. Life can pop up all over the place in terms of microbes, but if this occurs outside of the Goldilocks Zone then this life is doomed to a simple and relatively short existence; it won't be able to evolve into complex life-forms, it won't be able to flourish. For life to flourish it needs to be in the Goldilocks Zone, the segment of a solar system which is neither too close to the Sun (too hot for life to flourish), nor too far from the Sun (too cold for life to flourish). In our Solar System the Earth is in the heart of the Goldilocks Zone. The Earth is the womb of solar-systic life. The Earth is thus the only part of the Solar System which can bring forth complex life-forms like humans, dolphins and dinosaurs. Of course, life has popped up elsewhere in the Solar System, after all, life pops up wherever it possibly can. Indeed, the entire universe is continuously striving to bring forth life wherever it possible can. However, the existence of life in terms of microbes and the flourishing of life within the Goldilocks Zone are two very different things.

In the New Scientist article the author writes:

"What if the Goldilocks story is just a fairy tale?...It's entirely possible that the Goldilocks formula for habitability no longer holds water. Instead, perhaps we should be thinking of habitable worlds as more like raisins in a fruit cake - they can crop up randomly, almost anywhere."

('Where can life exist' by Joshua Howgego, New Scientist, 23 Jan 2016, p. 29)

The mistake that the author makes is to believe that if a simple microbe can exist outside of the Goldilocks Zone (he refers to such an existence, very grandly, as a 'habitable world'), that this undermines the very idea of the Goldilocks Zone. This is a fatal error. Microbes can exist all over the place in a solar system (like "raisins in a fruit cake") but this fact does nothing to undermine the reality of the Goldilocks Zone. The Goldilocks Zone is the only part of a solar system in which these microbes can evolve, thrive, develop and flourish into an amazing plethora of complex life-forms which come to dominate their home / host planet.


Monday, 14 December 2015

COP21: Why don't they want to stop global warming?

It is good to see that at the recent COP21 meeting in Paris that representatives from very diverse countries and organisations were able to work together and reach an agreement concerning addressing global warming.

What is not so good to see is the way that these meetings are dominated by 'group think' concerning the situation we are in. There is too much 'finger pointing', too much discussion of who is to blame, and too much discussion concerning how those who are going to be affected by future global warming are to be compensated for the negative effects that they face due to this global warming. This is accompanied by a rosy assumption that if global carbon dioxide emissions are gradually reduced over the next half a century, and we do nothing else, that everything will work out relatively okay. Of course, we know that this assumption is completely wrong.

Here is an example of this 'group think'. It concerns the UK's approach to global warming, as expressed by the international development secretary, Justine Greening, who attended COP21:

  • "Helping poor countries to go green and adapt to the effects of global warming is in Britain's "national interest" because climate change will render other countries unliveable, sending displaced people in search of new homes, she [Justine Greening] argues.  In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Ms Greening said Britain's commitment to spend almost £6 billion on overseas climate aid in the next five years was "the smart thing to do", because climate change could trigger refugee crises similar to that caused by the conflict in Syria."  ('Greening: Our choice is climate aid or more refugees' by Emily Gosden, The Sunday Telegraph, 6 December 2015, p. 18)

This is a widespread view: significant global warming is going to occur, many countries are going to be severely effected in a negative way, so lets give them billions and billions of pounds to help them deal with these negative consequences!

What we really need to see is a different way of thinking about global warming. Let us just focus on the type of global warming that is human-induced global warming (which is what they have been doing at COP21). This type of global warming is caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere due to human activity. At COP21 thousands upon thousands of people attended and effectively said, well yes, global warming is going to occur, so let us try and limit it if possible so that the consequences are not too severe. Instead of this, wouldn't it be nice if they said; 'why don't we stop global warming completely and do it now, over the next 12 months'. This is possible, if the will was there, and it has nothing to do with cutting carbon dioxide emissions!

Rather than spending billions upon billions of pounds dealing with the negative consequences following from global warming, we could be spending this money stopping global warming. That is surely more sensible. To stop human-induced global warming we need to have an atmospheric carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas target, just like the Bank of England has an inflation target. The Bank of England has a range of measures it can deploy to reduce inflation in the economy if the inflation target is breached, or looks like it might be breached. Similarly, if inflation is way below the target, then the Bank of England can implement measures which result in the inflation rate slowly rising upwards towards the target.

We need the same range of measures to maintain the atmospheric carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas target, and thereby avert any global warming. We need measures to both increase, and decrease the level of carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This means we need to be actively intervening on the planet in order to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Compared to sending humans to the moon, this is surely a piece of cake. Why don't we do it? Why don't we focus all our resources and energy on stopping global warming in its tracks? Of course, we will do this in the future (we will be using technology to regulate the atmospheric temperature in the future). But, why don't we do this immediately? It would save a lot of human suffering if we did.

There are a plethora of ways in which we can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in order to maintain our atmospheric carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas target. We can use human technology to directly pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere; maps have already been drawn up of the underground storage areas on the planet in which the carbon dioxide can be stored (as we saw in a previous blog post). We can cultivate massive seaweed farms to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. We can plant more trees. There are also a whole range of ways in which the way that we manufacture goods can be made carbon-negative rather than carbon-positive; for example, plastics and cement.

We need to be able to actively control the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through such measures. So, for example, if there are slightly too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, then we can immediately set the seaweed farms into increased production. In contrast, if the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere gets too low, then we can temporarily stop production from the seaweed farms.

There is no need to talk of future global warming, and no need for spending billions upon billions of pounds to compensate those negatively effected by global warming.There is no need for massive movements of global warming refugees. We just need to have the motivation and the drive to stop global warming. This won't be achieved by anything that was discussed in Paris at COP21. We need a completely new way of thinking about things, a new agenda, an atmospheric carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas target which we can attain through a range of globally coordinated measures. These measures will initially involve pulling a lot of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. This will mean that there is no future global warming.

We can only hope that this will be on the agenda at COP22. If not, they will once again be spending a lot of their time 'finger pointing' as to who is to blame for global warming, and spending their time discussing transferring billions of pounds to those countries who have either been negatively affected by global warming or who are 'developing'. They could, instead, change the agenda and decide to stop global warming through collective coordination in order to achieve an atmospheric carbon dioxide/global warming target! This can be achieved through the mechanisms outlined above.

Stopping global warming in this way is not a problem. The problem is changing the 'group think' and attaining a widespread realisation that stopping global warming in this way is necessary, possible and desirable.


Monday, 30 November 2015

The Insignificance of Humans

You are probably aware that as I write these words the leaders of many of the world's countries are in Paris for a United Nations conference on climate change (COP21). The sole focus of this meeting seems to be either countries making commitments to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions, or aiding other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

It is striking that all of the people involved in this conference (I assume that it is all, but at least the overwhelming majority), have a shared underlying view. It is such a common and widespread view that I am sure that you hear it on a regular basis. It such a widespread and common view that people just keep on repeating it, and it gets repeated so much that people just seem to automatically believe that it is true. When people utter this view they never, ever, seem to get questioned as to why they believe it to be true. Of course, this view is actually completely wrong! The view is, as expressed by Professor Martin Attrill from Plymouth University's Marine Institute, and concerning taking action to prevent man-made climate change:

  • "It's not about saving the planet - it will carry on quite happily when we are gone... It's about protecting society. If we don't check things within 50 years, then it will be a very difficult place to live in."      (Western Morning News, 29 November 2015, p. 7).

This view entails that the human species is totally insignificant as far as the planet is concerned. We are of no importance to the planet, to life on Earth, whatsoever. In other words, according to Professor Attrill, and all the people at COP21 who share this overwhelmingly dominant view, we are, as a species, a total waste of space and the planet will be happy when we are gone. How utterly clueless these people are!

Let us help these clueless people out a bit. The planet, specifically the planet as a life-bearing thriving part of the Solar System, would not "carry on quite happily" if the human species were to become extinct. This is the opposite of the truth. The human species, as the enabler of the technological birthing process, is the most precious part of the planet that has ever come into being. The future thriving of live, and ultimately its survival, depends on the continued existence of the human species. If the human species were suddenly to get wiped off the face of the Earth, then life would not "carry on quite happily". It would be a day of such great immense sadness, despair and depression for life on Earth, that we can barely comprehend the extent of this desperation; this day would be the death knell for life on Earth.

In the context of COP21, is the realisation of the planetary significance of humans important? Of course it is! If the planetary significance of the evolution of the human species in the context of the unfolding planet / Solar System is realised, then one will know that the deployment of technology to control the atmospheric temperature is an inevitability, and that it is a very good thing. If one comprehends the place of the human species in the unfolding planet / Solar System then one will also realise that the phenomenon of significant climate change (human and non-human) will not be averted by reducing fossil fuel emissions. So, focusing so much energy on this non-solution is a futile waste of energy.

Of course, fossil fuels will run out. by definition, so we do need to move to renewable sources of energy. However, this is a very different thing from believing that such a switch is a solution to the phenomenon of global warming, or global warming-induced climate change. Let me repeat this. As fossil fuels run out, the smooth operation of energy-intensive societies clearly requires renewable energy sources. Everyone knows this. The important thing to realise is that this switch is no solution to the phenomenon of imminent global warming and significant climate change. Not only is our planetary significance due to our ability to deploy technology to enable life to survive and thrive, but the only way to prevent significant global warming and climate change over the next 100-200 years is to deploy our technology to control the atmospheric temperature. Initially this just involves mastering the art of directly removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and returning them to underground storage.


Friday, 13 November 2015

The Conflation of Climate Change & Global Warming

You will probably be aware that there is an increasing trend for these two terms - climate change and global warming - to be used interchangeably, as if they mean exactly the same thing. Let me explain why this is slightly worrying.

Of course, both of these separate phenomena occur on the planet in the absence of human influence. Throughout the history of the Earth there has been global warming; indeed, the early Earth was too cold for life to thrive; there had to be non-human-induced global warming in order for the atmospheric temperature of the Earth to rise to a level at which life could thrive. Similarly, there has been non-human-induced climate change throughout the history of the Earth. There are obviously close links between these two phenomena - non-human-induced global warming being a partial cause of non-human-induced climate change.

In our current epoch these two terms are typically used to refer to human influence on the Earth, so let us focus on this influence. The phenomenon of human-induced global warming came to prominence in intellectual thought due to the realisation that the greenhouse gases that humans had released from underground storage into the biogeochemical cycles of the Earth, through the industrial revolution, would cause the atmospheric temperature to rise if they built up in the atmosphere to a significant extent.

The phenomenon of human-induced global warming struck many people to be a phenomenon which we should take very seriously. And these people are right.

There was possibly a worry that talk of global warming seems abstract and difficult, hard to get a handle on. The public at large might wonder how it would affect their daily life. So, talk switched more to human-induced climate change. Environmentalists like to talk about the climate changing because they can scare people: there will be droughts, there will be famines, there will be mass migration of climate change refugees, sea level rise will submerge populated islands!

So, nowadays, people typically use the terms interchangeably. Shall we talk of global warming? Shall we talk of climate change? Who cares, because they are really the same thing!

Let me explain why this is wrong; let me explain why this is worrying.

Humans can easily stop human-induced global warming. No problem, this is easy stuff. If the cause of human-induced global warming is a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which has occurred because humans moved things (fossil fuels) from underground storage, then stopping human-induced global warming simply means that we need to put these things back into underground storage. We are already know how to do this. We also know where it can easily be stored. No problem.

But humans cannot easily stop human-induced climate change. The human influence on the planet is so pervasive in a multitude of ways, and the climate system is so sensitive, that the climate will always be influenced to some extent through human activities (even if humans do not / did not cause global warming). There can be no doubt about this. This is just something we have to live with; something we have to expect and prepare for as best as we can.

The main lesson that we can learn from this consideration is that whilst we should prepare for inevitable climate change, our main focus should be on preventing human-induced global warming through returning greenhouse gases to underground storage. If we do this then there will be no major changes to the climate due to human activity; just the inevitable minor ones which we can live with and adapt to.

It is only if we do not do this that there will be significant human-induced global warming, and the very significant changes in the climate that will result from this.

As for the futility of attempting to deal with human-induced global warming through cutting fossil fuel emissions. What a total waste of time! But I have already written about this in many places already.