 There are scholars who believe that the most effective in saving Earth from the devastation would be undemocratic systems. British biologist James Lovelock won fame by promoting the hypothesis that the Earth's ecosystem is more than just the sum of the elements making up on him: forests, animals, water. Indeed, the Earth is alive s, capable of subtle self-regulation to ensure the continuity of biological life. In the XXI century Gaya (the name given by the Lovelock system itself) will be forced to a radical adjustment to protect against the harmful effects of environmental and climate change, caused largely by human activity, says the scholar.
As a result of global orders by the end of the century the Earth will survive no more than a billion people. According to Lovelock, it must be reconciled with that, because you can already do so little faith that people can stop the negative (for them) a change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is illusion. British frightening comes easily: it has posted a capping his achievements of the current book "The Vanishing Face of Gaya" (the face of disappearing Gaya) in July and ends 90 years on the list of things to do yet is only a major undertaking: a flight into space. The catastrophic vision is one of the main arguments in the debate about the future, which advocates use of radical action to protect humanity against ecological disaster on its own request. Recognize that it is not enough to go from the current economic crisis, repairing the world economy through traditional means, namely the back consumption. They have a right not only because of the risk of potential disaster. Carefree way of life that the world at the turn of the XX and XXI century, is simply not sustainable for economic reasons. Just that the factory will start working again, to meet growing demand, and prices of raw materials back to the lift of the sky levels as in 2007 and 2008, returned to old problems, chief among which is the fight for access to a shrinking resource , of the spectrum of armed conflict on basic goods such as water. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the legendary Parisian revolt 1968, today one of the leaders of the European Greens, in the title of his latest book ask the question: "What do I do?". What to do to save the future, without losing the most important achievements of Western civilization, freedom and democratic governance? Is it possible to voluntary changes in lifestyles, moving away from the irresponsible ? And even if, such a transformation is the same free market capitalism survive? What will drive it, when people begin to consciously buy less? Do not Ugni, as forecast its critics under the weight of its own contradictions? Such questions take longer during the period 70. German philosopher Hans Jonas. In the book "The principle of responsibility" came to the rather applications. In their study assumed that current human activities should be accompanied by concern for future generations, we do not have the moral right to curtail their opportunities for good life, maximizing your enjoyment today. The principle of accountability is now reflected in the principle of sustainable development. After lengthy analysis, however, Jonas came to the conclusion that the best implementation of the principle of accountability systems encourage undemocratic. At the time when he wrote his work, indicated with a hope of the then socialist countries. From another perspective, to reach similar conclusions conservative Liberal, thunderous, and Czech President Vaclav Klaus, that a new version of totalitarianism. Biological activists do not differ from and the communists, they want the freedom to answer in order to realize his own, based on ideological considerations utopia. Is this indeed the case, that the ecological system of the most politically able to boast of Nazi Germany, the laws on respect for animals, even pagan worship of nature and "green technology" using the waste? Do you really need to sell the soul of totalitarian devil to save the future? Fortunately, the choice of freedom or the future is a false alternative, argues Anthony Giddens, an outstanding British sociologist, in his book "The Politics of Climate Change" . Giddens does not take a position in the discussion, do we really face the risk of environmental destruction. Thoroughly covers the ongoing scientific debate and the accompanying doubts expressed by the minority in a group of scholars-skeptics, questioning the problem of global warming. "Skepticism is a fuel science and the essence of the democratic political process" - he believes a sociologist. For such a complex operation such as climate and ecosystem science will never provide 100 percent of knowledge. full, giving clear instructions. We live in a society of risk - Giddens explains, which means that people must make choices on the basis of probability estimates. For this reason be absurd to reject the principle of prudence (precautionary principle) and said that if there is a probability, but still unrecognized risk of adverse effects of the introduction of new technology, it is better not to introduce, even if it should have immediate benefits. This principle derives from the principle of accountability and is widely used in the European Union, among others, during the debate on the release for cultivation of genetically modified organisms. Her charm of ethics, however, erroneously quickly when some gilt. The precautionary principle, yes, protects against the consequences of ambition scientists and engineers who believe that because of his brilliant discoveries and inventions will save the world. This rule, however, does not protect against the potentially even more dangerous consequences of the lack of action, not taken for fear of their negative effects. Once again it must be to realize that human actions always accompanied by risk, would be impossible without a social development and civilization. Do not delude be that avoiding risk save the future. But that is not the only weakness of the precautionary principle. Many of its advocates in fact uses it to discredit opponents and promote their own, "morally good" solutions. In accordance with the precautionary principle should not, therefore, to build nuclear power plants, however, entirely consistent with it are renewable sources of energy. Really? As Fred Pearce documented in the weekly "New Scientist", the development of green energy is accompanied by more and more doubts. Increasing wind energy installations, new energy-fueled power plant projects, plans the construction of large solar in deserts, and the need to build new networks, merging a new source of customers, are beginning to cast an increasing resistance. Both among residents who do not want to live in the neighborhood landscape and fans, and ecologists, increasingly that "renewable" does not have to be a synonym for "organic". If so apply the precautionary principle with full rigor, the victim many ideas uncritically quite as green. Moreover, in such event? Policy based on an open, democratic debate, taking into account the interests of present and future generations, as well as the interests of the environment - says Anthony Giddens. Its need to abandon both the free market, as well as ecological. Also convinced that man is ever free from action risk. However, only the acceptance of risk in terms of democratic debate is the chance for the emergence of innovations that can change the world for the better. The British succor comes sociologists Nicholas Stern, the economist who became famous in the 2006 report on the economics of climate change, prepared to order the British government. He says that the ecological crisis and global warming is the greatest example of market failure (market failures) in history. In the absence of adequate regulation, and knowledge, many of the costs of economic activities, such as emissions of pollutants, it was not included in the economy (more specifically - go to the account of future generations). As a result, the market was giving the wrong signals in the form of excessively low prices on the consumption of fossil fuels. It is encouraged to increase consumption of crude oil, gas to the development of new technologies. If, however, take into account the actual market valuation, which is complete, the social costs of using fossil fuels, it would be that the calculation of the cost-effectiveness that has changed completely. Therefore, in its most recent study "A Blueprint for a Safer Planet" (Draft safer planet) Stern argues that the best way is to reform capitalism by market conditions game. How? Are needed for the political decisions, the power consumed will all pay the social costs. One of the instruments of such regulation may be taxed emissions. Perhaps James Lovelock is right, but we can not agree on the fate of his vision hidden in the future. This is just one of the possible scenarios that need to be balanced by the realization. How? No one has a marvelous solution. Solutions will emerge during the chaotic process of political necessity and unpredictable nature of innovation processes. They will in the end result of ethical actions and attitudes of individual people. |
Welcome to the website devoted to ecology, nature and whole universe. You can find here 
Recycling is the reuse of waste as raw 
