The Climatic Prometheus

Today I found a very interesting map in the WWW, how Earth will look like, when average temperatures rise about 4 degrees Celsius or 7.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Let’s think big (theoretically) for a moment:

In the future cities and agricultural zones will be located in Canada, Alaska, Siberia, West Greenland and West Antarctica. Only a little bit remains in West Africa and West Australia. The arctic passage will be the most important trade route. Todays tropical and temperate zones will change to deserts: South Europe and South America will be deserts, USA, China and India will also be deserts, the Alps and other mountain regions will be ice free. Northern Europe, England and Russia will be the last remains of the historically relevant political and military powers. Raising superpowers like China and India will vanish as fast as they came. Canada will obviously not survive as a nation and will become somehow ‚New America‘.

(c) by Parag Khanna

For anyone who reads this map it becomes very fast completely clear, why India and China are strengthening their activities in space exploration, nuclear power and antarctic research. It also becomes clear why Russia is currently arming and pile up nuclear weapons as fast as they can. This behavior is very rational from the point of view of such a climatic scenario in some decades.

Some younger people (e.g. famous Greta Thunberg) obviously believe mankind could stop Earths next warming period by controlling industrial emissions. I’m not sure. Mankind is not that big and powerful as it usually thinks. There’s a lot of anthropocentric thinking behind such ideas. Yes, we have overcome anthropocentric thinking in astronomy and cosmology so far. But there are still complete scientific fields that are full of anthropocentric ideas. E.g. the biological origin of life – we still say the origin of life was on our planet Earth. That’s not rational. The chances for that are ca. 1:100000000 (the estimated number of earth-like planets in the galaxy) or rounded 0 (0%). The chances that life was coming via comets from other regions of the galaxy to Earth are therefor ca. 1:0.999999999 or rounded 1 (100%). But mathematics does obviously not count against anthropocentric wishful thinking. And therefor young people still learn in school: life started on planet Earth. That’s overwhelming stupid.

There’s also a lot of anthropocentric thinking in ecology. We still learn, that Earth is a closed ecologic system. That’s also not rational, because Earth’s ecosystem interacts very intensive (in huge time spans) with outer space. Life can survive billions of years when eggs or seed or other dauer-stages are frozen in ice that is thick enough (some ten meters) to keep radiation effects away from its DNA. All planets in our spiral arm of the galaxy are continuously exchanging higher life forms. Their ecosystems interact as a huge network and form together an open (not closed) interstellar ecosystem (please have a look inside my theory of interstellar ecology, if you like).

Let’s talk about resources and anthropocentrism: Many people tell us that natural resources are limited. From a very limited view this is true. For an anthropocentric person Earth is the only reference system he or she is able to think about. Therefor resources are limited to him or her. But when we raise our head in the middle of a clear night and look up to the sky what do we see? We see endless natural resources. We see  the Moon, planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, sometimes the tail of one of billions of comets in our proximity, we see shooting stars that transport every single day thousands of tons of metals from millions of asteroids to Earths surface. We see an endless number of stars with their own planet systems and moons and comets and asteroids. We can access practically endless amounts of resources in our solar system very easy (economical) by well known nuclear methods and means. But we don’t believe in our own eyes, we prefer to listen to the ecological theorists, those stupid theoretical anthropocentrists, who tell us it’s just impossible, because we will sit here forever, in the middle of the world: on our Earth.

Or think about climate research – here we observe very demagogic anthropocentric ideas in both directions (purely man made rise of the temperatures vs. god will always care for us and therefor we don’t have to care). Such anthropocentric philosophical opinions make rational discussions very hard at the moment. But anthropocentric thinking is just another name for stupidity and has always kept us consequently away from rational thinking during the history of mankind.

Anthropocentric people even invented a new Earth age: the Anthropozene. They continuously spread out their illness of megalomania. They think we have the power to destroy and even to heal (!) whole planets. In my opinion they have become completely mad. There was never so much anthropocentric philosophy spread throughout mankind than today. For example, there are people who strictly believe mankind manipulates climate. But only think once about the trillions of tons of released carbon when Siberias, Canadas and Antarcticas permafrost soils melt. Industrial emissions will be completely neglectable compared to this. Or think about the huge carbon dioxide cycles of Earth that have cycle times from thousands of years (carbonated ocean water) up to millions of years (sedimented chalk bed rock). Anthropocentric people really think we could manipulate those huge planetary systems by our carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions that are small compared to Earths mass shifting cycles and only exist for some decades. Decades are believed to have influence onto Earth ages! That is really, really, really, really stupid! – I just cannot believe it. But it’s discussed in the media every day, because even scientists have always been stupid enough to be anthropocentric (of course not Kepler, not Copernicus, not Einstein). The name ‚Anthropocene‘ actually means translated: the age of stupidity – especially of the people who use this name.

Anthropocentric people really say we can hinder the melting of the permafrost soils by mankind’s means. A little mankind, nothing more than a faint dust on the huge planet Earths surface is able to manipulate cyclic systems of planetary size. This is what they say! This is what they believe! But how can we have the power to stop Earths warming periods that regularly occur on average every 70 thousand years? We measured this ca. 800 thousand years back into climate history, so we are statistically quite sure that we are momentary at the end of a warming period of planet Earth. To believe we would manipulate and control those planetary processes is such an idiocy. I cannot believe that my colleagues can be that foolish! But they are.

Why not just accept the natural planetary cycles of warm periods and ice ages as they have ever been and therefor as they are today? They are actually the same natural cycles like day and night, like full moon and new moon, like summer and winter. The latter relatively small natural planetary cycles we have accepted that we are not able to manipulate them. But the much bigger and much lengthy planetary climate cycle of ice ages and warming periods we are discussing in the media: a) that we are able to manipulate them and b) how in detail we manipulate them. This is stupid. Please think about my comparisons for a minute.

The only chance we had to manipulate masses on planetary scale was in a far future by implementing massive nuclear power in the gigaton bomb range. Im talking about thousand times bigger than the biggest hydrogen bomb ever ignited (Tsar bomb). Regular detonations of such power could move some masses. Maybe we had a little chance to change climate by some terraforming activities (changing coast lines, building mountains like the Appalachian Mountains, removing some natural ocean barriers like Central America or Bering Strait). Maybe even this would not be enough to manipulate climate and would only be sufficient to manipulate daylight, the tides and the seasons. – Because gigaton bombs are still small compared to planetary energy release on a climate scale over Earth ages. But would we want to test this in a 70 thousand years enduring terraforming program? Would we want to become the Climatic Prometheus? The price would be for sure total destruction of nature as we know it. At the moment we are not able to destruct nature on planetary scale, because we as a humankind don’t release by far not enough energy and usually don’t plan technical projects over periods of Earth ages.

People like young Greta Thunberg actually do not rebel against nations, governments, companies or modern economics, because those cannot do anything against huge natural processes. – Just because those do not set free enough energy for such manipulations. People like young Greta Thunberg and her generation actually rebel against an age-old well known phenomenon: they rebel against nature. They revolt against the weakness of mankind compared to nature. They revolt against god. Young people like Greta Thunberg are the same Prometheus as young people have always been. Later in their life they will learn to accept their weakness. Those young people will learn to accept the natural cycles, they will even learn to accept the cycle of life and death, that they cannot understand as long they are young.

I love that little, angry girl. She’s the same Prometheus as I was in her age.


Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s