Discussion of the continuum of time is fascinating to me. It is probably one of the reasons that I have been so drawn to physics and astronomy as "down time" reading in my life. In my last post I referenced the variability of history; that is, none of us
really know what happened in the past, unless we experienced it directly. Even then, studies have shown that people's perceptions of what happened
to them are often times inaccurate even minutes and hours after the event, let alone years after. This is how you end up with two people who were present at the same event remembering vastly different things. History is "set" in that it has happened, but it is very dynamic in terms of the ways it is interpreted, not to mention remembered (consider, for instance, the way that Dwight Eisenhower's Presidency is viewed at the present time (average at best) compared to how it was viewed twenty to thirty years ago (exceptional)).
Today, however, I want to look the other way, to the future. This post is inspired by two books that I recently read. The first book is
The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon by Brad Stone. The second book, also referenced in my last post, is
But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past by Chuck Klosterman. Both books were good reads, although I would more strongly recommend Stone's book on Amazon and Bezos if you are looking for more accessible, easy reading. Klosterman's book was one that I found alternatively plodding and fascinating, (seemingly) depending largely on which chapter I was reading and if my mind was in a place to contemplate deep thoughts. Ultimately, however, both books were enjoyable in their own ways.
The topic of this post, however, isn't to give you a book review. It is, instead, to springboard off my last post's discussion of the past, and look a bit towards the future. Klosterman's book does this quite a bit, but there was one topic he touched on, ever so briefly, that got me thinking. Towards the end of the book Klosterman, for the first time, touches on the subject of climate change/global warming*. He notes that as he wrote the book and discussed its' premise people would often ask him if he was going to tackle that subject. Klosterman explains:
"Now, I elected not to do this, for multiple reasons. The main reason is that the Earth's climate is changing, in a documented sense, and that there is exponentially more carbon in the atmosphere than at any time in man's history, and that the rise of CO2 closely corresponds with the rise of global industrialization." ~ Klosterman, pgs 239-240 (emphasis is the author's)
Now, Klosterman first tackles this topic in his book by saying he didn't see the need to tackle it because
the science is settled**. Klosterman isn't a scientist, so how can he say this? Well, he can proclaim this, I would guess, because nearly
every reputable scientist in the world, regardless of culture, religion, political affiliation or anything that typically divides individuals, says that it's real. To just note a few things, I would send you to
Slate's Bad Astronomy blog, authored by Phil Plait. Plait writes about all sorts of things, including amazing pictures of the universe which give me (and should you too) a real sense of how small and insignificant we all are. But Plait also does a great job of bringing the reality of our terrestrial existence to the table along side looking up to the skies. And the research he writes about
isn't pretty folks. Now, here's the kicker. Not only does nearly every reputable scientist in the world agree that this is happening, and that it is bad, but
so does the majority of Americans. That's right, over 60% of Americans, as of March of last year, worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about climate change/global warming.
Now, that still leaves less than 40% of the population in this country that doesn't worry that much about it. My wife would likely fit right into that 40%. She does, however, acknowledge that climate change/global warming is real, and likely a big issue. She just doesn't worry too much about what tomorrow will bring, let alone 40 years from now ... let alone 400 years from now. She's an "in the moment" person. That doesn't mean that she doesn't care; she is in favor of green initiatives, and supports a clean environment. It just means that, as the Gallup question was worded, she'd fit into the group that doesn't worry about it either a "great deal" or a "fair amount." And I think that not only is that fair, I suspect that a good number of the people in that 40% would fit into her category: agree that it's real, agree it's an issue, not super likely to impact me in my immediate future so I don't worry about it, but I'll do what can to combat it.
So add that up, and I would imagine that you'd have (at least) over 80% of Americans who a) believe climate change/global warming is real, b) believe it is a problem that we should do something about, and c) over 60% of them are worried enough about it to worry a "great deal" or "fair amount" about it. (I am assuming that the 60% plus who worry that much also believe in points A and B, but I think that makes logical sense). Even if it isn't exactly there, even if it is around that ballpark, that's a tremendous majority of people. How often do we have roughly three quarters of our society in agreement on
anything? The problem, of course, lies in
who constitutes the remaining 20-25% of people.
These are the people who deny that climate change/global warming is real, or believe it may be real, but it isn't a problem and is
solely just a normal part of Earth's existence so we can't do anything about it. And, amazingly, there seems to be a hugely disproportionate number of people in the US Government who fall into this 20-25%. They are, disproportionately, Republicans, which is somewhat ironic given the fact that the GOP positions itself as the party of national defense, and climate change/global warming is almost unquestionably one of the most imminent
dangers to our national security. (Please take the time to click on that link; it isn't long, but it gives you a good understanding of the complexities of this issue). The GOP likes to hark on the dangers of a nuclear North Korea, Russia (well, this President Elect not so much), ISIS, and the possibility of a nuclear Iran, but it by and large
blatantly ignores a coming disaster which is many times more certain to impact our country.
A nuclear North Korea is nothing to ignore; it is potentially dangerous, and certainly takes a great deal of political nuance and energy to maintain safely (or, at least, it should). But, right there, you have the difference: North Korea is
potentially dangerous. We can debate the level of that danger, but it is a possibility. Climate change/global warming is as close to a certainty as you can have. We could destroy ourselves before it comes to pass in a way that does it for us, but if we don't start taking it seriously and working to counter its' effects, then it is all but guaranteed to end our way of life, at least as we know it. Ignorance regarding climate change/global warming, a refusal to acknowledge it is real, and a refusal to support efforts to counter it/lessen it should be viewed as placing our national security at significant risk. And we have an incoming administration that, by all signs thus far,
is going to do all of those things.
That, finally, brings me to the second book, by Brad Stone about Amazon and the company's founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos. One thing that stuck out to me in the book, among many things, was that Bezos so clearly seems to have been driven to take advantage of the internet to change the way that goods are provided to consumers. He did this to build a huge company with huge value and, ultimately, huge profits. And he did all this, seemingly, to push an agenda. That agenda, one could very realistically argue, is Blue Origin. That company, driven by Bezos's personal fortune, is striving to take humans to space, to explore space, to build a future in space, and ultimately, to survive in space and in other places away from here. Bezos, of course, isn't the only insanely rich person to have this goal. Richard Branson, of Virgin Galactic, and Elon Musk, of SpaceX are both in hot pursuit of similar goals. The common strand between these three men, of course, is their vast fortune. According to Forbes, Bezos heads the trio with an estimated worth of $45.2 billion, with Musk coming in with an estimated worth of $10.7 billion, and Branson's net worth a "distant" $4.9 billion. Within these three there is a huge variance of net worth; Bezos is reported to be the fifth richest person in the world, with Musk the 94th most wealthy and Branson ranking number 286. But these are three
billionaires we are talking about, and they are using their wealth and resources to push for the skies.
You don't become a billionaire accidentally, unless you're born into it. For those who build and maintain that level of fortune, competition is a common thread. Bezos is famously competitive, pushing Amazon to higher and higher levels of productivity, striving to become the everything store. I haven't read books about Musk or Branson, but what little I have read in different articles indicate they are much the same. But being competitive alone isn't enough: you must also be a visionary with the ability to evaluate the current environment, project what is likely to come next, and a fortitude to gamble that your projection of what the future holds is going to be right.
Amazon started as an online bookstore, but, based on the book, it was never intended to be that. Bezos drove the company with a goal of being a store for everything, first, and then a technology company, second. But, ultimately, he drove it so that he would have the resources to push to the next frontier: space. He bet big on Amazon by betting that the internet was not a fad, and would, in fact, revolutionize everything about commerce. He was right. He bet big on the concept behind the Amazon Kindle, betting that although earlier e-readers had failed, people would read on a tablet rather than on books alone. He was right. He's not always been right, but you don't become the fifth richest man in the world by being wrong. He's been right most of the time. He's betting on space; the question is why?
And that, ultimately, brings me back to the concept of the future, by way of global warming, and, really, by way of the certainty that mankind will be annihilated. Because we will, no doubt about it, if we stay on the Earth alone. It could be climate change/global warming; betting on that would be like betting on a low yield, safe bond option, because the outcome is pretty likely, it's just a matter of time. It could be a nuclear holocaust, which is more unlikely than climate change/global warming happening, but would be clearly devastating to humanity and the Earth in general. It could be any number of things. The aforementioned astronomer, Phil Plait, wrote a book entitled
Death From The Skies, in which he describes the various ways that the earth could be destroyed or, at least, the ways in which mankind could be annihilated, including asteroid impact, gamma ray bursts and, an absolute certainty, the sun expanding as it reaches the end of its' life cycle. The point, at the end of the day, is this: the Earth will be destroyed, or at least humanity will be ... we just don't know when. It could be relatively soon (a gamma ray burst could hit from
Eta Carinae at anytime, at least cosmically speaking***), it could be at the end of the Sun's life cycle (roughly 4.5 billion years from now according to best estimates). It could be any point of time in between. But it will happen.
Pushing more carbons into the atmosphere to accelerate climate change/global warming just increases the chances that humanity's end will be sooner, rather than later. It's all probabilities, but I think it's at least something we should be insisting that our leaders take seriously and discuss. President Obama put it best, in his farewell address, when he said (I'm paraphrasing) that this is something we should be debating a response to, not debate about the legitimacy of. Unfortunately, we are clearly stuck in the latter debate, not the former.
So, anyway you cut it, we're screwed. It's just a matter of if we are trying to delay the inevitable or stare down the barrel of ye old gun and say "bring it on." Now, as I bring this post to a close (at least I think I am; way too long again - sorry to my 1.75 readers out there), I have to note one thing: I am, clearly, leaving religion out of this. My religious beliefs are powerful, very meaningful to me, and personal to me. I'm not looking to use this space to push them out to the interwebs, although I'm happy to share them with anyone who asks. But one thing, regardless of your religious beliefs, that is pretty evident is that even to those people who believe in God, believe in the afterlife, and believe in the religious end of the world: none of us really know when it is going to happen. The best we can tell (again, history it is a flawed thing) the Apostles really, truly believed Christ would be coming back in their lifetimes. The next few generations of early Christians did the same. Somewhere along the line that thinking went to "well, it'll happen sometime." I draw comfort from the idea that their is an end game to all of this; I am just not rushing to bring it on through our own actions, or inaction as the case may be. Put another way: if the rapture were to occur tomorrow, I could live with that. But if it wasn't supposed to happen until the year 5297 AD and we, instead extinct ourselves, mostly or entirely of our own doing, in 2297****? Well, that would be a shame, even if I was long enough gone to be blissfully unaware of it.
It probably feels like this has been a pro climate change/global warming science post, but that's honestly not my point. Here is my point: we have to work hard to create the future we want. Yes, that includes working hard to figure out ways that we can slow the rush towards sea levels rising, sea life dying, and weather getting more extreme (to name a few things that plausibly can/will happen via climate change/global warming). But I've already established that I believe, firmly, that science has given us enough evidence to believe that life on this planet will not endure; there are too many variables in the universe above for that to be the case. Because of that, working hard to create the future we want involves people beyond Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Richard Bronson getting on board with the idea of space travel. We, as a species, need to diversify our portfolio. We are continuing to put all our eggs as a civilization in the basket of space ship Earth.
For the overwhelming majority of our existence that was the only option we had. Only in the last 50 years, plus or minus a few, have we had other options. Unfortunately, ever since the end of the Apollo program our collective push towards this has been neutered, and that leaves us woefully dependent on the foresight of a few rich individuals to push the agenda. I talked to a person the other day who legitimately looked at me and said that they thought NASA had been completely shut down years ago. This was a very intelligent person who is focused on the here and now, and doesn't think about space. That's how far our own space program has fallen out of the common discussion. That's sad.
If we want to make the future of mankind even
possible, then it is time for us as a society to do what we can here to keep perfecting our imperfect existence and to protect this planet, because right now it's all we've got. Simultaneously we need to be pushing hard towards the next frontier, because without the ability to travel comfortably within our solar system, semi-easily to other star systems, and to terraform anything remotely close to workable (Mars would be a good start) ... well, the future is pretty bleak. We have to think beyond our own lifetimes, and the lifetimes of our children and our children's children. To this day we read the works of Plato and Aristotle, we talk of Christ's life over 2,000 years ago, and I think the majority of people just assume that what we (as a society) do today will be reflected in 2,000 years by our ancestors. But we've been on this Earth, as a species, for the blink of an eye on the cosmic timeline. It stands to reason that we could disappear from the cosmic timeline in the blink of an eye as well. If we don't take an active role in figuring out how we, as a people, will get there ... well, if we don't start working hard on it let's just say that I don't like our chances as a civilization. And the thought that all we've accomplished as a species would just go *poof* in large part due to our own inaction and lack of resolve? That's a really, really sad thought to me. So I'll keep buying from Amazon because it has the best deals, but I'll be even happier to do it believing that I'm helping, indirectly, to fund Bezos in his push towards the future of space travel, and his attempts to improve the viability of our species, civilization, and society. The future will not come easily, but nothing in life worth having does.
* Throughout this post I will generally say "climate change/global warming." That is intentional. Both US political parties are guilty of trying to politicize this issue, and the terminology used is a part of that. I, for one, believe that we should push our governmental representatives to depoliticize this issue, so I am going to use the terms interchangeably. It doesn't matter which you choose, at least to me. Just be responsible for learning the facts of this, and for pushing a pro-survival (as in, pro humanity surviving) agenda.
** Later in the two plus page section on this topic, Klosterman has an even more insightful take, when he says of the climate change/global warming debate that "(t)here is no intellectual room for the third rail, even if that rail is probably closer to what most people quietly assume: that this is happening, but we're slightly overestimating - or dramatically underestimating - the real consequence." What Klosterman says here is, in my estimation, extremely true, extremely dangerous, and extremely indicative of our times: as a society America has polarized on any number of issues to the point where the isn't a middle ground. Either you are a climate change/global warming believer (and, accordingly, a liberal hippie who is functionally a lemming), or you are a denier (and, accordingly, a small minded conservative who, is also, functionally a lemming). The middle ground is vast and has room for people who believe that climate change/global warming is real, but not as driven by man as by the natural functions of Earth's geological cycle, as well as people who believe that the Earth is doing its' thing but that man is exacerbating it, perhaps exponentially. I'd probably fit into the latter category. The best defense of the former category I've ever read was written by the late Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear." His argument is located in Appendix I, under the header "Why Politicized Science Is Dangerous." Crichton notes the dangerous nature of politicizing science through the example of eugenics. He then makes the connection to climate change/global warming, while specifically noting that he is "not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities (in the debate) are not superficial." Crichton's main point is to argue that the real argument about the data is being suppressed by the consensus, and that "any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression." For evidence, he points to the fact that the loudest opponents of climate change/global warming were retired professors who had little to lose (at least to that point; Crichton passed away in 2008 and "State of Fear" was published in 2004. Needless to say, to quote Stanley Goodspeed, "Kind of a lot's happened since then.") I don't fully agree with Crichton, but one point, made in the book proper, does ring somewhat true in my opinion: mankind has a way of glorifying its' own role in things. I have little doubt, based on what I've read, that climate change/global warming is real, and that man is a major contributor to the warming curve. I also have little doubt, based on what I've read, that the Earth would be on a warming upswing, even if we never existed in the first place. That is what makes the lack of the third rail in this debate so damning in my estimation.
*** Although if we don't have the horror of a GRB when Eta Carinae goes boom the supernova will go from being the (likely) end of humanity to a really amazingly cool thing to see in the sky! No reward without major risk, am I right?
**** So 2297 feels insanely far out there, right? And 5297? It seems like fantasy, pure fantasy, for most of us I would imagine. But here's the deal: it is now 2017, which means that 2297 is a mere 280 years from now. 280 years ago (1737) doesn't really feel that long ago if you're a student of history. Benjamin Franklin was alive (he was born in 1706; he was even married 280 years ago). So was George Washington (he was nearing his 5th birthday 280 years ago today). But what about the other number? 3,280 years seems like a long time, even for me, a student of history. Through dumb luck (because I did pick these numbers at random) 3,280 years ago was 1263 BC, which is the date commonly cited regarding Moses leading the Israelites from Egypt. In other words, the Exodus occurred roughly 3280 years ago. The point in this, of course, is to point out what's happened in human history as a point of reference for how long ago "today" will be for our distant relatives in the future. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out, however, that on the scale of Earth's history (let alone the universe's history) 3,280 years ago is less than a blink of an eye. The Earth's history is roughly 4,500,000,000 years long, so, yeah, 3,280 doesn't really factor in. And that timeline (roughly 4.5 billion years old for the Earth) is very widely accepted... unless you are a strict creationist who believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But if you believe that there are probably a number of things you'd disagree with me on, including the entirety of the premise of this post, the last post, and probably most of my posts. In fact, you very likely wouldn't have even made it down to this fourth footnote. Either way, this digression is officially over.
