World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race

Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Essays

World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race Dennis Ray Morgan * Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:

This paper examines the foundation for two scenarios of the future depicting how human civilization might destroy itself and possibly bring about the extinction of the human race in the process. The scenarios are based upon the two human-generated ‘‘fires’’ deeply ingrained within industrial civilization: (1) the nuclear ‘‘fire’’ of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and their automated ‘‘launch on warning’’ alert systems and (2) the slow burning ‘‘fire’’ of global warming and runaway climate change. This paper also examines obstacles that are currently preventing the necessary first steps towards solving these problems. ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online 10 July 2009

Confusion will be my epitaph, As I crawl a cracked and broken path, If we make it, we can all sit back and laugh, But I fear tomorrow, I’ll be crying, Yes I fear tomorrow, I’ll be crying. (from ‘‘Epitaph,’’ King Crimson, 1969) 1. Introduction In 2006 Stephen Hawking, the theoretical physicist, professor of mathematics, and best-selling author of A Brief History of Time (1988), posed a question on Yahoo Public [1]. Essentially, Dr. Hawking questioned whether humankind will survive the 21st century: ‘‘In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?’’1 This question asks us to critically examine fundamental assumptions concerning the future of the human race and life on planet Earth. To assume that humankind will somehow survive the next 100 years without specifically addressing the grave global crises that threaten the future could be a fatal assumption indeed. One way to begin to answer Professor Hawking’s question is to ask why humankind would not survive the next 100 years. Specifically, what

* Tel.: +82 41 864 1481. E-mail address: [email protected]. 1 http://www.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD. 0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.07.011

684

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

are the most likely scenarios of human mass destruction that depict how civilization and life on planet Earth could be exterminated?2 In Survival or Hegemony: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky [2] begins with somber reflections by one of the great figures of contemporary biology, Ernst Mayr. According to Chomsky, Mayr speculated that natural selection may not favor humans in the future since it cannot be proven through the history of the Earth that a species is favored by its superior intellectual form of organization: survival does not depend on whether one is ‘‘smart’’ or not. Strictly speaking, in terms of biological success, ‘‘‘beetles and bacteria, for example, are vastly more successful than humans in terms of survival.’ He also made the rather somber observation that ‘the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years’’ [2], roughly speaking, around the same amount of time since the emergence of the first fully modern human beings. Could it be that humans are a sort of ‘‘biological error,’’ Chomsky ponders, ‘‘using their allotted 100,000 years to destroy themselves and in the process much else . . . with an assault on the environment that sustains life . . . and with a cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well?’’ [2]. Thus does Chomsky point to the two human-engineered, global ‘‘fires’’ that threaten the life of our planet: the burning of fossil fuels, spurring exponential global warming, and the threat of nuclear war ‘‘fires’’ as a result of militarization, wars of aggression, and the escalation of global conflicts. Both fires can be linked to the competition for ever-shrinking natural resources, and the escalation of such competition through global conflict threatens to create runaway conditions that could bring about global collapse or crash. The consequences of these two ‘‘runaway’’ fires are grave enough to consider the possibility of the complete destruction of human civilization or perhaps the extinction of the human species (as well as all else in the process) within the next 100 years. As Chomsky illustrates throughout his book, it is truly a question of ‘‘survival or hegemony,’’ for both will not do. We only have to examine recent history to see how U.S. aggression and militarism has mostly prevented global solutions to these two human-caused ‘‘fires’’. For example, in the early fall of 2002, even after obtaining new information revealing just how close the U.S. and U.S.S.R. came to all-out nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bush administration nevertheless ‘‘blocked UN efforts to ban the militarization of space, . . . terminated international negotiations to prevent biological warfare,’’ and began planning a war of aggression against Iraq [2]. At the same time, the Bush administration also ‘‘persisted in undermining international efforts to reduce threats to the environment that are recognized to be severe.’’; instead, Bush’s Climate Change Science program did not even ‘‘consider the likelihood, suggested by ‘a growing body of evidence’ that the short term warming changes it ignores ‘will trigger an abrupt nonlinear process’. . .’’ [2]. All of these events coincided with the Bush administration’s publication of its National Security Strategy, which ‘‘declared the right to resort to force to eliminate any perceived challenge to US global hegemony, which is to be permanent’’ [2]. Enshrined in the National Security Strategy document is Bush’s doctrine of preventative war, which basically says that the U.S. reserves the right to wage war on any country it chooses, simply because that country represents a perceived threat to U.S. business interests and global hegemony, regardless of international law, the Nuremberg Principles, the United Nations Charter or the Geneva Conventions. Thus, as Chomsky points out, preventative war automatically falls ‘‘within the category of war crimes’’ [2]. Because the U.S. is the chief culprit behind global warming and runaway climate change, and because it holds the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is currently researching and developing new forms of nuclear weapons (threatening to use its ‘‘bunker-busting’’ nukes in the prosecution of anticipatory self-defense), the doctrine of preventative war through pre-emptive strikes represents a declaration of war upon the world and a serious threat to the future of humankind. As Arthur Schlesinger wrote, ‘‘The president has adopted a policy of ‘anticipatory self-defense’ that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American said it would, lives in infamy. Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy’’ [2].3

2. Scenarios of human civilization destroyed by nuclear ‘‘fire’’ At the end of WWII, much of humanity witnessed the catastrophic devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, the world has discovered that the devastation and human destruction was not contained only within the area of those two cities in Japan. The aftereffects spread and infected a much wider area of human population and continued to impact the offspring of the survivors in future generations up until even the present day. Thus, with the horrifying experience of Nagasaki and Hiroshima fresh on the minds of its founders, the United Nations was formed to prevent another world war, which was considered an unthinkable risk because the escalation of conflicts could lead to the destruction of all humankind. To prevent this from happening, the U.N. founders declared war on war by outlawing wars of aggression. Also, in very strongly worded language, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg called the waging of aggressive war ‘‘essentially an evil thing . . . to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’’ [3]. Moreover, this indictment of war

2 Such scenarios of mass destruction do not necessarily have to describe the complete extermination of the human race; instead, these scenarios should describe mass destruction on such a scale that it could lead to extermination, a mass destruction that even though a remnant of the human race manages to survive, whether in its current evolutionary form or in a mutated form, human civilization as we know it has been completely destroyed. 3 As quoted by Chomsky, p. 12

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

685

was explicitly universalized when, in a report to the U.S. State Department, United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, wrote that ‘‘no political or economic situation can justify’’ the crime of aggression and that if certain acts in ‘‘violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.’’ [4]. Much of the United Nations Charter was derived from the Nuremberg Principles, the specific principle being ‘‘crimes against the peace,’’ which ‘‘refers to the act of military invasion as a war crime, specifically referring to starting or waging war against the integrity, independence, or sovereignty of a territory or state . . .’’ [5]. As a matter of fact, the U.N. Charter, Article 1 states that the purpose of the United Nations is to ‘‘maintain international peace and security, and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace . . .’’[6]. No doubt, the reason for such strongly worded language concerning wars of aggression was not only due to a reflection and assessment of the devastation of WWII but also, in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, due to a concern for the future of humankind, at a time when the nuclear arms race had already begun, and the nuclear arsenals of countries were stockpiling higher and higher. Certainly, both Einstein and Russell had this in mind when they posed a question in the Russell–Einstein Manifesto of 1955, which is similar to Hawking’s question today: ‘‘Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?’’ [7]. Russell and Einstein warned of bombs that are thousands of times more powerful than those of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, bombs that would send ‘‘radio-active particles into the upper air’’ and then return to the Earth in the form of a ‘‘deadly dust or rain’’ that would infect the human race thousands of times greater than those ‘‘Japanese fishermen and their catch of fish,’’ to quite possibly ‘‘put an end to the human race.’’ They feared that ‘‘if many H-bombs are used there will be universal death, sudden only for a minority, but for the majority a slow torture of disease and disintegration.’’ [7]. Years later, in 1982, at the height of the Cold War, Jonathon Schell, in a very stark and horrific portrait, depicted sweeping, bleak global scenarios of total nuclear destruction. Schell’s work, The Fate of the Earth [8] represents one of the gravest warnings to humankind ever given. The possibility of complete annihilation of humankind is not out of the question as long as these death bombs exist as symbols of national power. As Schell relates, the power of destruction is now not just thousands of times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; now it stands at more than one and a half million times as powerful, more than fifty times enough to wipe out all of human civilization and much of the rest of life along with it [8]. In Crucial Questions about the Future, Allen Tough cites that Schell’s monumental work, which ‘‘eradicated the ignorance and denial in many of us,’’ was confirmed by ‘‘subsequent scientific work on nuclear winter and other possible effects: humans really could be completely devastated. Our human species really could become extinct.’’ [9]. Tough estimated the chance of human self-destruction due to nuclear war as one in ten. He comments that few daredevils or high rollers would take such a risk with so much at stake, and yet ‘‘human civilization is remarkably casual about its high risk of dying out completely if it continues on its present path for another 40 years’’ [9]. What a precarious foundation of power the world rests upon. The basis of much of the military power in the developed world is nuclear. It is the reigning symbol of global power, the basis, – albeit, unspoken or else barely whispered – by which powerful countries subtly assert aggressive intentions and ambitions for hegemony, though masked by ‘‘diplomacy’’ and ‘‘negotiations,’’ and yet this basis is not as stable as most believe it to be. In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them

4

I will be continually referring to the ‘‘Introduction’’ and ‘‘Scenarios’’ sections within Carol Moore’s website.

686

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek selfdetermination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter. In ‘‘Scenarios,’’ Moore summarizes the various ways a nuclear war could begin: Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missiles or long-range bombers. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroy nuclear and/or nonnuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons. [10] She then goes on to describe six scenarios for catastrophic nuclear exchanges between various nations. Each scenario incorporates color-coded sections that illustrate four interrelated factors that will determine how a nuclear war will begin, proceed and escalate. These factors are labeled as accidental, aggressive, pre-emptive, and retaliatory. As for the accidental factor of nuclear war, both the U.S. and Russia have ‘‘launch on warning’’ systems that send off rockets before confirmation that a nuclear attack is underway; thus, especially during a time of tensions, a massive nuclear war could take place within only 30 min after a warning—even if the warning is false. This scenario has almost happened on several occasions in the past. It was only because of individual human judgments, which disbelieved the false warnings, that nuclear war did not happen, but if the human judgment had indeed interpreted the warnings according to protocol, an allout nuclear war would surely have taken place. Besides the accidental factor, another factor that could incite nuclear war is that of aggression. When nuclear powers are involved in wars of aggression, the nuclear option is always available. Especially when a nuclear power explicitly states that ‘‘all options are on the table,’’ concern about the nuclear option is well founded. Thus, Moore defines the aggressive factor as when ‘‘one or more nations decide to use weapons against a nuclear or non-nuclear nation in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state, of course, may claim it is a preemptive, retaliatory or even accidental attack.)’’ [10].5 Especially in light of the recent U.S. attack on Iraq (ideologically based on Bush’s preventative war doctrine), the ‘‘pre-emptive’’ factor in instigating a nuclear war should be taken seriously. It is when one or more nations believe, whether correctly or incorrectly, or claims to believe ‘‘that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets and preemptively attacks that nation.’’ [10].6 Similarly, ‘‘brinkmanship’’ could play a role in nuclear war escalation as well. We can see how this brinkmanship scenario is currently underway in U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in Poland, all set against the background of a militarist, expansionist Bush Administration that prosecuted a war of aggression against the sovereign country of Iraq and currently seems poised to do the same against Iran. As the U.S. proceeds with its plans to employ the missile defense shield in Poland, the Russians feel threatened and are now proceeding with countermeasures ‘‘to ensure its territory integrity and security are maintained.’’ [11]. Finally, the ‘‘retaliatory’’ factor in nuclear war scenarios is when nations respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction (whether nuclear, chemical or biological) by attacking with nuclear weapons. Then, once again, when the evil genie is let loose from the bottle, counter retaliatory strikes lead to escalation by the parties involved, as well as other concerned parties. All of these interrelated factors are woven into the storyline of Moore’s six scenarios that depict how a nuclear war might start and escalate. The ‘‘bottom line assumption’’ is that any nuclear exchange will (under a ‘‘use it or lose it’’ mentality) result in a series of escalations among immediate parties and their allies that will spiral out of control ‘‘until most of the planet’s 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted.’’ [10].7 Thus does Moore dismiss the limited exchange assumption, which does not take into account that ‘‘whatever can go wrong will go wrong’’ and especially the ‘‘use them or lose them’’

5 6 7

In ‘‘Six Escalation Scenarios’’ from the definition of the red coded ‘‘Aggressive’’ in ‘‘General Scenarios’’ In ‘‘Six Escalation Scenarios’’ from the definition of the orange coded ‘‘Pre-emptive’’ of ‘‘General Scenarios’’ In ‘‘Scenarios’’ under ‘‘Assumptions of these Scenarios’’

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

687

underlying psychology or strategy. There is simply no way to demonstrate that limited strikes will stay limited. Under such unprecedented circumstances, the unpredictable element of human nature would certainly determine the extent of the global nuclear holocaust, and when we consider the predominate fear that underlies the psychology of the nuclear game of death, perhaps that element of human nature is not so unpredictable after all; fear will insure that an all-out nuclear war would prevail rather than limited strikes. In one of Moore’s scenarios, an accidental or mistaken ‘‘glitch,’’ causes the Russian faulty early warning system to go off, a false alarm that mistakenly detects a nuclear attack by the U.S.8 Russia then ‘‘launches a large proportion of its weapons at the U.S. and preemptively at U.S. European and Israeli allies . . .’’ [10].9 These strikes, of course, bring about retaliatory strikes, and nuclear war escalates throughout much of the northern hemisphere. Given the present day predicament regarding Iran’s attempt to become a nuclear power, particular attention should be given to one of Moore’s scenarios depicting nuclear war that begins through an attack on Iran’s supposed nuclear facilities. According to Seymour Hersh [12] the nuclear option against Iran has, in fact, been discussed by sources in the Pentagon as a viable option. As Hersh reports, according to a former intelligence officer, the lack of ‘‘reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. ‘Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,’ the former senior intelligence official said. ‘Decisive is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.’’ [12].10 The official continues to explain how White House and Pentagon officials are considering the nuclear option for Iran, ‘‘Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout - we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out – remove the nuclear option – they’re shouted down’’ [12]. Understandably, some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not comfortable about consideration of the nuclear option in a first strike, and some officers have even discussed resigning. Hersh quotes the former intelligence officer as saying, ‘‘Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran - without success. The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you’’’ [12]. This scenario has gained even more plausibility since a January 2007 Sunday Times report [13] of an Israeli intelligence leak that Israel was considering a strike against Iran, using low-yield bunker busting nukes to destroy Iran’s supposedly secret underground nuclear facilities. In Moore’s scenario, non-nuclear neighboring countries would then respond with conventional rockets and chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Israel then would retaliate with nuclear strikes on several countries, including a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan, who then retaliates with an attack not only on Israel but pre-emptively striking India as well. Israel then initiates the ‘‘Samson option’’ with attacks on other Muslim countries, Russia, and possibly the ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ cities of Europe. At that point, all-out nuclear war ensues as the U.S. retaliates with nuclear attacks on Russia and possibly on China as well.11 Out of the four interrelated factors that could precipitate a nuclear strike and subsequent escalation into nuclear war, probably the accidental factor is one that deserves particular attention since its likelihood is much greater than commonly perceived. In an article, ‘‘20 Mishaps that Might Have Started a Nuclear War,’’ Phillips [14] cites the historical record to illustrate how an accident, misinterpretation,or false alarm could ignite a nuclear war. Most of these incidents occurred during a time of intense tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but other mishaps occurred during other times, with the most recent one in 1995. Close inspection of each of these incidents reveals how likely it is that an ‘‘accident’’ or misinterpretation of phenomena or data (‘‘glitch’’) can lead to nuclear confrontation and war. In his overall analysis, Phillips writes: The probability of actual progression to nuclear war on any one of the occasions listed may have been small, due to planned ‘‘failsafe’’ features in the warning and launch systems, and to responsible action by those in the chain of command when the failsafe features had failed. However, the accumulation of small probabilities of disaster from a long sequence of risks adds up to serious danger. There is no way of telling what the actual level of risk was in these mishaps but if the chance of disaster in every one of the 20 incidents had been only 1 in 100, it is a mathematical fact that the chance of surviving all 20 would have been 82%, i.e. about the same as the chance of surviving a single pull of the trigger at Russian roulette played with a 6-

8 For example, while the U.S. is involved in bombing another country or perhaps even using limited, low-yield "bunker busting" nuclear weapons during an attack 9 ‘‘Scenario One’’ 10 As quoted by Hersh, p. 3 11 Moore has a couple of other scenarios that revolve around the four interrelated factors (accidental, aggression, pre-emptive and retaliatory); for example, in one scenario, nukes are set off as a result of global escalating tensions in hot spots such as in the Kashmir region of India-Pakistan, and in another scenario, nukes are used in retaliation for an invasion of Taiwan by China. Finally, another scenario involves the work of terrorists "or some other unknown party who explodes a dirty bomb or one or two nuclear weapons in Russia, Israel, or the U.S., possibly delivered via surreptitious means." (Moore, ‘‘Scenario 6’’) Suspicions rise and the country under attack retaliates with pre-emptive nuclear strikes on the suspected attacking country, and everything escalates into all-out nuclear war

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

688

shooter. With a similar series of mishaps on the Soviet side: another pull of the trigger. If the risk in some of the events had been as high as 1 in 10, then the chance of surviving just seven such events would have been less than 50:50. [14]12 Aggression in the Middle East along with the willingness to use low-yield ‘‘bunker busting’’ nukes by the U.S. only increases the likelihood of nuclear war and catastrophe in the future. White House and Pentagon policy-makers are seriously considering the use of strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. As Ryan McMaken explains, someone at the Pentagon who had . . .not yet completed the transformation into a complete sociopath leaked the ‘Nuclear Posture Review’ which outlined plans for a nuclear ‘end game’ with Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria, none of which possess nuclear weapons. The report also outlined plans to let the missiles fly on Russia and China as well, even though virtually everyone on the face of the Earth thought we had actually normalized relations with them. It turns out, much to the surprise of the Chinese and the Russians, that they are still potential enemies in a nuclear holocaust. [15] Though it is clear now that North Korea has one or two nukes, what is quite remarkable and yet frightening about all this, as McMaken notes, is the giant leap that has taken place recently in U.S. nuclear policy, . . . away from a ‘last resort’ mentality on nuclear weapons to a ‘first strike’ mentality. The neo-conservative hawks and their allies in Washington have been pushing for years to develop low yield nuclear weapons. The idea behind the lowyield arsenal is that, since everyone pretty much accepts that it is insanity to kill millions of civilians in a 50 megaton blast, it is therefore more threatening to possess a 10 megaton device that might actually be used, and would thus only kill about 100,000 civilians. [15] Thus, we can observe how the same rationale for the dropping of the first two atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is not only still alive and well but has transformed from a ‘‘last option’’ to an offensive weapon in a war of aggression, willing to accept the murder of innocent civilians as part of the ‘‘unfortunate’’ price to pay, the sacrifice imposed upon others for the ‘‘good of the cause.’’ In this ends-justifies-the-means ideology, the innocent victims of a nuclear strike are but the unfortunate but ‘‘nevertheless’’ necessary casualties of war, whose lives are in reality but a mere number to the perpetrators – 100,000 – around the same number of Iraqis who were so readily ‘‘sacrificed’’ in the ‘‘shock and awe’’ 2003 attack, invasion and occupation of a sovereign country. Once again, we can observe how the same rationale for this violation of international law and the U.N. Charter against wars of aggression is used to justify war crimes while hypocritically acting as if it were a legitimate use of power. However, this time the stakes are much higher as the fate of the world weighs in the balance; the U.S. and Israeli war crimes rationale threatens humanity with an all-out nuclear war, which could end with the destruction or near destruction of all of human civilization.

3. Scenario two: death by the slow burning fire of global heating As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible world leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be reversed within a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire is gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail— and the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.’’[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior assessments came

12 13

‘‘Comment and Note on Probability’’ The most recent was completed in 2007

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

689

attacks from some parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more and more research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew stronger that human induced global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of ‘‘impressive scientific research’’ strongly confirms the 1995 report ‘‘that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they were now damaging the most basic of the earth’s systems—the balance between incoming and outgoing solar energy’’; ‘‘. . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report – a constant strengthening of the simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is ‘‘very likely’’ human caused, but it also finds that the ‘‘amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate even than before’’ and the temperature increases would be ‘‘considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to cool the planet.’’ [17]. Furthermore, almost ‘‘everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air, and ‘cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more frequent.’’ [17]. Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted. However, what is missing in the IPCC report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt [18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction between nature and man as ‘‘Homo faber’’ has become blurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of human civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human civilization becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own - and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process - we not only increased our power over nature, or became more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have taken nature into the human world as such and obliterated the defensive boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in’’ [18]. So, in as much as we act into nature, we carry our own unpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature increases in proportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human unpredictability into the future with a precarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet have her revenge and the last word, as the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere reach a tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist, inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers around the world, . . . which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves.

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

690

. . . Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish and arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with ‘‘failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys’’ [19]. Lovelock concludes his analysis on the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do ‘‘our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate’’ [19]. Lovelock’s forecast for climate change is based on a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that appropriately reflects the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it takes into account positive feedback loops that lead to ‘‘runaway’’ conditions. This mode of analysis is consistent with recent research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an international consortium, reported that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after repeated studies of ecological change) that ‘‘stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something entirely different,’’ according to Stephen Carpenter, a limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, ‘‘We realize that there is a common pattern we’re seeing in ecosystems around the world, . . . Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, you’re over into another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse.’’ [20]. If ecosystems are in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature report, puts it, ‘‘Nature isn’t linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camel’s back.’’ Also, once the ‘‘flip’’ occurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change is ‘‘irreversible.’’ [20]. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, it’s frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could ‘‘break the camel’s back?’’ Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global ‘‘heating’’ (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in Nature, concerns the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide. Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in ways that could very well prove to be the tipping point of no return. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press describes this disturbing positive feedback loop of permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming ‘‘. already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.’’ [21]. The significance and severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that ‘‘the amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called ‘‘yedoma’’ is much more prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels’’ [21]. Of course, it won’t come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the ‘‘several decades’’ that scientists say it will probably take to come out can just as well be considered ‘‘all at once.’’ Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a ‘‘slow motion time bomb.’’ [21]. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is under dry ground will be released as carbon dioxide. Scientists aren’t sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are ‘‘lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off’’ [21].14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks describes the effects as ‘‘huge’’ and, unless we have a ‘‘major

14

As quoted by Borenstein

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

691

cooling,’’ - unstoppable [22]. Also, there’s so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: ‘‘It’s coming out a lot and there’s a lot more to come out.’’ [22]. 4. Is it the end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of global warming: Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival seem even smaller. Who knows, even if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the future. A remnant of mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human civilization has been destroyed, and the question concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but to consider the finality of it all, as Schell does: ‘‘Death lies at the core of each person’s private existence, but part of death’s meaning is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives.’’ [23].16 But what if the world itself were to perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of ‘‘second death’’ – the death of the species – a possibility that the vast majority of the human race is in denial about? Talbot writes in the review of Schell’s book that it is not only the ‘‘death of the species, not just of the earth’s population on doomsday, but of countless unborn generations. They would be spared literal death but would nonetheless be victims . . .’’ [23]. That is the ‘‘second death’’ of humanity – the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects – that there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schell’s book, he writes that since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have ‘‘chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness.’’ [23].17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we relinquish the fire and our use of it to dominate the Earth and each other, or will we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette while time increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival? Perhaps a central focus to stop this headlong fall is to stop warring against each other over the finite resources of the Earth. Thus, in answer to Hawking’s question, the first step to ensure that humankind has even a chance to survive the next 100 years is to apply the U.N. mandate and end wars of aggression. Any country that goes against international law and the United Nations should be considered a rogue nation that must be denied, opposed and actively resisted because the risk of escalation into nuclear war is too high to consider. This time the stakes really are too high. The spectre of mass destruction and planetary catastrophe over wars of natural resources and global domination is as much if not a greater threat to the future as it has ever been. Furthermore, runaway climate change in a non-linear progression could bring about an irreversible global catastrophe of unforeseen dimensions, threatening the future of humankind, as well as the very life conditions on this planet. Humankind cannot afford to wait helplessly while powerful nations proceed with schemes for superpower status and global hegemony based on a ‘‘one-percent’’ nationalist ideology that is blind to the eventual global consequences of its ‘‘world on fire’’ policies of permanent war over the very fossil fuels that are the principal cause of global heating, whose burning in turn thaws the permafrost, adding yet another unpredictable and perhaps fatal ingredient to the experiment of human created processes acting into nature. Have we already reached the tipping point, as Lovelock maintains? Who knows? However, if we do not respond urgently to stop war and redirect our energies to meet this challenge aggressively through implementation of global sustainable development measures, our evolution may come to an end, and our species, for all purposes, will become extinct: the consequences of non-action and purposeful ignorance and denial will be devastating to the future of yet-born generations. Despite the grim reality that both of these scenarios of human-created ‘‘fires’’ could bring about the end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind, in our minds, as Allen Tough writes, . . .it is hard to picture our planet without a single human being left alive. No one left to play music; no one to listen. No one to watch the ocean waves, reflect on the stars, walk on the streets. No talking, no writing, no hopes, no thoughts, no dreams, no painting, no sports, no laughter, no births, no children. No one to even remember these things. No one at all. [9]

15 16 17

As quoted by Talbott As quoted by Talbott As quoted by Talbott

692

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

It seems almost incomprehensible for us to even attempt to consider it. Somehow, we’ve come to believe that our civilization is so invincible that it is simply unthinkable that it could all vanish within the next 100 years. To be or not to be—that is indeed the ultimate question that humanity must answer. Will Shakespeare’s words continue to inspire generations to come, or will his works be completely lost and forgotten? The same question can be asked about all of the great works of art and expressions of the human spirit that have evolved through the ages. Will everything that is good and noble in human evolution, civilization, and culture be abandoned and completely lost or else completely forgotten by the ‘‘lucky’’ remnant that somehow manages to survive—if there are survivors? The ‘‘second death’’ is most tragic, for not only will our history be lost, but the future will be lost too. Will the yet-born never even be given the opportunity to receive the wisdom and beauty of the human spirit and experience what it means to be alive? How can we cheat them of this grand opportunity that should be theirs by right? Love will be lost, and our planet may very well become just as dead as every other planet that we know about in the universe. Who knows? Perhaps our planet is the only one in which the miracle of life managed to evolve. There is still so much more for us to discover about the universe and our own origins. We have not yet ‘‘come of age’’ as one race—the human race. We have yet to understand what it even means to be human, and before we do, are we to just let it slide through our hands and lose it all? Why??? For various psychological reasons, we have shielded ourselves in a state of denial concerning the price of our progress and the real nature and state of industrial civilization and its development. Perhaps we have shielded ourselves from the ugly side of our own human nature. How could we fail to see that we are standing on a precipice, at the very brink of falling headlong into an abyss of no return? We must not fall into this abyss blind and mute without a fight for life. We should look squarely at it and squarely at ourselves and ask ourselves Stephen Hawking’s question. Our species is about 100,000 years old. Civilization is only a fraction of that, yet long before the advent of human civilization, at a very threshold moment in human evolution, man discovered how to make and use fire. But do we really own it, or will we instead burn by the very fire we make? Do we really have as much control over it as we’d like to think we have? Knowing the ultimate cost, the risk of the complete destruction of human civilization and the possible extermination of our own species and perhaps all life, the future itself, how can we take such a risk? We live on a planet of finite resources with a finite atmosphere that miraculously supports life. Now, the development of industrial civilization has taken us to such a point that we have reached the endgame: we are standing on a precipice overlooking the abyss—from which there is no return. The 21st century is the most important and critical century because it is the century when humankind will determine whether we fall headlong into that abyss or whether we manage to gather real courage, wisdom and restraint to resist the temptation of such awful and ultimately self-destructive power. We must tear the scales from our eyes and view that power for what it is. This is the time that represents a moment of challenge for the ultimate survival of the species. If we fail, we will pay the ultimate price from which there will be no return. As long as our hearts still beat and we still breathe the air every day, then we are still alive, and that means that we still have a chance to make a difference and change the course that we’re on now. Let us not fall into the abyss headlong, blind and mute. Indeed, we must fight for life and for the yet-born generations of the future, and they will bear the fruit of our labor. They will look back proudly and say, ‘‘These are our true ancestors who cared enough about us to fight for our right to exist. Without them, we would not be able to love, to make music and gaze upon the stars at night. We would not be able to be filled with the wonder and joy of life and the beauty of nature. Without them, this Earth would have been an unlivable place like so many other planets, and we would not have come into existence. Thus, they have bequeathed to us this precious ethic - to care about the future and the yet-born future generations - to leave them a world that is at least as wonderful and joyous as the one we were born into.’’ Acknowledgments I wish to express my appreciation for the instructive comments/criticism from the editors and anonymous reviewers of this article. References [1] S. Hawkings, Re: Question on Yahoo Public, 2006 Available: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD (A Brief History of Time. Bantom Books (1988)). [2] N. Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2004, pp. 1–12. [3] Wikipedia, War of Aggression, Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression. [4] M. Cohn, Aggressive War: Supreme International Crime, 2004 Available: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml (November). [5] Wikipedia, Crimes Against the Peace, Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace. [6] Yale Law School: Avalon Project, ‘‘Charter of the United Nations; June 26, 1945’’ in Yale Law School (no date given), Available: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ avalon/un/unchart.htm#art1. [7] B. Russell, A. Einstein, The Russell Einstein Manifesto, in: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, 1955, Available: http://www.pugwash.org/ about/manifesto.htm. [8] J. Schell, The Fate of the Earth and the Abolition, Stanford University Press, 2000. [9] A. Tough, Crucial Questions About the Future, University Press of America, Lanham, 1991. [10] C. Moore, Is Nuclear War Inevitable??, 2004 Available from: http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/. [11] M. Werbowski, US Missile Scheme Threatens Return of Cold War, in: OhMyNews, 2007 Available: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=346841&rel_no=1. [12] S. Hersh, The Iran Plan: Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? in: The New Yorker, 2006 Available: http:// www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact.

D.R. Morgan / Futures 41 (2009) 683–693

693

[13] S. Baxter, U. Mahnaimi, Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran [online], in: The Sunday Times, 2007 Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ news/world/article1290331.ece. [14] A.F. Phillips, 20 Mishaps that Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War, in: Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 1998 Available: http://www.waginpeace.org/ articles/1998/01/00_phillips_20-mishaps.htm. [15] R. McMaken, From Paranoia to Arrogance: Our New Nuclear Policy, 2002 Available: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken63.html. [16] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘‘Mandate and Membership of the IPCC.’’, IPCC Home (no date given), Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/ about.htm. [17] B. McKibben, Warning on Warming, The New York Review of Books, vol. 54–4, 2007, Available: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19981. [18] H Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, Viking Press, The New York, 1968, pp. 60–61. [19] J. Lovelock, James Lovelock: the Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years, in: The Independent, 2006 Available: http:// comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece. [20] M. Scheffer, S.R. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, B. Walker, Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems, Nature, vol. 423, 2001 (October 11) pp. 591–696, Available: http://www.dow.wau.nl/aew/News/Ecosystem_shift/en.html. [21] S. Borenstein, Scientists Find Global Warming Time Bomb’ Methane Bubbling Up from Permafrost, in: Associated Press, Available: http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/%20Year%202006/03-environment/0603-17MethaneThreat.html. [22] K. Walters, Warming worry: potent gas bubbling up, in: Associated Press, 2006 Available: http://homepage.mac.com/juanwilson/islandbreath/ %20Year%202006/03-environment/0603-17MethaneThreat.html. [23] S. Talbott, A Grim Manifesto on Nuclear War, in: Time, 1982 Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,950632,00.html.