The Shadow of Progress

My answer to those that deny the effect of pollution on the environment.

The Shadow of Progress (BBC2 - 1970s)

---

In contemporary times, there has been extensive discourse surrounding the topics of "global warming" and "climate change." These terms have been employed by political leaders across the ideological spectrum, often with opposing views. On the right, there are those who outright deny the existence of climate change, dismissing it as a "hoax." Conversely, the left perceives climate change as an existential threat, incorporating it into broader, more radical agendas. This dichotomy has led to a lack of belief in climate change among right-wing individuals, partly due to a lack of trust in the left. However, the truth remains independent of political affiliations and stands on its own, regardless of personal agreement.

The truth, being self-evident and self-realized, sometimes eludes us. In my extensive research, I have encountered numerous claims refuting climate change, asserting that it does not exist and its effects are minimal. Initially, I aligned with this perspective, as I was ignorant of the intricate relationship between humanity and our environment. Like many others, I did not thoroughly investigate or question the information presented by right-wing sources or alternative media. It became apparent to me that this ignorance pervades much of alternative media, contradicting the notion of being "awake" as proclaimed within these circles. In fact, I have witnessed some of the most uninformed and unaware individuals among these groups.

More recently, a significant point of contention on the right has centered around fossil fuels and their gradual reduction in favor of cleaner, less polluting forms of energy. Watching right-wing media for a prolonged period exposes one to a barrage of propaganda criticizing the "liberal agenda" to limit fossil fuels in the fight against climate change. It is important to note that the right has longstanding ties to oil and coal companies, promoting a biased agenda that prioritizes these corporations above environmental concerns. Many within the right-wing audience deny scientific consensus, making them susceptible to right-wing talking points.

Throughout my research, I have delved into human psychology to understand why people hold certain beliefs, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence. Although I hesitate to use the term frequently, it is fitting to describe such individuals as "delusional." As I mentioned earlier, the truth transcends political parties, yet it can be elusive and requires an intelligent, unbiased mind that genuinely seeks the truth. In my experience, those lacking these qualities tend to deny evidence without providing credible counterarguments.

Recently, I saw a video featuring a somewhat popular figure in the ‘truth movement’, who adamantly proclaimed that "Climate change is not real!", suggesting that it is all a hoax. Throughout the video, he repeatedly emphasizes his status as a scientist and showcases his numerous credentials. This individual has denied any increase in viral illnesses from 2020 until now, but that is a topic for another discussion. He has written extensively about climate change, presenting data that supposedly refutes its existence.
This made me realize once again that anyone can present something as believable, even if it lacks truth, and many will believe it without pause. Throughout the years, I have encountered numerous individuals, claiming to be scientists with credentials, who assert that climate change is not real. However, credentials alone do not define a scientist or the truth. Each one of us has the potential to be a scientist, as science entails observing and deciphering reality. Within this realm of reality, we possess the ability to witness truths through our senses and intellect, documenting them accordingly.

This applies to the issue of pollution, which is why I have written this article and am sharing this documentary on pollution. I want to emphasize that unchecked pollution can undoubtedly contribute to climate change. Anyone who suggests otherwise fails to grasp the full extent of humanity's impact on nature and our immense responsibility in preserving the Earth. It seems to me that those who lack this understanding have limited personal experiences and have led sheltered lives.

In my research and writings on viruses, I have come to realize the significant impact pollution has on the human body and our overall well-being, from the air we breathe to the water we drink and the food we consume. Despite some efforts to address pollution, it continues to worsen in many parts of the world. Claiming that such pollution does not affect our atmosphere, subsequently contributing to the trapping of greenhouse gases, represents the epitome of folly and a complete disregard for scientific principles.
The scenario can be likened to an individual who holds the false belief that the Earth is flat or that viruses do not exist. Both of these falsehoods can be readily disproven by employing logical reasoning and scientific principles. From my viewpoint, we find ourselves in an era characterized by a pervasive disregard for science, particularly within the alternative or ‘truth movement’. As a result, numerous unsubstantiated claims persist, lacking the necessary evidence to support them. Paradoxically, it is often those who vehemently proclaim to be "awake" or enlightened who, in the end, contribute to our collective slumber by promoting baseless beliefs.

I urge the reader to contemplate the following rationale:
Currently, the Earth's population stands at approximately 8 billion and is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050. This signifies a greater demand for fuel to power an increasing number of cars, which in turn contributes to atmospheric pollution and deteriorating air quality, leading to a rise in various diseases. As the population continues to grow, there will be an amplified need for food and industrial production to sustain and fulfill requirements for items such as clothing and technology. Unfortunately, many of these processes rely on polluting sources of energy. Additionally, one can envision a scenario where plant-based food, which the human body is not biochemically designed to subsist on, replaces animal-derived food due to easier manufacturing processes. It is also foreseeable that medical control and intervention will intensify in response to escalating disease rates stemming from increased pollution.

With an expanding population and the pollution that comes along with it, the demands placed upon mankind become increasingly burdensome.
Hence, I pose the question: What is humanity's breaking point?
Accordingly, it is only logical to transition away from polluting fossil fuels towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly forms of energy. Those who argue otherwise demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge and have likely been deceived by individuals driven by profit and greed, with ulterior motives.

Considering these points, I invite the reader to reflect upon these aspects while watching the documentary.

Thank you for reading,

Jeff Green