Looking to religion rather than science

The thoughts of Phil Torres, writing in “Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks”, need to be thought about by those of us concerned about the impacts of climate change:

“Further complicating the situation, environmental degradation could positively reinforce the eschatological beliefs of religious people around the world. This is because many world religions prophesy natural disasters (as well as wars, disease, famines, and so on) to be harbingers of the apocalypse. Consequently, as the effects of climate change become more pronounced, a sizable portion of the 8 billion religious people projected to exist by 2050 may look to religion, rather than science, to make sense of the global crises around them.214 Indeed, such crises could even increase the number of religious adherents. This has happened many times before: e.g., the third-century Plague of Cyprian may have catalyzed the early rise of Christianity, since members of the young religion chose to “martyr” themselves rather than perish from the disease, making Christianity appear to be worth dying for.

Societal ethics and personal morality have important role to play

Climate change solutions are to be found in societal ethics and personal morality.

Much of the world’s existing market system is hierarchical and vertical with mitigation being almost wholly dependent upon a horizontal based system that is about collaboration, and gender equality.

UN climate boss Christiana Figueres says, in an RTCC story, that a climate deal must create an equal economy for men and women.

The story headed: “Christiana Figueres: Climate deal must bring gender equality”, she discusses her determination to put gender equality at the heart of efforts to tackle climate change.

Our climate worsens, but what do we do?

Human-induced climate change is acknowledged, an understood reality, we know its cause and yet, it seems, we don’t know how to respond.

Peter Singer.

Scientist, climatologist and experts of all stripes can explain in detail what is happening, why it is happening and what we can expect, but when asked “what can we do?” there is a rather alarming pall of silence that quickly envelops them.

Most, it seems, see the difficulty through a frame of reference that is about the maintenance of our present lifestyles, or at least something comparable.

There-in lies the first difficulty; an obstacle no-one appears able to get around or speak the words, at least if they want to escape the conversation with their reputation intact and not branded by the status quo multitude as a utopian-thinker unable to ground themselves in the practicalities of modern life.

 In fact it is the few, those able to see the realities of climate change, and its mitigation through a different prism, who are the ones who can see life without the blinkers of modernism and the limitations imposed upon them by the economics of the past two centuries, which have corralled our thinking to such an extent that it has coloured our political thinking and sacrificed human wellbeing on the altar of business as usual.

Listening recently to a panel of four at the University ofMelbourne discuss the implications of climate change; figures, numbers and the certain consequences were almost in free-fall, but were arrested with an abruptness that almost shocked when someone in the audience asked: “That’s all fine, but what do we do?”

A similar instance arose on Thursday night of last week (February 21) when three philosophers talked about “Morality and Climate Change”.

Theatre A at Elisabeth Murdoch Building at the University of Melbourne was filled to capacity as three philosophers, Peter Singer, Axel Gosseries and Jeremy Moss discussed the moral issues posed by climate change.

The 15-minute prepared addresses were smooth, as you would expect from the Director of the Social Justice Initiative and the Melbourne University, Jeremy Moss; a Permanent Research Fellow, Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS) Professor, at Belgians Louvain University, Axel Gosseries; and the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics University Center for Human Values Princeton University and Laureate Professor, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Peter Singer.

The question and answer session was lively, reflecting the sweeping, thoughtful and innovative presentations of the trio, but it was, again, that nagging and largely unanswered question of what do we do? that appeared to prompt a momentary hesitation.

But Singer, a fellow who never appears lost for words or an opinion that he can always articulate with a clarity and rightness that appears to derail instantly any argument that might challenge his view, not that he is an arrogant or pompous fellow for he is in fact quite the reverse, in that he is humble and prepared to listened quietly and attentively as others put their views.

Views expressed on Saturday at Victoria’s Sustainable Living Festival by strategic ideas fellow from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Chuck Berger, that we should be a pest in arguing for ideas that mitigate climate change, were echoed by Singer.

He wanted us to engage with ideas the eased the damage we were causing to our climate and be in a position to illustrate to our grandchildren what we had done to mitigate damage the sweeping damage to our environment that had led to the world they were living in was in a rather sad state.

Singer had many ideas, among them needing to change our diets as the “burps and farts” of the ruminant animals many humans enjoyed eating were one of the leading causes of climate change.

His views were many and reflected frequent arguments that each of us needed to do something, no matter how small.

An audience member asked: “Do we have an individual moral obligation to take action on climate change, but what do you think would be the most effective way of convincing people to do this – it’s the biggest problem in our society at the moment?”

In reply, Singer, who said he had no ambition to the giving all the answers as he was eager to hear what the other speakers had to say, said: ”I’m not sure that I really know the answer here – we’re a bit struck for things to do here, we have the standard political system and doesn’t really seem to be working to produce the change we need.”

Singer appealed to the audience for “any good ideas that might work” to solve what is an amorphous problem that is killing people at a distance.

Nature has plenty of time to resolve the difficulty facing humanity, but humanity doesn’t much time at all as people all around the world can point to dramatic changes in our weather and the smartest climatologists in the world can point to indisputable science that illustrates significant changes in the world’s weather patterns by 2050.

Understanding the ethics of climate change

Our June gathering Beneath the Wisteria will focus on the ethics of climate change.
What, we will consider, are the ethics surrounding a reasoned response to our changing climate; should it be driven by consensus or will the gravity of the situation demand an authoritarian, almost dictatorial response?

Any discussion about ethics can quickly become deeply philosophical and quickly grind to a non-productive outcome and that being the case, BtW supporter, Lou Cook, conscious of the potential difficulty, turned to the internet as a resource.
A Google search by Lou found the following:

Defining Ethics

If we expect to understand ethics, we must know exactly what the word means. Surprisingly, not everyone does. The words ethics, morality, and values are commonly confused with one another, perhaps because of their inherent overlap.

Values:
Our values are the qualities or ideas which each of us cares about and considers important. They can be morally or ethically based, or simply based on natural want or need. They can be good or bad, reasonable or unreasonable. Values are the elements on which we base our actions.

Morality:
Morality is one's individual perception of right and wrong, good and evil. While one's perception of morality does not directly affect others, it does influence the attitudes and values of a society.

Ethics:
The word ethics refers to a set or system of moral ideals. Just as it takes the thoughts and ideas of many people to make up an ideology, ethics are a product of society. Being so, it is not surprising that many ethical issues deal with the relationship between the individual and the group. It is in this area that the most change has occurred in ethics throughout time.

All those who plan to join us on June 30 Beneath the Wisteria in the Maude St Mall at 11:30am, are encouraged to think about values, morality and ethics and as Lou has done, research and hopeful bring an understanding of the term to the gathering.