More CO2 might be good for us in the long run

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Thanks Peter for your asssessment of the situation and the possible consequences.
As we can clearly see, the earth has undergone severe changes in temperature, CO2 levels, destruction of habitats and creation of new habitats.
The species of earth have adapted, mass extinction events included. There has always been a risk of a complete catastrophy, total destruction of the earth,
by meteorite or by nukes or otherwise.
The last few hundred years have seen a radical exponential growth in the human population numbers and in the surface area of the earth that is actively
manipulated by humans, fishing, foresting and above all agriculture, which has grave consequences for the animal and plant populations that used
to live there. Even if from now on not a single drop of oil, coal or gas will be burnt, the presence of 7 and soon 10 or 12 billion humans and the amount of resources
needed to keep them alive will continue to push a lot of species to adapt to other niches or go extinct. This fact has little to do with global warming
and CO2.
I think we have to come to a situation in which any major change in the environment, whether caused by humans or nature,
carries a high risk that the current number of people on the planet can not be supported any more and this may well lead
to more destructive events like wars, deforestation, more overfishing and more climate change that will turn the spiral
faster and faster. From an ethical standpoint billions of people starving and the rest fighting for survival with all means
is the ultimate human catastrophy and has to be avoided at all costs.
For this reason there is some ground to resist ANY change in the environment, but we have to realize that such resistance to change
is ultimately futile. Conditions on earth have always changed and this will not stop until finally the earth will stop existing.
The best we can hope for is to moderate change to avoid catastrophic cliffs and to make us more resilient to change. And of course
we have to accept that it is in our own interest as humans to preserve as much of the environment as possible, because we are connected with
and dependent on it in more ways than we can probably understand.
So what are the roads open to us, what behaviour in the future can be classified as good and what as bad, dangerous or evil?
Slowing down the rate of using non-renewable resources is certainly good, using renewable energy, improving the quality of
the soils reducing the necessity of fertilizers and pesticides, sustainable fishery, securing clean water supply, cleaning up the oceans
and avoiding nuclear pollution, these are trends that can be classified as good in my opinion. Also, on the human side, of course, improving education,
reducing war and instability, better wealth distribution, better conflict resolution and more tolerance for cultural/religious differences
are large issues, which directly influence the destruction of our environment.
CO2 is a factor in the environment, climate change is a factor in the environment, independent of causality and human origin.
But it is by far not the only factor and there are a lot of enormous problems threatening a catastrophic change of the environment.
And to come to the conclusion that humanity itself is the problem of the earth is in my firm belief ethically not acceptable and
also overstating the importance of humans in this world. Life will survive with or without us.