In 1925 John Scopes was prosecuted by the State of Tennessee, in Dayton, Ohio for teaching the then banned theory of evolution to a group of high school biology students. According to National Public Radio, on the one end, there was Scopes backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. On the other, the prosecution backed by three-time Democratic presidential hopeful, William Bryan. Bryan had already led a campaign that had effectively initiated legislation to ban teaching the theory of evolution in 15 states, Tennessee being one of them.
Critics, conscientious objectors, collaborators, and the ACLU dubbed the occasion, “The Monkey Trial.” Chimpanzees and monkeys were brought before the court. Scientific advisors testified. Bryan himself even took the stand.
Individuals from across the United States and around the world paid close attention. Reporters and public officials flocked to Dayton. The crowd that gathered was so large the proceeding had to be held outside under a make-shift pavilion. Objectors had closed their minds to Darwinism and refused to accept mankind evolved from primates. Even those supporting Scopes didn’t necessarily believe the theory; they only believed that the implication of banning a scope of science was wrong.
The eventual outcome was : a verdict of guilty, and Scopes was fined $100.00. A verdict that was later reversed.
The world has evolved a great deal since the 1920s. Nuclear fission ended World War II. Science invented and implicated the use of DDT, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. A powerful insecticide that was later found to cause serious health issues to the ecosystem itself.
With the new age came factories and technological expansion into third world countries. Smoke stacks and tail pipes spewed plumes of broken fossil fuel molecules into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone added parts-per-million to the Earth’s natural greenhouse.
Over the course of the last half of a century scientists have noted a rise in global temperature. Research has provided diametric analysis that has shown the Earth’s average temperature has fluctuated since photosynthesis began. Again humanity has come to a crux. Like “Scopes” in the 1920s, on one side there are scientists claiming that global warming is a hoax, and has no scientific standing. On the other, there are scientists that state the warming of the planet is factual and must be altered.
In the wake of “The Monkey Trial,” global thought changed. Most people, breathing the parts-per-million of atmospheric phenomenon that was once believed to be “just air,” know Darwinism, or the theory of evolution.
Global warming is the “Scopes” movement of today.
Why does it matter? Public opinion will continue to be swayed by personal beliefs. It’s inevitable that someday everyone will die. So what does it matter if everyone is going to die someday, whether the planet survives or not? Why should a person care?
Everyday more oil wells are drilled into the earth. As hydro-fracking moved from theory to application, a boom of industrial money, motivated at pumping carbon out of the earth began. In just one day , it’s possible that more carbon is being released into the atmpspher than the earth could sequester in the course of a million of years. So what? What does that mean for the people living today? Are they expected to return to the days-of-old, cooking on a woodstove, lighting their houses with whale blubber lamps?
The present debate of global warming is ringing in the heart of science. Yet, there are realitively few obvious signs that this is occurrig. Visually, thermally, and bodily the earth’s cycles have been the same for almost everyone alive since they were born, at least for most folk. So the earth’s average temperatures have risen 1.8 degrees Farienheit from the 1950’s. So what? Most people alive today weren’t even alive in the 50's. Should that matter to the mill-worker, the store clerk, the businessman? Honest hard working individuals who care nothing really about science, and have only one overall goal—attempt to survive using the best means possible in a capitalist society.
So what if the world heats up a bit? So what if scientists say something is going to happen in the five year future that will become inalterable. Am I expected to get up in the morning, and neglect to turn on the electric lights in an attempt to solve the problem science is stating has begun. When billions of other people care nothing about the risks of modern convince, and the habitual trait it has created in the human race? Am I supposed to launch a campaign against Coke-a-Cola for polluting the very air I breathe. Am I supposed to launch a campaign against corporate oil, and its grubby money greed? Am I supposed to wave the battle axe at coal fired electrical plants? And wage a war against the very people who allow me to flip the electric switch, start my car, or drink a softdrink as a matter of convenience?
The United States has lived in the world of modern convience and habit since the late 70's and possibly before. Now that the rest of the world has entered into these realms of living conviences, how can a capatilist democracy tell another country, “Oh, and by the way, our industrial use of carbon based fuels is gradually reverting our planet back to a pre-history state. It wasn’t so bad until you began to implicate the same technology we’ve used for decades. Now that you have modernized it won’t be long until the Earth’s atmosphere is comparable to the atmosphere on Venus. And, Oh by the way we wish you would stop, so that we can continue to live our convient lives.”
It just doesn’t work like that. People are going to continue to demand the supply of convenience
One small step in the process, could be one huge step for mankind. That would be to stop putting bubbles in beer and softdrinks. This one simple step would save years of Greenhouse Emissions.
In order for science and corporate greed to come to terms and attempt to begin fixing the problem, or even the non-problem, of global warming, the two are going to have to come to understand life on a level playing field. Science is going to have to accommodate big business money greed, and corporate understanding is going to have to accommodate science. Why does this matter? It matters because unless something seriously goes haywire, and all the energy production sources stop in an instant, (Read "What does the future look like? [Part II.]" in this blog series to understand the real impending problem.)
Humanity is not going to purposefully punish itself and stop living the life of modern convience. It just is never going to happen. Even with the present situation of things, even the scientists touting global warming are themselves unwilling to stop using the energy provided by the very cause of the problem. It’s an unwillingness to de-evolve.
In that light, it comes to a matter of evolution. Since even science is quasi-unwilling, and capatilism is unwilling, and most all of the conusmers are unwilling then it is a matter of changing personal beliefs in order to create a willingness. This will only come through a process that will keep the cost of supplying humanity with more power at an affordable rate, while measures are implicated to decrease the amounts of decomposition gasses released into the atmosphere. In other words, a new technology must be found to mitigate the circumstances. As a species we are going to get up and turn the light switch to the on position, whether that light pollutes the environment or not. As a species, and as a world of individuals, to sustain human existence we will need a new technology for power creation that allows us to flip the switch to the on position, without polluting the environment.
That is what "Fire for Resource Benefit" is attempting to do. The series is attempting to show people how a future world can keep all it's modern convinces that are provided by electrical power, without emitting any more Greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than the world would emit if human beings were not on the planet.
