The Box, and how it relates to climate change

Published January 7, 2017

In America, the left extremists seem to want us to know that disasters from climate change are imminent, irreversible consequences of our grotesque misuse of earthly resources, while the right extremists seem to want us to know that anything related to climate change reaches far beyond capabilities of the inhabitants of one planet of one solar system of an entire host of galaxies.

All right, maybe neither of those exaggerations is valid, but climate change is a source of much tension, particularly between opposing beliefs. What is true, regardless to which side of the argument you lean, is that climate change has nothing to do with politics.

Sure, climate change is a big issue for politicians, but I imagine that’s just to gain more of a following for their campaign or their political party. It’s not as if a looming disaster will spare members that lean more toward a donkey or an elephant.

Grandiloquent and far from orotund, my verbose rambling is intended to lighten the intensity of the subject matter. And, yes, I had to look up every word over 6 letters in that last sentence.

I could probably go into a ton of math to support either side of the climate change argument. There are people much more knowledgeable and convincing than me — scholars — that sit on either side of the battlefield. If I tried to emulate any of their arguments, “I would probably be a fish out of water,” (Lang, p153) gasping for breath while none of those scholars would pity me enough to throw me back into the ocean of anonymity as they pick apart my imitations.

It doesn’t have to be what it is. It doesn’t have to be a polar divide (sorry if that pun came off insensitive). If each side has ulterior motives centered in greed, I would venture a guess that those purveyors aren’t reading up on books that can show how flawed their thinking is, books such as: The Holy Bible, and The Noble Qu’ran, The Upanishads, to name a few. And I doubt any atheist scholars on climate change get reprieve here. On my small Twitter reading list, there are many secular titles that denounce greed and the divide that exists because of it. And my reading list compared to the number of books in existence is miniscule.

If greed is the reason for the season of global warming predictions, predictions that seem to have been around since the 70s, then I’m ashamed to be part of the human race. If the consensus (which doesn’t mean it’s unanimous) is that our human behavior has affected things nearing the point of no return, and it’s all a fabricated story to convince the masses, I don’t need that stress.

Having said that, the predictions on climate change are very concerning, particularly those that say we won’t be around to see 2030 (not a typo). As you know, I don’t discuss climate change in The World from Outside Its Box. I do tend to lean more toward the liberal side. (I can still acknowledge politics took sides, although climate change has little to do with that). My favorite books are on neuroscience topics, books about how we think. And climate change, if real, is so massive, so distant from any one person’s individual identity, that it makes complete sense to me why many refuse to even read a book on it.

I will never say something is right because it’s written in a book. Take The Bell Curve for example. The authors argued there was a significant difference in the intellectual abilities of different races because of the race, and science now claims race is nothing more than a social construct, something we humans invented. Big oops, bell curve authors. But, for the most part, books are valuable assets to the human condition.

There are published books on climate change being real, and published books on climate change being a hoax. I think the best bet is to read multiple books from both arguments.

CLIMATE CHANGE! This isn’t race we’re talking about; this is something that isn’t tied to another humans’ identity. (Although we humans invented the concept of race, the US Census still tabulates it by voluntary information, which means we still identify with the made-up concept.)

Sure, climate change can affect another humans’ identity (victims of disasters), but why concern ourselves with that when Netflix just released the newest season for our favorite show.

I understand race and climate change are separate concepts, but I believe the medium to unity, communication (with books being communication between reader and author), is the key to bridging the divide for both (as well as for religion, biases, and human flaws), and once we start to see how much education can be had by reading, the number of Netflix shows we schedule on our calendars decreases substantially.