Midterm Blog Post - Savana Mezquiriz

"Do you think the 'human game has begun to play itself out,' or do you believe we will avert the worst imaginable outcomes of climate change in the century ahead? If so, how? If not, why not?" 

Savana: The environmental impacts of humans is a controversial topic that is heavily discussed in today’s society. I have Bill McKibben, Hope, Jahren, and Robin Attfield here with me to consider climate change and the implications it is having on the Earth we inhabit today. I would like to present the question: "Do you think the 'human game has begun to play itself out,' or do you believe we will avert the worst imaginable outcomes of climate change in the century ahead? If so, how? If not, why not?" Mr. McKibben, with the question referencing your book, “Falter”, we will hear your comments on the questions first.

McKibben: In order for us adequately answer that question, I think it is important to first understand the connotation of the “human game” and what I meant by that. On page 10 in my book, I state that “For humans, all of us together, have built something remarkable, something we rarely stand back and simply acknowledge. The sum of the projects of our individual lives, the total of the institutions and enterprises we have created, the aggregate of our wishes and dreams and labors, the entirety of our ceaseless activity – it’s a wonder.” This is what I mean when using the word “game”. Everyone involved is obsessed with the game, but at the end of it all, what does it matter?

Savana: Thank you so much for the further explanation of “human game”. In reference to the title of McKibben’s book and the clarification on page 10, we see that human actions have “strings attached” in many different ways and it’s all beginning to falter. Due to the idea that humans are the sole cause of climate change, what do you, Robin, see as a faltering due to our actions?

Attfield: That is a question that affords thousands of answers. We see evidence of humans negatively affecting the environment everywhere. From making animals go extinct to cutting down trees that are required for us to inhabit the earth, it’s everywhere. And the latter is a great example of the “human game” as McKibben directs, faltering on itself. On page 62 in my book, “Environmental Ethics” I reference environmentalists that encourage “humanity to live within its means”. This is a prime example, that because humanity isn’t, it will come back to haunt them.

Savana: So just to clarify, cutting down more trees than what humanity needs is an application of the faltering human game in your opinion?

Attfield: Yes, this is because if at some point they cut down trees to where there are 2 or 3 in a city, humans will go extinct. Humans are hurting themselves with their actions, so their foundation is faltering on them.

McKibben: I believe that is a great environmental application of my concept of the human game.

Savana: So back to the original question, does anyone have a perspective on if “we will avert the worst imaginable outcomes of climate change in the century ahead? If so, how? If not, why not?"

Jahren: I would like to add that it is possible for us to make a comeback. However, that will take us being inconvenienced. We will have to make the conscious decision to put Earth and the environment first and our wants and conveniences second. In the last chapter of my book “The Story of More” I share some of the different solutions, people have presented to reduce carbon dioxide. One of the main solutions was less about us changing and more about creating yet another technological advancement to defeat the problem. However, by the end of the proposed plan, the new advancement would have burned more fossil fuels and was then still just as harmful as the carbon dioxide to the environment. I believe to avert the eventual catastrophic outcome of climate change we will have to change how we live our lives, or in other words, how we play the “human game”.

McKibben: I too believe there are steps we can take to avert some of the horrible outcomes of climate change (pg. 10). While no one knows for sure if it is feasible, given the advancement of climate change, however, no one knows that it's impossible either (page 191). Taxing carbons is one way we can encourage companies, such as EXXON, to generate less gas and therefore help repair our environment. While this alone will not completely place us on the right path, that along with aggressive efforts to create a renewable energy source will in combination make a huge difference. https://www.macleans.ca/society/environment/bill-mckibben-on-how-we-might-avert-climate-change-suicide/

Savana: Carbon dioxide is something that is a known carcinogen to our environment. Robin, I remember you addressing this in your book “Environmental Ethics” as well, along with some enlightening statistics.

Attfield: If my memory serves me right, I stated that there is not much of a debate on the idea that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses have been emitted into our environment at increasingly higher rates (pg. 106). Carbon dioxide, for example, is now 400 parts per million compared to the pre-industrial era at 280 parts per million (pg. 106).

Savana: I would also like to hear your take on energy, Mrs. Jahren.

Jahren: Well, to decrease the hard work and labor that comes with manually doing things, our society has turned to electrically powered objects. Take, for example, a sewing machine, which is an example I used in my book “The Story of More” (pg. 81-83). I still have my grandmothers that I learned at an early age. It is similar to the one in the picture here.

However, in the 1950s, my mother bought an electric sewing machine that made things much easier. Our convenience has helped us but hindered our environment and the Earth inhabit. Now, sewing machines that require electricity instead of human effort, such as this one, are the only ones produced.

Little differences, such as this example, shows us how our consumption of energy has tripled since the 70’s when I was a kid. On top of the human population doubling during this time, no wonder there are major implications; our use has skyrocketed. I feel targeting Americans would be beneficial because of the fact that Americans use up “15% of the world’s energy production and almost 20% of the world's electricity…” (pg. 83).

Savana: Thank you for those informative comments! I would like to thank you all for your time and knowledge on the subject.