.jpeg)
Both present and future generations of human beings cannot escape from the concept of climate change. It has become a part of our every-day life; a status quo; a field of research; corporate slogan; a 'money-maker', and even propaganda. The concept, whether it is 'false' or 'true', doesn't interests me; what interests me is why we, as a species that inhabits the Earth, are concerned about it.
Some of the popular themes associated with climate change include global warming, melting of glaciers, disappearance of rain forests/ habitats, rise of sea level, extinction or endangering certain species etc. The list seems to expand by the day.
So, what if elephants extinct tomorrow? What if more rain forests disappeared? Why we, as human beings, should care for them? Why 'we' need to prevent these? Is it because we believe that we are responsible for them? Or is it because we think that we are the only species that can do something about it? Does that mean we are the 'saviour(s)' of this planet - a task that some of us believe only 'the creator' can do? For me, this is nonsense!
Yes, according to 'the scientific evidence/ knowledge' all these are true, and only humans have the solution to this problem. However, 'the scientific evidence' as a sub-set of 'human knowledge', has the same weaknesses that we (humans) have. It holds human knowledge as the ultimate truth in the universe, thereby, making humans the superior species of planet earth. In doing so, it fails to recognize that humans are just another part of this 'system' (I like to see it as a process instead of a system). The scientific method trains us to see the world objectively as an ‘impartial observer'. Technically, an impartial observer does not have any attachment and is fully detached from the system that is being observed. This means that we are trained to look at our surroundings as “us and them” mindset, instead of the contrary. For me, that is where I see a fundamental flaw in what is commonly perceived as the 'concept' of climate change.
In this sense, if you decided to reject the 'concept of Climate Change', and continue your lifestyle, it is human nature to do so. If you think you can contribute to 'save the world', and decided to act on it, it is also human nature. 'Human nature' is a sub-set of the 'Nature’ itself – ‘Natural Process' (system). Hence, what we do as a species as a whole, inevitably, forms a part of this process. The most intriguing feature of this process is that it is never static, whether humans 'cared' for it, 'destroyed' it, 'exploit' it. We, as an 'intelligent' species who desire to apprehend knowledge 'objectively', will always recognise a 'particular state' in this process. Based on what we can and our technology allows us to, see, feel, hear and sense, we may label it with different concepts (creating knowledge).
Hence, if elephants were to extinct tomorrow, they would be 'extinct' in the eyes of humans. Another species (may be a new species) will take their place in the Natural Process, just as it was with dinosaurs.
If elephants face extinction tomorrow, it will be a 'loss' for humans; if we could prevent it, it would be an 'achievement' of humans.
It would not matter to the Natural Process one way, or the other. Simply because, it is a part of the process, and so does human's feelings (human nature) towards these phenomenon.
So, why are we actually concerned about the concept of Climate Change? I think the answer to that question holds the fundamental reasoning for its popularity. Climate change is and will be the greatest challenge for human existence on the Earth. Humans will do everything in their capacity to overcome this challenge. Present evolutionary status of humans resulted in their ability to change the environment that they lived in. What we understand as climate change will be another 'phase' of the natural process, which will test our capacity to survive (whether you want to call it 'saving planet earth' or 'survival of the fittest' or ‘search for alternative planets’). So, whether you reject claims of climate change phenomenon, or actively fight for the environment, it is for human survival.
We want to prevent elephant extinction, for 'our' survival; because 'we' care for the environment; it is 'our' attachment with the environment that matters, which is in a way a selfish cause.
If this is a matter of human existence, there should be equal opportunity for each human being to survive this phenomenon. After all, it is human nature to do so. We can question then, does every human being has equal opportunity to survive effects of climate change? How could one individual’s actions or lifestyle cause another one to suffer the consequences?
Human beings experience impacts of climate change on daily basis. It is not something they can manage locally. It is for the sake of human survival that we should collectively act; not for a utopia where every living being would thrive. This may sound brutal, but, according to what we believe, humans should survive first to care for other species or the environment, isn’t it?
Unfortunately, I don’t see a happy ending, even with this approach. On one hand, as long as territories, beliefs, and attachments divide us, we will not have equal opportunity for survival. On the other hand, if we did, it would only lead to further expansion of human population on the planet. The Natural Process has mysterious ways of regulating growing populations—as we call it ‘maintaining the balance’. Either human species will completely extinct, or only the ‘fittest’ will survive. People may call this is as ‘Armageddon’ ‘The End’ of the world or time. After all, it is ‘The End’ in the eyes of humans; it is just another ‘phase’ of the Natural Process.
*Note: my own original article on linkedin (B. Kanishka Guluwita)