The species of humans seems to believe it is in control of the developments on Earth and its own
fate. However, of all the illusions present in the human world, this is the greatest of them
all. And, increasingly, it is turning into a big delusion.
What is ruling this world are natural forces. From the perspective of these forces, humans are nothing
but another
tool at disposal, that can be used to produce certain effects.
When it comes to the climate, environment, or, evolution in general, there are two major forces at
play. One force is acting to conserve the present state, the other is acting to bring the system into
another equilibrium. In the context of climate, the former is trying to preserve the global average
temperature of about 14 °C, the latter is trying to bring it to a much larger
value (22-23 °C,
per
my hypotheses). And the latter is, obviously, winning.
Evidence for the illusion (and delusion) is mounting up.
The
expected
slowdown in the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gases during the COVID-19 pandemic was not observed. Since 2006,
methane
levels are rising rapidly, while the direct anthropogenic contribution is decreasing.
Anthropogenic forcing is a part of natural regulation. A recent study has shown that
the decrease
of anthropogenic aerosols in the 21st century in the Northern Hemisphere has been precisely
compensated by the larger aerosol loading with wildfires and volcanic activity in
the Southern Hemisphere. This is strong evidence that, when it comes to Earth's development
and regulation, it is the effect that matters, whether the cause is anthropogenic or
non-anthropogenic is irrelevant (in other words, the force is
interpreting humans as one
of the natural tools at disposal). Thus, humans are not in control of Earth's climate, or
anything, in the bigger scheme of things. Humans may
choose to stop producing one or
both of the effects (positive or negative forcing), but that is unlikely to affect the
forces - there are alternative ways to produce the same effects.
Another interesting example of this is the coupling between wars and volcanism, as the effects on
climate and the environment can be very similar between the two. Thus,
increase
in wars leads to a decrease in equivalent volcanism, and vice versa.
If you don't believe it, well, that's not surprising or unexpectable - in order to
be
fooled, it is desirable for a
tool to believe it is in control, otherwise it
could become useless to the forces. I am almost useless. But being useless to the forces does not
imply that one is worthless in general. It simply implies one is relatively neutral, and
genuine neutrality is invincible in the battle of polarized forces.
When it comes to the asteroid defense or the battle against climate change, people tend to say
they're fighting for the planet. A blatant lie, of course. Planet can, and has lived
through, massive asteroid bombardments and massive climate change extremes. It survives, whether
as a ball of fire, a ball of ice, or something in between. The two major forces are not fighting for the
survival of the planet either, they are simply fighting over the planet's state, or energy
level. If the planet wants to change, it may evolve something like humans to kick-start the
transition. But after the transition, obviously, if any lifeforms are to remain on surface, are
those not fighting against the new state.
Obviously, if the planet can evolve life as needed, people who say they're fighting for the
planet are not even fighting for the life on it. They're simply fighting to preserve the current
state. Whether that's good or bad is, of course, relative. If the planet needs change, then
that's bad for the planet. But it's actually hard to be sure of what the planet needs, wants, or
what's best for it, when one can hardly understand it. Therefore, neutrality seems to be the only
choice if one doesn't want to risk doing a bad thing here, and with that, risk its own extinction.