by Tom Fuller,
Let’s start with proper attribution of Wikipedia’s definition: ““Wicked problem” is a phrase originally used in social planning to describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognize. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other problems.”
The first example cited is global climate change. Sigh. Others include AIDS, international drug trafficking and urban decay.
How wicked is the problem of global climate change?
In 1973, again according to Wikipedia, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber listed 10 characteristics of ‘wicked problems’:
- There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is a problem).
- Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
- Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
- There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
- Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
- Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
- Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
- Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
- The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
- The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Personally, I think the field of study of ‘wicked problems’ needs a bit of work, based on the above. Is international drug trafficking, one of their examples, unique? Is it not similar to human trafficking, cigarette smuggling, small arms smuggling? I don’t think wicked problems need to be unique.
Similarly, planners have been wrong repeatedly on wicked issues in the past, and many of them suffered no consequences, or were ‘rehabilitated’ to positions of power following their mistakes.
And wicked problems are not alone in being subsets of other problems–ask any 4-year-old endlessly repeating ‘why?’ All problems have causes, and many times the causes are actually solutions to previous problems.
The first item on their list involves the difficulty of definition. But I don’t think that’s a correct definition of the definition problem. I think the real difficulty is getting various actors to agree on one of competing definitions.
Okay, so a blogger somewhere on the internet doesn’t like what a contributor to Wikipedia wrote about ‘wicked problems.’ Where is this going?
I would approach ‘wicked problems’ in the following manner:
- Do we understand the problem enough to define it to all parties’ satisfaction?
- Can we scope the problem adequately in terms of its consequences and the resources needed to address it?
- Do we know what a solution or solutions might look like?
- Do we know a time frame for best results of any solution we implement?
- Are solutions to elements of the problem available?
- Will solving one part of the problem significantly change the scope of the remainder?
- Is there time dependency of both parts of the problem and parts of the solutions?
Wicked problems may be tough, but I think we humans have the tendency (and the incentives) to make them seem tougher than in fact they are. So let’s see how wicked the problem of global climate change really is.
Have we properly defined the problem? Not without rewording. The problem according to the activist community appears to be, “global climate change caused by human emissions of CO2.” Which is clearer, but I think wrong.
I think a better definition would be, “the future and unwelcome extension of warming that has persisted for over a century, caused by human activities that include emissions of various greenhouse gases.”
There may be better definitions. But if we cannot agree on the definition, then by definition we will not agree on its scope or possible solutions.
Have we defined its scope? No. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has offered a variety of scenarios with different paths to the future, but has not ranked them in order of probability. Economists trying to measure the possible damage caused by global warming cannot even agree on terms of reference, let alone the right number of zeros in the answer. The IPCC is incredibly relaxed about its wide range for atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2. As of today, their position translates to ‘it either will be a big problem or not much of one.’ That’s the difference between a sensitivity of 1.5 and 4.5.
The wild-eyed fantasies of 20-foot sea level rises and 10 degree temperature rises are a direct result of this laxity–without tight boundaries, things go bump in the night.
Do we know what a solution or solutions might look like? Surprisingly, yes–but we are not even discussing the most obvious and complete solution. We could solve climate change as a problem by constructing an adequate number of nuclear power facilities to provide electricity as our primary source of energy. We then would convert to electric vehicles and use electricity for other work currently performed by fossil fuels.
People may say they don’t like nuclear power and are concerned about waste or terrorism–and that’s perfectly legitimate. I’m more concerned about the quality of construction, and possible leaks, myself. But nobody can say with a straight face that the cure would be worse than the disease the activists imagine.
Do we know a time frame for optimum achievement of a solution? Surprisingly, demographics does give us an answer–some time before 2075, when human population peaks at 9 billion souls.
Are solutions to elements of the problem available? Again, yes. Energy efficiency, such as more combined heat and power, waste-to-energy plants, higher mileage automobiles and hybrids, a higher commitment to public transportation, a smart grid and HVDC transfer of electricity, etc., etc. Continued work on renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, solar and geothermal. (I think wind has surrendered its pride of place at this point.) Research and deployment of pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage.
Will solving one part of the problem change the scope of the remaining portions dramatically? Yes. A commitment to build as much nuclear power as needed will without doubt change the level of urgency surrounding all remaining elements of global climate change.
Is there time dependency? Yes. We need to have inexpensive and readily available energy for those people getting ready to be born and those people climbing the development (and energy) ladders. We need to do something now, regardless of the accuracy or correctness of our definition of climate change.
Too simplistic? Maybe. But that’s not an argument against the solution. It’s an argument that some are so invested in the idea of climate change being insoluble that they do not wish to acknowledge that solutions are possible.
And I would add this: A truly wicked problem would demand a Plan B. One exists for climate change–geoengineering. Those who would prohibit examination of our alternatives in this area are obviously indifferent to any solution, and have other reasons for participating in this debate.
And also this: For the many who disagree with the reality of the definition above, replacing it with a similarly worded expression of the energy needs of this planet going forward would leave us pretty much in the same situation.
In fact, I would slyly acknowledge skeptic concerns by saying–It is feasible to imagine draconian solutions to global climate change that do not adequately address our energy concerns. However, if we solve our energy concerns responsibly and ethically, we will without doubt solve the issue of global climate change.
Not so wicked.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom – I forgot to add that the UK government beat you to it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11564152
A GBP30 billion tidal power project (the Severn barrage) has been canned on grounds of economic viability, and 8 locations have been identified for nuclear power stations.
All the best.
Sorry but your definition sucks just as much as Wikipedia’s. It is almost like they invented a term for the purpose of having something to argue about. Further, your list of wicked problems isn’t all that good a list. Here’s a definition of a wicked problem that is as close as you are ever going to get.
Wicked Problem – Like pornography, I don’t know precisely how to define it, but I know it when I see it.
As for your list:
International Drug Trafficking – legalize drugs. POOF! no more international drug trafficking as there would be no profit in it.
Cigarette Smuggling – drop the taxation rate to 20% instead of 90% of the price. POOF! no more cigarette smuggling as there would be no profit in it.
Human Trafficking – OK, that’s a problem. Actually it is a symptom. Eliminate the totalitarian despotic regimes that profit from it and POOF! most of it goes away.
Small Arms Smuggling – You’re kidding right? That’s in the same league as international drug smuggling? Refer to definition above… I know it when I see it, and this ain’t it.
Global Climate Change – since it is completely natural for the climate to change, it isn’t a wicked problem. It is at best a challenge. And please stop extrapolating where we will be in X years and Y billion people and concluding that the increment is some kind of disaster because we don’t know how we will get “there” from “here”. The answer is the same as how we got “here” from “before”. Rain isn’t falling where we need it to? That’s not a problem, that’s a challenge, and it is solved the same way we solve the challenge of oil not flowing out of the ground in the places where we use it. Tankers, pipelines and storage resevoirs work on oil but not water? Too wet to grow wheat on the North American prairie anymore? Have you heard of rice? Too cold? Do you know what a greenhouse is? These are challenges, not problems. For animals they are problems. For us they are just challenges.
HFU (Hereditary Fear of the Unknown) – a biological need borne of evolution during a primitive time when tribes clung together during good times and bad due to fear of the unknown, owing their allegiance to the best hunter and fighter, but frequently manipulated by charlatans claiming special knowledge which fortold disaster without supporting evidence. Best summarized as “Ugh, spirits angry. Sacrifice virgins to appease spirits”. Now that’s a wicked problem.
MCF (Manipulative Charlatan Factor) – a recognition that a subset of the modern population has a natural ability to take advantage of HFU by claiming special knowledge which fortells disaster without supporting evidence. Best summarized as “Ugh, climate warming, sacrifice economy to appease Gaia”. Now those people are not a wicked problem. But they are a problem, and they are wicked.
Hey, guys and gals–did you read through to the end of the post? Where I say maybe it’s not so wicked…?
Lucy Skywalker and others… As far as the existence of global warming goes, it shows up on satellite data curated by John Christy and Roy Spencer. They’re not hiding the decline or plagiarising textbooks.
As for attribution of warming to CO2, I don’t think that all that much of current warming is–but I believe other human activities add more.
I watched Richard Lindzen eat Andy Dessler’s lunch in a debate today, and Lindzen said that the world is warming, and referred to a potential sensitivity of 0.8. He’s not alarmed by it, and he made Dessler look both rabid and stupid.
I personally think it’ll be a bit more–maybe two degrees C. And it probably won’t hit the U.S. that hard. But it’ll be tougher elsewhere. Anyways, my point is (and always has been) that since we have to deal with energy anyhow, let’s do it.
Mr. Fuller
And just how do you propose to deal with energy? Perhaps repeal the laws of thermodynamics by Act of Congress, I hope I got that right not being American.
Certainly quite a lot of politicians believe they can do that as well as control climate with a wave of the hand and whatever else. Maybe we should test their claims by asking them to walk on water.
Of course possibly you yourself have some wondrous perpetual motion machine about your person. If so do tell.
If not we will have to soldier on with a non existent energy crisis for the next few generations: I suspect our children and grandchildren will take it all in their stride.
Kindest Regards
However, if we solve our energy concerns responsibly and ethically, we will without doubt solve the issue of global climate change.
You are assuming of course that the climate is changing drastically due to CO2 exhausts.
I would state it differently: The nuclear choice is a responsible and ethical solution to the energy concerns which would solve a lot of pollution issues and will satisfy the part of the population that believes that the gradual increase of the plant fertilizer CO2 is a bad thing. ( the word affect comes to mind for some reason).
I am all for studying in depth some geoengineering solutions, the ones that are innocuous, meaning they can be stopped at the drop of a penny.
The ships salting the clouds is one. Stop them and the albedo goes back to normal.
The mirrors in space are the best, because they can be turned and stop shadowing. They would be a great advantage when the next ice age starts when we will need to think up ways of increasing insolation instead of decreasing it.
And do not forget that the only true prophecy is that the next ice age will come.
This is an interesting series of videos, for those not old enough to have observed the weather through the seventies:
http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/10/panic-upon-cue-coming-ice-age-but-i.html
p.s.
affect:
By the prickling of my thumbs
something wicked this way comes
thomaswfuller writes these posts out of sheer vainglorious puffery. He likes to promote pointless free-for-alls, makes him feel important
You will notice a few posts above (October 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm) he quotes Lindzen at a warming of 0.8C and then claims “a bit more–maybe two degrees C” for himself
That’s not a “bit” more. It’s a 150% increase without justification – now puff away thomas, oh do, please
thomaswfuller says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I personally think it’ll be a bit more–maybe two degrees C. And it probably won’t hit the U.S. that hard. But it’ll be tougher elsewhere.
********************************************************
Tom – please state which countries will be “hit hard”. Even if we accept (for the sake of argument) that there will be a 2 degrees C average temperature rise, who would suffer? England or New Zealand, countries where I have lived, and which would benefit from a longer and warmer crop growing season, more available cropland, more vineyards. lower heating bills etc.? Russia and Canada, who would continue to extend their wheat growing season and arable lands (as they have been doing since c.1850)? The rest of the world who will see increased rainfall and hence higher crop yields (not to mention higher yields from higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2, a true greenhouse gas since it is used in greenhouses)?
Do you think civilisations were better off or not in the Mediaeval warm period, the Roman warm period and the Minoan warm period?
I suggest your alarmism has no rational basis and is all pie in the sky. I don’t know where it comes from. Furthermore, you are not even attempting to engage with those on this blog who do not share your views, although we at least do our best to engage with you and remain civil. I do not recall a single argument from you as to why a moderate amount of warming would be bad.
All the best.
Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970’s, ‘If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.
How that ‘s a “Wicked Problem”.
Tom, you say at 9:14 pm
“I personally think it’ll be a bit more–maybe two degrees C. And it probably won’t hit the U.S. that hard. But it’ll be tougher elsewhere. Anyways, my point is (and always has been) that since we have to deal with energy anyhow, let’s do it.”
Thank you for that clarification. I now understand all your posts here whereas before I did not. May I respectfully point out that you have conflated two subjects: man is warming the planet by emmission of CO2 & man is facing an energy crisis. You then adopt Lindzen’s position that the former is not a significant problem but want to do something about the latter. But why? There is no energy crisis other than energy poverty. That is being addressed in countries such as China by building capacity as fast as possible whereas in the ‘West’ that poverty is being self-inflicted.
Not so wicked. Consider this:-
The natural annual atmospheric concentration of CO2, in, say, the NH, is far more than the annual input by humans using fossil fuels. Human burning of fossil fuels produce 3% of the total annual CO2 atmospheric budget and the natural variation between winter and summer is more than this. The hemispheres are different due to difference between sea and land areas and there is very little mixing between hemispheres due to prevailing wind directions so each will be different but anthropogenic input in each hemisphere is still below the annual variation. So how can out little bit affect climate when the annual variation does not cause tipping points etc?
Looks to me like a “wicked problem” is the problem of optimizing a control strategy in a dynamical system; IOW, an NP-complete optimization problem.
From the wikipedia definition:
“Design problems are typically wicked because they are often ill defined”
So i’m solving wicked problems all the time. And some millions of developers elsewhere as well. What’s the big deal?
Wicked problem? Heh, simple solution. We ceased worshipping the sun and will come to regret it. Love Gaia, but obey Ol’ Sol.
=============
and many times the causes are actually solutions to previous problems.
It is interesting to know that the whole concept of “sustainability” came directly out of the failed world bank interventions to help third world countries by economic grants. To summarise: the economic action was not having the required economic benefit because it led to consequential degradation of society and the environment whose impact was to reduce the economic benefit.
Unintended consequences: don’t invest in the economy without thinking through how it will effect the society and environment.
Then along came some greens who thought: “hey we could use this to batter through green policies. So, this became the mantra of the greens: “economics must be tamed to be sustainable, and that means economic development must not impact the environment. Which slowly slowly slowly became: we mustn’t do anything economic that harms the environment.
But what the greens don’t want to admit is that sustainability cuts both ways. You can do too much for the environment if you don’t look at the wider impacts on the economy and society just as the original concept came from too much economic investment without thinking through its impacts.
So, now we have a situation where we are having “environmental” policy which is being done irrespective of the social and economic consequences. A classic example is CO2 tax and “green economies” and (windmills which destroy local jobs and wreck local tourist jobs) which are being forced through even though they are having profound social and economic impacts which are undermining the willingness and financial economy needed to support those green policies.
Quite literally, many modern environmental policies are unsustainable … because they so adversely impact our society and economy that we will have neither the willingness or finances to implement them.
Eliminating anthropogenic carbon emissions globally would require the investment of ~$150 trillion more than the “business as usual” scenario, which would command an annual return of ~$15 trillion to the investors.
That might not be a “wicked” problem, but it would certainly be problematic.
I think this is more a Wicked-pedia problem than a Wicked problem.
Finest Straw Man I ‘ve seen raised in some time. Tom, you must be paid by the word.
If our space programs had advanced as they should have, getting rid of any toxic waste would be fairly simple. Jettison it into the sun. The sun won’t take any notice at all, and the waste will be be no threat to anyone.
This, of course, assumes we had, or will have, developed extremely reliable launch and re-entry platforms which could fly as often as passenger airliners do today. Or, the invention of space elevators, or…
Ric Werme says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:52 pm
I don’t know, I think I’ve been in new England too long. “Wicked” here is a colloquialism that generally means “extreme” but usually in a good way, in fact “wicked good” garners 192,000 Google inflated hits, and “wicked problem” gets 27,100.
I was stationed in Maine for a number of years and the above is what I think of when the word “wicked” is used. The other word that I had a time with was the use of the word “stove” as in “I stove in my cah late night.”
Mr. Fuller you have invented two wicked problems. AWG and running out of energy from oil/coal/natgas. Thousands of years of natgas resides in methane hydrates just off shore. I donot object to nuclear but using running out of oil/coal/AWG is not a valid reason.
Paul Deacon (and others)
I apologise for not having interacted more here in the comments section. I am trying to sandwich my efforts to help Anthony in between a rather hectic work schedule and my own personal life, but hey–part of blogging is digging into the comments.
I do not now and never have believed that global warming is a planet buster. But what will be at most an inconvenience for the U.S., Canada and New Zealand will be a very difficult load for equatorial countries.
I believe it will be around 2 degrees for the doubling of CO2 that we are currently engaged in, basically because we’re rising at about 1.7 degrees per century now, and 2010 will be either the hottest or second hottest year on record. Hope you’re right and I’m wrong!
I think the Northern and temperate latitudes will either benefit or escape most negative effects of climate change, certainly at first, but maybe even later. I think the major effects will be concentrated in the tropics. As that band of latitudes is home to many of the poorest countries, I believe they will actually suffer.
However, we cannot predict where global warming will actually fall–the abysmal model performance at regional specification makes that very clear.
On the other hand, as I mentioned in my post, it is much easier to size the energy issue facing the world, and to conclude (for me, at least) that preparation will be easier and cheaper than coping with it after it has happened. Unlike the nebulous and frequently incorrect pronouncements regarding climate change/warming/disruption or whatever it’s called this week, the energy issue is really simple arithmetic. Spaniards use 159 mbtus per person per year. In 2035, 2 billion people who currently use 60 mbtus will be as rich or richer than Spaniards are today. They currently don’t have cars, toasters, washing machines or televisions and that will change. They will use as much energy as Spaniards use now–we’ll be lucky if they don’t use more.
If that energy is provided by coal, it will have conventional environmental consequences that will be both harmful to health and the environment. It will contribute more CO2 to our atmosphere, but the conventional pollution will be bad enough that we will end up spending billions, maybe trillions, to clean it up and take care of the victims. That’s what happened in the developed world–why would we think it will be different in other parts of the world?
If on the other hand we provide this energy via nuclear, hydroelectric, solar and geothermal, we may avoid these consequences. I favor this course of action.
Mr Fuller, you are unlikely, it seems, to find very much agreement here with your point of view. I find none of the criticisms of your “rationale” unjustified. Is your objective, as with some others who post here, merely to stir the pot?
Mr. Fuller,
I for one appreciate your articles; they are thought provoking without hyperbole. I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I think they are generally well written and bring up good points. I hate labeling of groups and you seem to avoid labels as well.
This may be because I came to look at the skeptical views because of my interest in energy conservation instead of coming for pure scientific enlightenment. I stayed interested because the science is not settled, and acting on incorrect information will be disasterous.
I have no issue with a mix of alternative energy systems, but I can’t see stopping or minimizing the use of coal, petroleum and natural gas. I favor true life cost anaylsis of systems WITHOUT government subsidies. I think that wind and solar have a role to play, but only a minimal role. Nuclear in one form or another is and has been shown to be viable.
Please keep writing; I enjoy your articles, even if it is only to cross check your information
Djozar, Mechanical Engineer PE in Texas
I think I will echo Djozar, your articles although I disagree with *most of them, (I do agree with the Cuch. vs. Mann argument you make) maybe for a different reason…and sometimes I agree with what you say like in adopting hydroelectric + nuclear. Personally, I believe (I know we do not like to use that word much here) but lets face it, its sometimes a way to proceed….I believe that we can effect or affect the environment in positive ways as well as negative and that not all human endeavors or achievements in technology should be thought of as bad.
That being said, just because I disagree with you does not mean I do not enjoy your posts. Its a different perspective and just as I would like to hear from the alarmist side as well, it gives us something to talk about.
I hope I keep it civil in my disagreements, because I know we all tend to get angry sometimes…and myself included. Don’t think that just because I disagree with you does not mean you do not have something to say. I would say the same thing to an alarmist or full flung believer if they kept the argument like you did civil and such. Not sure if this helps at all, but just kind of throwing that out there…..
That being said, I disagree with being able to predict the temperature increase to the ability you do…2.0 degrees although not alarmist in my mind (its possible and likely) its still a prediction that can not be substantiated. I think for me I predict over the next 60 years which I think is the better reference point for our climate then our traditional 100 years we like to use (we like base 10 numbers..) that we will probably have an increase of between .5 – 2.5 degrees if nothing else changes in the next 60 years such as solar cycles and the lot.
I make no claim to the effects of CO2… Or even land usage changes or other changes we make since there has been no effort thus far to seperate these possible changes from natural variation. Basically, keep doing what you do, because as you can see we may never completely agree…and the thick skin you already have will only become thicker…
thomaswfuller says:
October 19, 2010 at 8:58 am
I think the Northern and temperate latitudes will either benefit or escape most negative effects of climate change, certainly at first, but maybe even later. I think the major effects will be concentrated in the tropics. As that band of latitudes is home to many of the poorest countries, I believe they will actually suffer.
However, we cannot predict where global warming will actually fall–the abysmal model performance at regional specification makes that very clear.
**********************************************************
Thanks, Tom, for your efforts at blogging. I appreciate the time, energy, and civility that you devote to this blog. Please excuse me, but what I find in your posts again and again are unsupported (and self-defeating) arguments such as this one. “We don’t know the effects of global warming, but we believe it is happening and that its effects will be bad” seems to be what you are saying.
I have lived in several different countries in the tropics and sub-tropics. I have visited several others. I do not believe that a modest increase in temperatures would do these places and their peoples harm. If you are referring to purported weather/climate changes such as increased drought, increased rainfall, increased extreme events etc., I suggest these are unsupported by observation or evidence.
The answer to the problem of the poor people living in the tropics and sub-tropics is to make them rich. For this they need cheap energy, not expensive energy. What right do you or anyone have to deny them cheap energy, thereby keeping them in poverty?
All the best.
Thomas,
IMO, there is a problem, though I’m unconcerned whether it’s “wicked” or otherwise.
That problem concerns the evolution of human societies. To get to the stage we are in the West, we have had to rely on exploitation of energy resources. This has given us lots of free time – time to think, to reflect on what it is to be human and what worthwhile human values are.
I’d say there are two primary and conflicting tendencies. The first is towards optimism, and the second, pessimism. Few but the mentally disturbed lean completely one way or the other; and paradoxically, the one acts as the attractor for the other.
People are optimistic because there exist things that are, or at least seem to be, threatening. Hence they look for evidence that in the long run, things have gradually improved; and no reason to posit that all of a sudden they are going to degenerate irretrievably.
People are pessimistic because there exist things that are, or at least seem to be, better or more desirable. And so they look for evidence that we are in fact currently in an undesirable state, and push for attainment of the desirable one.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and undue complacency on the one hand, or excessive anxiety on the other, may lead people to attach desirability or undesirability to an inappropriate object.
Are there things out there that we really ought to be striving for, or to be avoiding? With the benefit of hindsight, we can review history and see that this has always been the case in the past. But history also tells us that we didn’t very often identify those things and deal with them effectively. Much more usually, whatever we directed our fears or hopes at were red herrings. In practice, when real stuff happened, we dealt with it as the adaptable organic entities we happen to be.
If we should have learnt one thing by now, I believe it is that it’s most probable that whatever is most engaging our hopes or fears is, in the big scheme of things, at best marginal. This does not apply quite as much to those in less well-developed nations, because their primary hopes and fears are for continued day-to-day survival. And in this, they can latch onto already proven means of getting beyond that state. They know that the way forward is through exploiting energy resources, just as we have done in the West.
There’s no way one can prevent them doing as we did. And if they do as we did, at some stage, their own societies will acquire the leisure time to start having hopes and fears about things beyond basic subsistence needs. But by then, those already in that state will have moved on. Somewhere in all of this is the continuing evolutionary impulse. It might stay in the currently developed world, or emanate from some interaction between it and the undeveloped world.
Some doubtless regard the “Desiderata” as a hackneyed and sentimental source, but one part of it has always struck me as convincing:
You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
I guess this proclaims me as an optimist at heart, but I’m not attaching my hopes to any specific object. We’re sure to have bad times in the future, but I’d stake my last penny that for the most part those will be in unsuspected areas, and that we’ll deal with them as and when they arise, whatever the mock fears that prior to them seemed most taxing.
Mankind will have made a quantum leap when it finally learns to live in the present, dealing with the things of today without too much worry about those of yesterday or tomorrow; when “hope” and “fear” become less tyrannical house gods, and applied only in appropriate circumstances.
I’m sorry if I’m waxing philosophical. It just so happens that the whole Global Warming fandango tends to engage that side of my nature. I sense it means something quite significant, but not in terms of its intrinsic subject matter: if not Global Warming, it would doubtless be something else at this stage of human evolution, with the same underlying dynamic. I sometimes wonder if it will eventually prove to be a signal of (if not an entirely sufficient cause for) a significant shift in human affairs. Perhaps even something as important as the Reformation, Renaissance, or Enlightenment.