I never did comment on the following questions on global warming. Better late than never.
Another hot issue is Global Warming. Some make a good argument that this presents us with a real problem and others say that the scientists making such a claim are not real hard scientists, but activists with minimal science skills and that many good scientists say the evidence is not there.
What do you think? Is there a real problem or not? What will the true Aquarian think?
Even if there is no solid proof of such a problem, should we take preventive measures anyway?
How drastic of measures should we take?
Should freedom be sacrificed in the name of saving the world?
We received some good common sense comments on this. The basic problem with this issue is that one side presents evidence that there is global warming but then promotes draconian measures limiting the economy and freedom to prevent it.
The other side states that the evidence is non-conclusive but then promotes the belief that there is nothing to be concerned about and that we should do nothing unless there is concrete proof.
In my view neither of these approaches touches on the middle point of truth.
There is one thing that we do know for sure in this debate. Through the use of fossil fuels, mankind is releasing huge amounts of emissions which are very likely to create significant changes in the atmosphere and does present the possibility of earth changes. How great the change will be we do not know unless some type of true revelation is obtained on the matter.
One thing that is overlooked by many is that our atmosphere as well as the earth itself has been undergoing changes for billions of years. Millions of years ago our atmosphere was so different than it is today that if we could go back in time and breathe it, we would die. As our planet and atmosphere has made changes, life upon the earth has adapted to those changes.
What is different today is that man has power to cause changes to occur more quickly than at any time in our history. It is possible that we could evolve to accommodate our changes in atmosphere, but it is also possible that the changes are coming too quickly for safe evolution.
Logic does indeed then dictate that we are polluting the earth too quickly for safe adaptation, so what can we do - what should we do?
It would seem to many that we should follow the advice of the activists and do all we can do to restrict the use of fossil fuels and businesses that use them. It may seem that restrictive laws are in order - that the sacrifice would be worth the benefit.
Let me tell you why this path could spell disaster, not only for the economy and freedom of the world, but also the very environment they wish to save.
If the world economy, along with freedom, continues to grow throughout the world, then within 30-40 years we will develop alternative fuels which are clean burning and environmentally safe making the polluting fuels a dying item, no more to threaten the world.
On the other hand, if draconian measures are introduced to save the environment at the expense of destroying world economy as well as freedom, then the circumstances we need to make the scientific and business progress necessary to develop and promote safe fuels will not be available and 30, 40 and 50 or more years will pass away and we will still be polluting the earth as much as ever with fossil fuels. Thus the cure becomes one with the disease.
The anti-environmentalists present us with a similar problem. Most of them, to their credit do want the economy to grow and wan to allow reasonable freedom to all, but their problem is that they present few if any plans to develop safe fuels and save the earth from pollution. Instead they spend most of their energies fighting the "extreme environmentalists." Therefore, if they have their way the pollution of the earth will continue at an increasing rate and our fuel supplies will continue to dwindle.
What then is the solution?
The leaders of the world must present Middle Way common sense plans to save the environment yet at the same time assuring that the world economy continues to grow and freedom is not infringed. Governments must do all in their power to encourage the development of clean burning fuels with unlimited supply and provide an atmosphere of freedom and support for the coming innovations and crossovers to the new fuels.
If we can all just curtail our dogmatic points of view for a few years and just work as one people and drop the idea of protesting and destroying all who do not share our thought system, then in 30-40 years we can be on the path to a new environmentally friendly world. The results we produce are totally predicated on our free will. If we do not do our part successfully then the life of the planet itself will take measures into its own hands and cleanse itself through major earth changes. Where there is land there will be water and where there is water there will be land until the earth is purified and mankind begins anew with a fresh perspective.
The next principle to discuss is that of Will. What exactly do we mean by will in relation to God and man? What is the difference between will and determination?
Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved