Posted by
Arturick on Monday, March 10, 2008 4:09:13 AM
One of the common liberal lies about conservatives is that we are somehow pro-pollution. Yeah, we're all ready to get behind some corporation that wants to dump mercury into the local water supply. We LOVE mercury. In fact, the companies that have all that extra mercury could not even use mercury in their processes, but they use it anyway to please we conservatives who just adore mercury.
I'm drinking a thermometer as I write this.
Actually, we conservatives generally hope that the continued advance of technology will result in increasingly efficient ways to do stuff, and the forces of the free market will make those clean, efficient measures the economically preferable ones. You see, we have a great deal of faith in science and human progress, the things that "progressives," who want us burning candles and taking rickshaws to work, think we somehow oppose.
But, let's say that capitalist scientists, who thrive on concrete progress that they can sell for huge amounts of money, are wrong. Let's also say the apocalyptic cultists following the Goracle around are right. We can radically affect the global climate by lowering carbon dioxide emissions in ways that would not greatly affect our lives, and these changes are just being resisted by hidebound Republicans.
So what, exactly, are the ethics and implications of being able to control the weather?
Now, the internationalist Marxists, who seem to make up most of the Goreacle's followers, believe that we need to halt global warming "for the good of the whole planet." But, is it actually good for the whole planet?
Let's say, for example, that a climate alteration leaves much of the USA arid and swamps cities like Manhattan, but gives Canada a longer growing season and thaws out soil over rich oil deposits. Will Canada readily allow these positive changes to be halted for the benefit of the USA? What concessions could it demand from us in exchange for it's future national prosperity?
Alternately, let's say we achieve more than climactic detente. We begin reversing the trend of global warming. Now, as the Earth gets colder, China sees that the Gobi desert has stopped expanding, and could shrink with aggressive terraforming. However, continuing this trend means glaciers will begin sweeping over Moscow. Or perhaps China allows Russia to warm as it's population continues to shrink from low birth rates, and tens of millions of Chinese sweep illegally across the border.
Meanwhile, poor countries, which can't produce or reduce emissions enough to make a difference, are left at the mercy of the larger, industrialized nations to grant them famine or plenty.
If, in fact, palpable control of the weather is now in our hands, then only two results can come about: War or Global Tyranny
In the first instance, independent nations suddenly find themselves embroiled in a global war over a weapon potentially more devastating than nuclear weapons. Indeed, nukes become a viable option as nations tamper with forces that could inflict droughts that last centuries, devastating storms, or even an ice age.
In the second instance, unable to realistically deal with independent powers holding the climate hostage, a world government must be formed. The new global dictatorship then hands out climactic favors at a whim, and destroys nations that refuse to join the collective emissions program.
Attempting to cool the globe could ignite a firestorm beyond our imagionation. Now that's an inconvenient truth.