Arguably, science has contributed more to society through its intrinsic skepticism than any other thought process. Science is not ‘beakers and lasers and lab coats’ as society may perceive. Instead, science is a thought process. It is humanity’s rational method of describing and explaining our ambient natural surroundings and the laws of physics (often vaguely called ‘the environment’) through a lens of questioning curiosity. Science is a form of modern philosophy. It is the ultimate expression of what separates humans from our animal cousins, the ability to envision the concept of ‘future’ and to affect it. But, with this capacity comes a profound responsibility, one that we are just coming to accept. This responsibility I broadly describe as survival within wise limits. The survival of humanity, yes, but underscoring it with the knowledge that we ought not exist alone, but rather as a part of the Earth systems within which we have biologically and culturally evolved. Moreover, we must grant that although our ability to affect the environment is entropically grand, it is not unbounded, thus our optimism to uniquely steer the course of the natural history is incongruous with physics. One thing we can be sure of is that the Universe and the Earth within it existed long before us humans were able to begin to contemplate it, probably shortly after our discovery of controlled fire, which allowed us to consume a higher variety of nutritious, cerebral foods and to stay up at night, safe, warm and alone with our thoughts.

Nowadays science, through its discoveries, has become more esoteric and increasingly specialized. In the meantime, the human brain ever remains a generalist, adept at addressing many different tasks, from food preparation to philosophy, from elementary particles to the grandest scales of the Universe. This disparity is widening the epistemological gap between science and society, and correspondingly between scientists and global decision makers.

Science proceeds thoroughly and meticulously via reductionism to a rational conclusion that is necessarily testable and falsifiable. This long process of introspection is sometimes incompatible with the pace of decision-making at government or corporate levels, where many are affected. The most obvious contemporary case is that of Climate Change. In this case, society implores of science nothing less than to determine the future state of the biosphere and whether it will be habitable to humanity or not. The global scientific statement by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on this vital matter is firm:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.¹

The report goes further to conclude:

Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.¹

Very likely. That's the operative word. The words "very likely" in climatology are basically paramount to full affirmation. Nevertheless, in the nearly three years that has passed since the release of this statement, little has been done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sadly, should science wait for a more comprehensive consensus, we may enter a time when positive feedback mechanisms commence and further climate mitigation is no longer possible. The proverbial point of no return. This is why I say that our ability to affect the environment is “entropically” grand, meaning we can chaotically continue to emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without acknowledging consequences, but to which end? Do we have the will to wield that power responsibly? The Earth is supremely indifferent to the affairs of humans. So, to ensure survival we would do best to adopt a precautionary approach when warranted by scientific analyses as in the current case with Climate Change.

Peace,

Grant