Thursday, August 4, 2016


One of the cool creatures that developed out of the PETM.
An attempt at an apolitical attempt to answer the question:
If you care about the world so to speak, "think big picture" should you vote for Donald Trump?

That answer probably depends on what your goals are, and how you envision a preferred world future.

If you are into one of the variants of "radical ecology", you might want to vote for Donald Trump. (I do not consider myself in the radical ecology camp.)


Donald Trump does what he says he will do and he acts in accord with what he says he thinks.

The United States of America since World War 2, due to its military, economic and cultural dominance of the planet, has been in a systems dynamics sense, a stabilizing influence; militarily and economically.   

As a result of that stabilization, the influence of the U.S.A. is in a slow decline, since the rise of economic power of other state actors following the end of the "cold war".

That rapid climate change science is reasonably accurate.

That the shrinkage of mountain system glaciers continues at its current rate 

A continued problem with fresh water on a planetary basis, as to quantity, quality and equitable access thereto.

Scenario (assuming above)

A Near Future (1-8 years)

Trump elected.

The stabilizing influence of the U.S. A. rapidly decreases.

Foreign policy practices of many states become less cooperative and return to a more ad hoc, a la carte model.

U.S.A. abandons all effort towards building an international climate change mitigation framework.

The federal government abandons all efforts and funding relevant to climate change mitigation and adaptation, domestically and via foreign aide.

An Intermediate Future (Remainder of century)

Other states find it difficult to fashion an international GHG mitigation framework, without the inclusion of the U.S. and Russia in the process as "positive" actors.

Despite a patchwork of "local" attempts to mitigate GHG's/rapid climate change, much of the world continues to rely on fossil energy sources.

Central Asian mountain system glaciers provide decreasing fresh water to South Asia, central "Stans", central Russian and East Asia.

Water issues in Middle East and Asia escalate.

Periodic outbreaks of warfare in the above areas start and continue, and nuclear and other WMD's are used. 

Atmospheric drift of radiation adds contamination to the primary food production areas in the rest of the world, amplifying impacts of those areas current and ongoing "migration" north and south (depending on your hemisphere).

Formally non-combatant nuclear states, engage in limited counter-force strikes against combatant states to curtail future contamination drift. Combatants retaliate.

Social complexity, in differing ways and to various levels of complexity, rapidly simplifies.

Simplification, along with the atmospheric impacts of the numerous nuclear explosions (blocking. some solar radiation input), collapses mass agriculture, while also slowing the planetary warming trend.

Deeper time period

After the wolves went extinct and then the Simplification, the wolf niche
was occupied by feral packs of formally domestic dogs.

A drastically reduced and less concentrated  human population achieves less complex socio-technological levels of operation, with less impact on the planetary and local ecosystems.

The "long tail" of the warming trend is shorter than under a "business as usual scenario".

Past human induced changes and the impacts/changes of the above process resulted in a large non-human die-off too. But surviving plants and animals over time go through a period of genetic variation and speciation mostly free of concurrent of human influence.

No comments:

Post a Comment