"We are not used to imperatives. We are more accustomed to being offered a choice between alternatives. So the options can be expressed as if they were a choice.If, on the one hand, we choose to accept some quite severe privations in order to bring the levels of atmospheric CO2 down, we will certainly be seriously inconvenienced for a while, but we will survive (perhaps ingeniously finding new sources of energy), and there will be no reason why our grandchildren shouldn’t have a homely, habitable world to live in for the foreseeable future (and if, later, it should turn out that our caution was unnecessary, we might feel a bit foolish, but at least they would be alive).
If, on the other hand, we take no notice, if we choose to ignore the known likelihood and just go on more or less as usual. If we let life take its course as we make some gestures towards energy economy while continuing to pump up the CO2 concentration, then we should be able to go on being very comfortable, for a while. But if we do that there is a very real likelihood that most of our grandchildren will be dead or, if alive, will be vainly trying to find a way to go on living in a climatically explosive world that is inescapably on its way to chaos and death.
So if there is a choice, it is a straight choice between life and death, between the life and the death of the human race."
by dear Mr. Oliver Postgate may he rest in peace.
The complete article: http://www.oliverpostgate.co.uk/archive16.html
Cheers,
k.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder