The hard and soft science sides of climate thinking.
# 4088
There is much good analytic writing about what can be called the hard sciences side of climate.1 But there is very little on the soft sciences side that argues carefully about the problem of governance (what government type is best suited to the problems faced, Economy (the well-being and quality of life for all, Philosop[hy (how minds work when there is more than one and when one maybe can’t work at all without others) , history (we are not good storytellers.). The differences between say, the nation state, cultures, and the civilizations is just about unexplored since Toynbee. The result is, that we have a good grasp of what is happening physically by climate change, but a very weak grasp of what's happening socially both of the creation of our problems and possible meaningful actions. The result is we seem naive about crucial issues like the origins of the war in Ukraine, and paralyzed to talk about the decline of the human population through failure to take a managerial perspective. I am no fan of the corporate form but certainly if the world were a well mange corporation we wold be doing much better.
An example is Jim Hansen's article reviewed here by Paul Beckwith, another interesting and different personality.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=paul+beckwith+youtube+hansen&mid=CDACAEC6C8646BAC2935CDACAEC6C8646BAC2935&FORM=VIRE