<
https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-dangers-of-centrism-in-a-time-of-crisis-262961>
"In the fight against slavery, abolitionists eventually prevailed over slave
owners. The long fight was not won in the sensible centre, but by “radical,
democratic” absolutists who risked their lives in the fight to save the lives
of others. It scares me to think how the
ABC, or indeed most of the world’s
media, would report on such a debate today.
Can you imagine the economic modelling on the jobs that would be lost in the
slave-using industries? Or the endless discussion of the impact on the price of
clothes if slaves didn’t pick cotton?
And can you imagine the modern debate about the best way to compensate
hard-working slave owners whose business model was based on long-accepted rules
allowing whipping and branding?
Slavery persists today, and England (the major global slave trader of the
1800s) paid out the equivalent of over £17 billion in compensation to slave
owners in 1837, but it’s important to remember that change was driven by
abolitionists, not centrists.
The incrementalism on the path to abolition was a consequence of sustained
pressure against change, but the incrementalism was never the goal.
Unsurprisingly, few mock the extremism of those who fought to end slavery in
the US and UK, and few argue abolitionists would have achieved more if they had
asked for less.
Leaders such as António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the UN, have long
been arguing for immediate and decisive action on climate both for existential
and moral reasons. He is not interested in a middle ground. The climate science
says time is crucial. For those determined to avoid dangerous climate change
the goal isn’t to decarbonise the economy, but to decarbonise it before
scientific thresholds are reached.
It is physics that says we will melt the ice caps, raise sea levels radically
and warm waters so much that we don’t just kill the Great Barrier Reef, but we
will kill whole food systems in our oceans and on our farmlands. You either
accept the physics or you don’t but committing to the goal of decarbonising and
not committing to the physics-imposed deadlines is like committing to stopping
smoking after you have your second heart attack.
The science says we do need to rush. It is now over 30 years since the
Australian government first accepted that climate change was real, was
primarily caused by fossil fuels, and was an enormous risk to Australia, but
centrists like Albanese are still telling us that it’s not yet time to stop
building new gas or coal mines.
Saying those who accept climate science are extreme when they call for more
ambitious and urgent action is like criticising a drowning man for being
impatient about the delay in launching a rescue boat. Timing is critical for
some problems and solving them too late isn’t a solution at all."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
