Dreaming about the past (answer to criticism)

The usual critique for this blog contains a few statements that I'd like to answer to.

The first one, and perhaps the most important is that we dream too much about the past. "You see the past in such an ideal light" - and that is wrong.

As a matter of fact, I would say that there is NOTHING to dream about the past societies. The past societies did nothing to preserve the earth, as a matter of fact, the effects of the past societies are the ones that we endure now! So no, we don't have an ideal light over the past societies, but we do mourn the nature as it was in the pre-industrialized world. We do love our computers, our life-span of over 70 years and our health - and we are healthy since it does take more than an epidemic to kill hundred of thousands of people. Of course, we still have epidemics that kill a lot of people (look at the HIV epidemic), but that is somewhat different, since this epidemic looks rather human inflicted than nature-inflicted. We have now the cleanest water in history - because we know how to clean it up and all, and we have it bottled. It's not cheap, but health is important - the fun fact is that having the cleanest water in history we still drink the most poisonous stuff like chemically created carbonated sodas. But, aside all that, we are healthier.

The second criticism against this blog and against people like us goes with the fact that we are too critical. There are wheels spinning, the people are starting a new trend - a 'save the planet' trend. Well, I don't believe that there is really a 'save the planet' trend, but there sure is a 'look at me trying to save the planet' trend going on. So is this true that we are too critical? Perhaps we are. Perhaps we are talking about stuff that contradict too much our own lives, and perhaps we should do more, talk less, and do that silently. Well, my guess is that this is not possible. That we can't have surgery without the blade cutting the skin - and we can't just ignore the facts that we see. We talk about them because we want people to know, and spread the word. We see other people moving stuff, we see other people thinking great things, and we try to spread the word. It's the least we can do.

We do criticise, but there is no progress without critique. As a matter of fact, we evolved like this because we didn't criticise the ways we did evolve. We did grow fast, but it was better a slow evolution that would put us at peace with our own house. And here comes the ancient wisdom that we talk about in our blogs. Because our society is now affected by gluttony, greed and desires and all these are coming back against us to hit like a hammer. We are the victims of the past societies. But now it's too late to criticise them, so we criticise ourselves.

We are biased, some say. I've read some weeks ago an article written by Vaclav Klaus that said that not the climate is at risk, but the freedom of thought. He is true, as far as he is concerned. The idea that the climate change is a propaganda might be true, and I took some time to think this over. But somehow it seems quite different the world we live in, and I know for sure that weather is a whole lot different nowadays and a few years ago (like the '80s). Of course, Mr. Klaus argues with the arguments of a person that fought the totalitarian movement of the soviets, but perhaps this is not the case. You choose for yourselves. But even the most ardent opponents of the 'global warming' did shift in time - from denying the phenomena to stating now that 'humans have nothing or too little to do with it'.

And we have some harsh proves. I am not talking about some politician's movie, but I think that anyone who lived in New Orleans does have a say or two about the global warming. The phenomena is there. The question is: do we accept it and try to get over it? Or do we just fight for our freedom of speech (which I don't see in what way is affected) and die of some desert disease in our temperate-climate homes?

Yes, I have some unruly thoughts about some oponents of the global warming. I never thought I would hear this, but I hear more often: "but warmer is better!". And I fail to see it - I fail to see why warmer is better. You don't die of cold... but you do die of heart-attack at high temperatures. So where's the gain?

And even if we didn't have these effects on our hands, think about it more. Would you start a gasoline-based car in your apartment? Would you ride your motorbike in your apartment without a breath of fresh air? Point is that the current environment is damaging our health, and sure, we do survive more, but it's survival what we do.

So if there is something to criticise, don't criticise the ideas. It's so silly to criticise the existance of global warming now, but soon global warming will become textbook issue. You know, the kind of things that you learn in the first grade. And you may say that this is pure propaganda, but then again 1+1 equals 2 is pure propaganda as well (and people that finished some mathematics-oriented sections of universities know that what I say is true, and 1+1=2 is quite a different thing).

As I remember, it's George Orwell that said that 'freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 makes 4'. The freedom to state the obvious. And this is the obvious.

If there is something to criticise, criticise the methods that are used to clean the Earth. Please do.

Perhaps there are many points I left out of this. There is still a lot more to talk about, but questions are welcome :)

PS: Since we talked about freedom of thought and global warming, a reaction (translated from romglish to english):
(3:37:56 PM) Teo: i'm back. again
(3:38:06 PM) Dorin: Welcome
(3:38:07 PM) Dorin: You have a link (with the new post, my note)
(3:38:13 PM) Teo: I saw
(3:40:23 PM) Teo: it's too hot to think
(3:40:51 PM) Dorin: :D
(3:40:57 PM) Dorin: it's about being too hot to think
(3:40:57 PM) Dorin: :P
(3:41:02 PM) Teo: i know