Aristotle’s Mean – Between Climate Alarmists and Scepticism
In recent years opinions and beliefs regarding the environment, and various aspects of it, seem to have polarised to a great degree. Two dogmatic camps have surfaced armed with facts, figures, detractors and champions. Nowadays there is a clear line drawn in the sand between the two opposing sides. You’re either in the climate change camp or you’re branded a denialist. Even if you happen to venture an opinion regarding some of the more dubious and less explained aspects of AGW or climate change you will be labelled by the majority of environmentalists as a sceptic or a contrarian. Similarly if you voice concern over continuing CO2 emissions and its potential effect upon the world then you will be dismissed and given the title climate alarmist. Both camps appear so entrenched and dogmatic that they are more willing to engage upon internet rants and bickering rather than working together to organise some form of common policy.
Opposing ideologies have always caused friction within the world. Whether it was fascism v democracy, communism v capitalism or religion versus religion, opposing participants of an ideology often find it hard to admit that their opponents have equally valid beliefs. Attacking anyone who has a doubt regarding global warming and denouncing them as a denialist or sceptic is ridiculous. These people often have valid viewpoints based on scientific observations. There is also a great deal of natural evidence to suggest that changes to the climate are cyclical, going from cold to warm and then vice-versa. Of course that is not to say that we, as human beings, cannot adversely effect or interrupt these natural cycles. For year’s mankind delved deep into the Earth mining for coal and oil, which are essentially fossilised CO2 substances, then after we took it from the soil, we burnt it, vastly adding to the amount of CO2 that our world’s atmosphere naturally contained. Too much off anything is bad, this is clear from so many examples throughout the world. Too much exercise can put strain on your body, not enough can cause you serious problems. Too much work in your job can lead to undue stress, where as not enough can lead to unemployment. As with anything in life the key to maintaining a healthy lifestyle is moderation, finding the mean between too much and not enough.
Aristotle once wrote a famous treaty on ethics and morality entitled the Nicomachean Ethics. In his treatise Aristotle argued that every moral virtue or characteristic had a mean quality that could be considered to be a virtue. Courage for example is a virtue, but if we possess too much of it then we can become rash and if we do not possess enough then we can become cowardly. The ideal is to reach a mean value with will be intrinsically valuable as it is virtuous in its moderation and not excessive. In the same respect being concerned about humanity and the environment are admirable and virtuous sensibilities as long as we are not deficient or excessive in our pursuit of the median value.
Strongly polarising dogmatic beliefs can have extreme negative effects; take fundamentalist Christians or Muslims as a prime example of those who are so absorbed by their opinions, and their beliefs of what they want to happen, that they are blind to any other point of view. Their own self conviction is their undoing, and their ignorance. The wise man knows that he does not know everything instead he is open to new knowledge, aware that there is so much out there that he does not yet understand.
Hard-line eco-activists and fanatical sceptics are not doing themselves any favours. Continuing over publicity and alarmism drives the other camp into a frenzy of rebuttals and conflicting fact. Due to this rampant hype and violent counter attacks your average person just gets confused, bored and eventually becomes apathetic to the cause. People’s beliefs do not need to be changed, instead the politics and mentality of opposition needs to be removed. Conflicting opinions are good for scientific advancement, but derisive ignoring of the facts and instant dismissal due to a persons association within a certain camp or dogma is wrong and harmful to all. recently the Archbishop of Cantebury spoke out on climate change, he stated that “humanity should turn away from the selfishness and greed that leads it to ignore its interdependence with the natural world.” A greater spirit of understanding and cooperation is needed despite how wrong you feel the opposition is.
Surely there is mean goal that both camps can agree upon. After all we all want to protect the world for our families and our children. Preserving biodiversity, natural habitats and breath taking landscapes are clearly in the interest of both alarmists and sceptics. We all want to live in a safe and pleasant world full of green fields and wildlife. Humanities greatest quality is our ability to be merciful, compassionate and understanding, yet when it comes to other people’s beliefs we are often devoid of these aspects and without tolerance. Common sense wins over all debate for me, wouldn’t it just be better to live in a greener world dedicated to preserving and protecting the wondrous bounties that Mother Nature has provided for us so unreservedly.
3 Comments to “Aristotle’s Mean – Between Climate Alarmists and Scepticism”
Good article – plenty of food for thought.
[...] appease billion dollar corporations. Issues regarding global warming and climate change are still hotly debated by both the left and the right with vast amounts of pro and against lobbying occurring across the [...]
This is a great article. I’m new to blogging but still learning. Thanks for the great resource.
Revolt Basic theme by NenadK. | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).