9-23-2014 | Piercarlo Valdesolo

Donald Trump probably leaves the water running while brushing his teeth. Heck, he probably leaves it running while he’s at work. After all, turning faucets can be mildly inconvenient and if science has taught him anything, it’s that our planet is doing just fine when it comes to conserving its natural resources and its long-term environmental prospects. Indeed, given his very high profile remarks questioning climate change and the science upon which it is based, I think we can safely assume he doesn’t lose any sleep over his consumption habits or the size of his carbon footprint.

But this is the kind of attitude we expect from individuals who have a fundamental mistrust (and misunderstanding) of science. Climate denialism seems to fit squarely with a disinterest towards cultivating environmentally friendly habits. We don’t expect people who “roll coal” to have a sophisticated appreciation for the importance of scientific progress. Those who do demonstrate environmentally friendly behavior, however, seem more like the kind of folks who understand that science has much to teach us about addressing global problems.

But a new paper from researchers at The University of Amsterdam has thrown a wrench into this folk understanding of the relationship between environmental concern and scientific appreciation. Their provocative hypothesis suggests that increasing people’s belief in the efficacy of scientific progress actually reduces environmentally friendly behavior. In other words: the more likely we are to believe in the power of science, the more likely we are to trade in our hybrids for hummers.

A somewhat provocative read.

Folks who sneer at those drawing taxpayer assistance.

Classic American, TB.

The earth will survive this, so will the biological world. Even humanity will make it through. Even civilization may remain, but OUR civilization is threatened.

In fact, it can be argued that the remarkable success of capitalism in the USA has been primarily due to its very intimate relationship with the Federal Government.

Socialism can be very good for business. and for the last century or so, the USA has managed to combine the two very effectively, while providing an ever-expanding safety net and social services and public welfare sector. In fact, it has pretty much become the model for progress and prosperity of the Western World, and the envy of everyone else.

And not all of these projects involve public works or massive construction projects. Public schools, The State University System, and the GI Bill made the difference for me. None of us can claim we made it entirely on our own.

Null-Content Television Shows.

Electric Cars.

More than 128MB Volatile Computer Memory.

The Internet.

Biggie-Sizing That High Cholesterol Junk Food Order.

That Newer, Bigger Rollercoaster Ride.

Any Bigger, Better Mousetrap.

Well, there can be no greater profit that the continuation of human life.

The fluxing climate can still be fixed, but not by a single corporation. Many industries will need to become intimately involved, with the major hosting Government keeping an active hand in, as it would be the largest international endeavor yet to be undertaken, possibly even involving UN agreements. Guides and controls need to be implemented, or any supposed fix will easily become a global disaster, and possibly the planet-killer we’ve all been dreading — with mankind hoisted on his own collective ego.

We may never be able to reverse the desertification of N Africa (at least not deliberately, although we may certainly do so accidentally!). OTOH, we may have contributed to it by means of deforestation and over-grazing. We’re well on way to turning the Amazon into a near-sterile zone, without any government help whatsoever, just to satisfy our addiction to cheap beef. We can’t blame earlier generations for destroying the environment through ignorance, but we no longer can use that excuse.

The draining of the Everglades alluded to by TB below was done for purely business reasons, to artificially develop real estate and agriculture in an area where land was cheap but both real estate and agriculture were impractical. The fact that nobody lived there was irrelevant, it was not the fulfillment of a need, it was a purely commercial transaction, the creation of a need. We’re still paying the price for that boondoggle.

Politicians may have not given us space, but they’ve done much more than the the business sector. So far, business has shown very little progress, as we’ve discussed here countless times before. This is not a criticism of business, no private venture can be expected to sink funds into an enterprise that won’t be profitable for centuries, if ever. I know I would never invest MY money in one. Super-expensive long-term enterprises like this, high risk but potentially high profit, are the main reason we have government. I’ve had this drilled into me ever since high school Civics: the main reason we need government is to provide us with those things business can’t or won’t provide us. Taking really big risks is one of those things.

Business will not put us into space until it sees a potential profit in it. Again, this is not a criticism; entrepreneurs may be willing to take big risks with their money, but investors have to see a favorable prospectus before they stick their neck out. And space is a very big investment with no return for the forseeable future. And maybe never.

Until then, governments will conceive and plan the missions and provide the contracts, business will give us the expertise and innovation and accumulate the experience. So let it be written, so let it be done. Its in the Bible. Look it up.