Was Climate Change Inevitable

Was humankind's journey of scientific discovery always destined to cause climate change?

There are 510 million square kilometres of land on Earth, and presently 7.9 billion people living on it. That's even counting polar regions and deserts where people can't live in large numbers easily. That's 0.65 square kilometres per person.

Our distribution about the planets surface is already disrupting the pre-existing global ecosystem of the planet. Assuming that this ecosystem should be in equilibrium, humans are now responsible for changes in climate, animal populations, atmospheric gases and a host of other things we could go on listing. By the very acting of existing, we have done that.

Much is discussed about the lack of environmental foresight of world governments and private corporations. The discussion usually goes along the lines of -years ago we could have done something about these things, and arrested the changes we were making to the environment, but never did. However, culturally we have always preferred to live in a world of increasing technological refinements than to live in a static, unchanging one. We have after all allowed this to happen, and continue to do so through the governing decisions we take, or allow to be taken in the world around us. Arguably, this isn't mere acceptance. In a sense, we have in fact decided this is how its going to be. While there are many dissenting voices to this sort of "progress", ultimately it has occurred, and continues to occur. Was this truly avoidable, or would that have contradicted the very identity we have built a civilisation upon?

As a means of illustrating the question, we can consider population as an example, on the basis that one of the hallmarks of our existence is a steadily increasing human population. Other hallmark aspects of our global civilisation may be examined similarly, but for simplicity's sake, we can look at population alone here. Option A is that we  stay our current course and continue to increase in population. Thus we would one day inhabit the planet with such density, that it would result in an impact to the planets ecosystem so profound, that no truly independent network of life could exist alongside us. All individual examples of animal life and natural chemical process would necessarily be interdependent with human beings in some way. Option B, the alternative, is of course that we do not reach that point, and its somehow the case that we change the path we are on and do manage the progress toward a return to a planetary ecological equilibrium somehow. Essentially, we can keep on doing what we are doing and drift farther from an ecological equilibrium, or we can turn our course around and move towards a more ecologically stable planet, so much as it is in our power to do so. But what would this require us to do?

While we can create devices to extract energy in less impactful ways, they are themselves the product of heavy industry. Industry that survives only through the existence of an ever increasing demand.
By © Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6361901

In some ways, this would require us to fundamentally change the way we exist in the world. That is to say, the very foundations of our civilisation would have to be uprooted and swapped out. The pursuit of security and plenty would have to come second in priority to the sustenance of our environment. There is no currently known example of a time that any significantly populated civilisation has ever performed this feat. There has never been a time, that we are aware of, that a large group of people felt so secure about their ability to survive that they gave up on the pursuit of resources, and instead focussed on managing their impact on the environment. Is that not to say it can't be done? I think not. Its certainly isn't the case that we view the past as a direct blueprint of how we should behave going forward. In general we believe the progress of ideas should improve the conditions of human existence. As time goes on, we have sought to elevate our ideas and practices for the benefit of humankind. Benefit meaning a more reliable and secure existence. However, is there a paradox there? The very nature of progress in this context is at odds with the idea of a static, unchanging, ecological equilibrium. As we improve the world and our conditions, we do not ask that fewer people are around to enjoy it or that it should be the preserve of the few. In essence we make life on earth easier, and it becomes easier for more people to exist, and this contributes to the disruption we are causing. Or does it?

As we reflect upon our development over time, it certainly appears that all cultures of the various varieties of human civilisation that currently exist have progressed towards creating more and more ecological impact. We may be better informed on the degree of this impact than we have been in the past, potentially putting us in a new position, but that is debatable. Regardless, if we can see a problem today, what can we do about it, and what would human civilisation look like in a world in which we free ourselves from these maladies.

The driving force behind all of our ecological impact appears to be resources. It is the quest for ever more resources that leads us to extract from, disrupt and alter the world around us. In every action, there is an energy cost, and that must be borne by something, something we see as expendable. To a certain degree, this is inevitable. All living things require energy to exist, but through evolution, the means by which this energy is extracted by living things is highly efficient. As we seek to supply energy to our civilisation, the means by which we extract this energy are not as efficient, and we produce a lot of waste, which in turn requires energy to mange. As our civilisation grows its energy demands increase, not only due to increasing population numbers but also due to the more energy intensive technologies we employ. So the relationship between "progress" and energy requirements is very non-linear. The obvious solutions to this are to either use/demand less energy or to extract it more efficiently. However, to arrest this process altogether we would have to establish an acceptable energy budget that could be borne by the world, and limit ourselves to that amount. We can continue to improve the efficiency with which we extract energy, but at its core the problem is one of demand. We need to limit our demands to budget allocated to us by the ecosystem.

Speaking as an engineer the first thing that comes to mind is construction. We would naturally seek to construct things as efficiently and infrequently as possible, using materials that are ecologically inert and naturally occurring. As an example, for building and facilities, making things out of stone is an ecologically wise choice given the durability of the material. While there are a few such structure on earth, most are actually made of of less durable constructions made with rock or stone as a component building material. True monolithic stone architecture is, and would be, "forever ". Or at least, endure so long that it would one day rest in the hands of a proceeding species of human being. As such it would necessarily be artistically designed to be as relevant as possible to the many cultural ideas and fashions that it will endure in its life.  As such, the nature of art and science would bring a compromise between functional designs and aesthetically pleasing ones. They would be simple in nature, appealing to the core archetypes of the human soul, and as practical to make and coexist with as possible. We would necessarily begin to examine our core requirements and aesthetic desires in the process. The nature of stone work as a fringe skill would change, and refinements in the science and technology of stone working would occur. Achievements in that field to once again become part of the lasting legacy of the age, as was the case in the distant past. 

Al Deir, Petra. Now almost two thousand years old, and carved from solid rock.
By Azurfrog, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Similarly, to minimise the general consumption of resources we would seek to simplify and minimise of our requirements. It would be logical to be as healthy as possible. Reducing the need to manufacture certain items and economies that surround the idea of supporting ill health. This concept of simplification would extend to war too. In order to eliminate one of most intensively resourced areas of human existence, we would have to live in peace.

Along the same lines, we would probably need to integrate our way of life with the natural environment. The presence of animals and natural habitats conditions would have to be part of our day to day life, as the only way to minimise our impact on these things is to reduce the zone in which we influence them to the point where they exist natively on our doorstep.

With just a few cursory thoughts on the subject, the nature of the changes required appears profound. It would require a degree of adaptation that would necessarily mean cultural, philosophical, artistic and spiritual change. In essence, we would need to look at ourselves and the world in a totally different way. Look around and observe the sort of attitudes prevalent in the world today, and it becomes clear that this could not be achieved in a single lifetime, and would no doubt be a gradual multigenerational process. So there necessarily is a phase, now, where we are aware of the problem but as yet unable to create meaningful mitigations to it. 

If we are making progress towards this type of equilibrium focussed civilisation then it is happening so gradually that it doesn't appear perceptible in any real way at the moment. Flirtations with sustainable energy, recycling and other such endeavours are all based on the concept of maintaining and improving the way we presently live. To continue to increase resource requirements, but alter only the way in which some resources are sourced. Of course, this is to be expected as the economics of our civilisation make it such that something must be produced and sold in order to create the means to persist. In essence we are asking a system that depends upon growth to stop growing. That is to say, we have not yet found and integrated the necessary cultural, philosophical, artistic and spiritual changes required for these acts to be meaningful. If that is the case, then all this was inevitable, we simply never had the means to avoid it.