Well said, Bill, though I might formulate as something like "all the solutions we have left require tradeoffs," in large part because we waited so long to do something. But as with any other tradeoff situation, in the Anthropocene we're best served by not immediately sacrificing what does not need to be sacrificed. In a world shaken and diminished by human impacts, solutions should be systematized to reduce impacts on the community life to the greatest extent. Something akin to that Hippocratic notion, "First, do no harm." Why clearcut for a solar array when you can put them over a parking lot?
Hi Bill: Well, as a hypothetical created to make a point about our broader impacts on life, "flicking a switch" hasn't been defined. Might be anything from widespread free fusion power to the extinction of humans, right? So the tradeoffs for flicking it are unknown. Not sure if you're pointing out a logical flaw, noting the scale of the tradeoffs, or bringing me back around to your binary of solution vs. tradeoffs. But you've got me curious. So, sure, I'll bite: Yes, I'll flick it.
Your hypothetical switch is an extreme version of questions I often ask myself to focus my thinking about the nature and use of fossil fuels, and the people who supply them, both historically and currently. If there were a switch to eliminate all nuclear weapons, few would hesitate to use it. But fossil fuel is different, and I find it useful to think about that. If there were a referendum to decide to flick or not, citizens of a democracy would not likely vote yes in 2023 (that's why the Biden administration was so desperate to keep gas prices low before the last election). Or in 1923. But would you flick the switch anyway, regardless of democratic will?
As to a definition of "flicking the switch", I take your meaning literally--all extraction ceases immediately, existing above-ground stocks are used up in short order, and the consequences are what they are.
The point here is not about the practicality of a switch, but as a catalyst for thinking about our tradeoffs, both historically and presently.
I see where your question originates, Bill. Took me a moment. And I think you're right in all you've said here. The industry and its products (energy, plastics, fertilizer, distillates) are so fully woven into our lives and into economies at every scale that there is no way to disentangle except with considerable time and effort on multiple fronts. Too big to fail, as they say, but at a greater order of magnitude.
Any hypothetical like mine would destabilize society. I think voters are certainly closer to voting to taper off from all that we've become dependent on, but not to go cold turkey. That's one of the hallmarks of where we are, that the consequences of quick action have stark tradeoffs (in impact or effort) that early action would have avoided.
However tempted, I don't suppose I'd flick the switch, given the death and destruction it would cause. There's no shortage of death and destruction in our current mode of operation, but that level of chaos wouldn't be productive for policy-making. And to get back to my original point that posed the hypothetical, chaos would likely intensify many of the other Anthropocene impacts (what's being called the biodiversity crisis) that deserve equal intention.
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
Well said, Bill, though I might formulate as something like "all the solutions we have left require tradeoffs," in large part because we waited so long to do something. But as with any other tradeoff situation, in the Anthropocene we're best served by not immediately sacrificing what does not need to be sacrificed. In a world shaken and diminished by human impacts, solutions should be systematized to reduce impacts on the community life to the greatest extent. Something akin to that Hippocratic notion, "First, do no harm." Why clearcut for a solar array when you can put them over a parking lot?
Thanks for the substance, for your diligence and hard work.
Right back at you, Brian. Looking forward to more great writing on dragonflies.
Jason, if today you found a “switch to stop burning fossil fuels”, would you flick it? (Being a switch, there are only two choices—yes or no).
Hi Bill: Well, as a hypothetical created to make a point about our broader impacts on life, "flicking a switch" hasn't been defined. Might be anything from widespread free fusion power to the extinction of humans, right? So the tradeoffs for flicking it are unknown. Not sure if you're pointing out a logical flaw, noting the scale of the tradeoffs, or bringing me back around to your binary of solution vs. tradeoffs. But you've got me curious. So, sure, I'll bite: Yes, I'll flick it.
Your hypothetical switch is an extreme version of questions I often ask myself to focus my thinking about the nature and use of fossil fuels, and the people who supply them, both historically and currently. If there were a switch to eliminate all nuclear weapons, few would hesitate to use it. But fossil fuel is different, and I find it useful to think about that. If there were a referendum to decide to flick or not, citizens of a democracy would not likely vote yes in 2023 (that's why the Biden administration was so desperate to keep gas prices low before the last election). Or in 1923. But would you flick the switch anyway, regardless of democratic will?
As to a definition of "flicking the switch", I take your meaning literally--all extraction ceases immediately, existing above-ground stocks are used up in short order, and the consequences are what they are.
The point here is not about the practicality of a switch, but as a catalyst for thinking about our tradeoffs, both historically and presently.
I see where your question originates, Bill. Took me a moment. And I think you're right in all you've said here. The industry and its products (energy, plastics, fertilizer, distillates) are so fully woven into our lives and into economies at every scale that there is no way to disentangle except with considerable time and effort on multiple fronts. Too big to fail, as they say, but at a greater order of magnitude.
Any hypothetical like mine would destabilize society. I think voters are certainly closer to voting to taper off from all that we've become dependent on, but not to go cold turkey. That's one of the hallmarks of where we are, that the consequences of quick action have stark tradeoffs (in impact or effort) that early action would have avoided.
However tempted, I don't suppose I'd flick the switch, given the death and destruction it would cause. There's no shortage of death and destruction in our current mode of operation, but that level of chaos wouldn't be productive for policy-making. And to get back to my original point that posed the hypothetical, chaos would likely intensify many of the other Anthropocene impacts (what's being called the biodiversity crisis) that deserve equal intention.
Thanks for the dialogue, Bill. Good stuff.