Through the Eyes of a Foreigner
By Andrew Engel
Are we MAD and is it time for MAS
Most readers will recall the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, so aptly abbreviated with the acronym MAD.
The central theory of deterrence during the Cold War, MAD postulated that the use of weapons of mass destruction did not result in victory but the total annihilation of opposing sides.
As neither the U.S. nor the USSR could survive a full scale nuclear war there would be no point in starting one. MAD was predicated on inaction. The threat of obliteration had to be credible and this was achieved by building stockpiles of nuclear warheads so large that no doubt was left about the result if things got started.
We all understood the gravity of the situation, the message was clear, the threat was self-evident. You would have to be mad to start a conflict. The doctrine worked, even though the peace it brought was uneasy.
Do you sense the same level of threat from climate change? I suspect not.
For a majority of the world’s population it is a subject the beats softly in the background. The talk of dire consequences and pending disasters fail to resonate or build a palpable sense of apprehension.
The grind of daily life and more immediate problems are numerous and serious enough to push threats to our climate to the back of a long queue. Moreover, for every dire claim made about the climate there is a counterview and a counterclaim, and proposed action comes at a cost that we hesitate or refuse to pay.
No wonder most people simply turn off. I suspect people’s apathy is as much as a case of overload, as it is lack of relevance. If you disagree on the apathy claim, there is a simple personal test: ask yourself if you have taken the time to study or even consider the scientific arguments?
*******
Are there correlations between climate change and the doctrine of MAD? Does MAD provide lessons which can benefit our understanding of this important global conundrum?
Maybe?
We would need to acknowledge that human annihilation, mass extinction or something near to that was more than possible, it was probable. A credible stockpile of evidence would need to be built to support the threat. But unlike MAD, a plan of action would also be needed to show that sacrifices were justified: that, inaction in this case could be catastrophic.
On the first parallel we must ask is mass extinction possible? Well there is no proof as far as the human species concerned. There are compelling arguments that many species will become extinct. It is suggested that 50% of current species won’t be here by the end of this century, consigned to history as a result of human activity.
Should the connection between plant and animal life break down and the food chain fail we can only guess what might happen. The inverse relationship between the loss of land and unsustainable population growth on the one hand and food security on the other is clear enough. The empirical evidence is that pressures of this type increase the risk of conflict as nations fight to protect their national interest.
As for a stockpile of evidence to support assumptions and predictions, our scientists are endeavouring to understand the signals, readings, climate history and the sciences involved so as to extrapolate the impact of climate change.
But they are dealing with inadequate data, and uncertain science. For every chilling conclusion reached there is debate, conjecture and outright disagreement. There is plenty to read on the subject but it will not provide a conclusive answer. It will, however, highlight the difficulties we face in attempting to predict what is coming.
So, is the supporting evidence sufficient to support the annihilation scenario? To over simplify the evidence we seem to have reached a stage that says:
Human pollution is causing the planet to heat faster than would otherwise be the case. We are starting to see the impact of these changes. We have strong evidence to suggest it will get worse unless we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our present scientific understanding of climate change is incomplete, but sufficient to take action. We don’t know what will happen to our species, but it is conceivable our very existence will come under threat.
Is that a credible threat? Well it is certainly not overwhelming, and it does not equate with the threat from massive nuclear stockpiles accumulated during the cold war. And that goes someway to explaining why a debate is raging.
So if the threat of annihilation can’t be made and our stockpile of information is incomplete what do we do?
Well, we argue, disagree, complicate, obfuscate, rationalise and take tentative steps to reduce the risk defined by most of the world’s leading scientists. Our action plan seems to be a slow move away from a carbon intense world, and a dawning realization that our rapacious tendencies can’t continue indefinitely.
Does MAD have a resonance we can learn from? As I said earlier maybe.
We are capable of being mad. That is, acting in a way which guarantees mutual assured destruction. Whether we can act in a way that guarantees mutually assured survival (MAS) is open to question.
A theory of MAS would say that unless we find a way to cooperate at all levels of civilization to do something and soon, to protect life on this planet; all that will be left for us to do is pray.
Perhaps you think that will be enough.
PS. This is my last article as I return to Australia in a few days. The discipline of putting thoughts to paper has been valuable in organising my view of the Philippines and has been motivated by a desire to see the quality of life for Filipinos improve. That hope remains strong and I will continue to watch developments from afar with your best interests at heart.
(Comment or contact Andrew at andrewengel.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment