Science IS the answer. Not only is it a requirement for sustainable civilization, it is also rational and universally appilicable. Its rationality does nothing to impede the development of ethical and moral societies.
Whether we go (or have gone) over a tipping point or not, we'll still need to adjust (it's just a question of how much).
Hypothetically, if an asteroid were heading for Earth, wouldn't we employ some technological solution to deal with the problem? -A kind of world unifying type of solution (or at least a half-assed attempt). We wouldn't wait for it to hit and then "just" adjust or adapt. It would be too cataclysmic; once civilization falls apart, it's pretty hard to revive it.
The old joke about everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it, was a joke because it was inconceivable that we could control the weather (or climate). We've been changing the climate unintentionally on a regional level for over 2000 years now. In the Little Ice Age, Daniel Webster noted that "frost follows the plow."
Maybe we should start doing it intentionally.
There are many "forcers, " in addition to CO2, which could create a sudden change in our relatively stable climate. Ultimately we can't know what the climate will do, so shouldn't we attempt to employ some solutions that would give us control over the climate? Something, or a combination of techniques, which would function as a sort of thermostat for the planet.
Obviously there's the difficulty factor, and the "unintended consequences" factor, but hypothetically, wouldn't it be nice to have a thermostat (since we can't know the future climate)?
~SA
I should probably reread this, as I've been adding and adjusting alot; but it's late and I think the general idea comes across.
Is science or adaptation the answer?
