Dirk Steffens: "I have more solutions than problems, but"...
Scientific insights into global warming and its consequences evoke future anxiety and hopelessness in many people. Science journalist Dirk Steffens, however, looks much more optimistically at the crisis. He explains to ntv.de that the solutions are already on the table and now it's time to implement them. In his view, there's no sensible alternative to optimism, neither in personal crises nor in the big problems of humanity. It's ultimately a matter of logic.
ntv.de: Mr. Steffens, I've rarely read anything more optimistic than this sentence on your Instagram profile: "Through death, life becomes immortal." Could you explain that?
Dirk Steffens: Although it sounds philosophical, it's essentially strictly scientific. Evolution needs death. If organisms were immortal, they couldn't adapt to changes, such as a hotter, colder, or wetter world. Or, put another way: The actual life is the genes in the bodies, and their goal is to live on in an unbroken chain of different host bodies into infinity. Death replaces old ones with new, potentially better-adapted host bodies. Fitter, more survival-capable ones. That's how death makes life immortal. This once again underscores why natural science is the happiest of all sciences. It can have spiritual dimensions, it gives hope.
However, the alarming insights about climate change or species extinction often evoke more future anxiety than hope in many people.
Let me try with a somewhat macabre parable: A colleague of mine once fell ill after an expedition and was in the hospital. He was feeling bad. After a while, the doctor came in - beaming with joy - and said: "I know what you have. You have the plague." Of course, that sounds like a terrible message at first. But the beaming face is justified because, thanks to natural science, we know that the plague, if recognized early enough, can be easily cured with an antibiotic. In essence, that's the situation the whole of humanity is in. We're facing potentially deadly threats because we're destroying natural systems. But we also know what we can do about it. We even have more solutions than problems, but so far, we've been too hesitant to implement them. That's dangerous: If you wait too long with the medicine, there's no cure left.
You'll have to elaborate on that. What do climate change solutions look like, and why aren't we implementing them?
Scientific insights into global warming and its consequences evoke future anxiety and hopelessness in many people. Science journalist Dirk Steffens, however, looks much more optimistically at the crisis. He explains to ntv.de that the solutions are already on the table and now it's time to implement them. In his view, there's no sensible alternative to optimism, neither in personal crises nor in the big problems of humanity. It's ultimately a matter of logic.
In regards to climate change, two questions arise: How can we live in a warmer world? And how can we slow down climate change? We already have answers to both. First, we need to adapt our cities and our way of life, for which there are already many concepts. Secondly, we must consider how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and eventually remove them from the atmosphere. Geoengineering is a keyword, but it doesn't have to be just large machines pulling greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere; there are also natural methods. For example, increasing the population of whales or penguins, which fertilize marine algae with their excrement, which then absorb a lot of CO2, would help. In essence, consistent nature conservation might contribute more to climate protection than unfruitful discussions about speed limits on highways. There are dozens of approaches I could tell you about.
Certainly.
Let's take agriculture as another example. Society constantly debates how it should be operated. Farmers and environmentalists often assess the problems very differently. However, science actually knows quite well which cultivation methods would be better, such as regenerative agriculture. Or responsibly used genetic engineering. And moderate use of chemistry. We must not demonize anything, we must remain open-minded. I don't want to give a false sense of security with this, that would be naive. But if we look at it factually, we can tackle the big problems of our time.
Despite existing solutions, many people feel hopeless and frustrated. Should research be more actively communicating its positive findings to the public?
If people had more and deeper knowledge about the potential of natural science, they would probably also better understand how great the possibilities are to make this planet a better place. However, it doesn't help to just be right if you can't convince the majority that it's the right way.
How can this be achieved?
A good example is Denmark. There, a CO2 tax for farmers who fatten pigs or keep large numbers of cows has just been introduced. What would be unthinkable here went through without any farmers' protests in Denmark. The main reason is likely that the farming community was involved in the planning from the beginning. Moreover, the income tax for farmers is to be reduced at the same time. This means that a farmer who behaves reasonably cleverly will have just as much in his pocket as before. And yet, every tonne of CO2 that arises from livestock farming is given a price. By the way, this is also a good solution: If we used price policy more in the fight against climate change, we would have to talk less about sacrifice and bans.
Now, natural science can provide hope in the context of climate change. But it helps less with other crises, such as war and flight. How can we remain optimistic despite this?
Please, go ahead.
I have made a philosophical insight by Karl Popper my personal motto: "There is no reasonable alternative to optimism." Whoever gives up has already lost. Our narrative of the future must be positive. Imagine this: we are walking through the desert, where there is absolutely nothing - neither water nor plants. I suggest building the greatest architectural marvel of mankind here, which incidentally costs an incredible amount of money and takes an incredible amount of time, and has no practical use and nobody can live in it. You would probably think "he's crazy."
Admittedly: yes.
However, that's exactly how the pyramids of Giza were created, still today one of the greatest cultural monuments of human history. What I want to point out is the power of narratives, be it religious, political or societal. Stories create perspectives. The future will be what we speak about it today, because narratives set the course. Without them, we cannot solve problems.
This can cost a lot of strength. Are there not also situations, possibly hopeless, in which it would be more reasonable to admit failure and give up?
Of course, in everyday life, but not with big human problems, because failure is not an option there. Because then giving up would simply mean the end of civilization. Being optimistic in the end is a matter of logic and survival. For example, if the extinction of species continues at this pace, the Homo sapiens species will not exist on this planet much longer. We know this very certainly. We must therefore act. And to do this, we must at least be able to hope that there is a realistic chance of getting the problem under control. Whoever excuses inactivity with the argument that it won't work anyway, is heading for certain doom. That's what I meant by: optimism is the only - reasonable - option. Pessimism is unreasonable. An optimistic attitude also includes the obligation to act, to take responsibility.
Could one say, based on this, that optimism goes beyond mere hope?
Absolutely. I would say that an optimism that only hopes and does not act is meaningless. Actually, optimism is often confused with naive hope or belief. Do you know this Jewish story?: A rabbi asks God to help him during a flood, but the water keeps rising. When the rabbi has to flee to the upper floor of his house, a boat passes by, but the rabbi says he doesn't need to get in because God will save him. The water rises, he has to go onto the roof, another boat passes by, he still doesn't get in because he trusts in God. When the water finally reaches his neck, he calls out to heaven: God, why didn't you save me? And God answers: I saved you twice, but you didn't act. That's perhaps the difference between optimism and belief or blank hope. Optimism commits to action.
One must not forget why religion emerged. In the past, humans were traveling in competing hordes. At some point, a structure emerged: the hordes started meeting in caves, tribes were formed, and eventually agriculture. This was only possible because a narrative was created that brought several hordes together for cooperation. This narrative was often religious in many cases. Getting people to work together towards a common goal is a practical function of religions. There are scientists who say that our civilization could not have emerged without the invention of religion. What's important here is the invention of religion, not the truth of religion.
Germans are often said to lag behind in their ability to be optimistic. As a science journalist, you've traveled a lot. Have you noticed any differences in the ability to be optimistic among different cultures?
Yes, I have. And it's actually quite puzzling to me. It's paradoxical that we Germans complain so much about our country, even though we're doing better than most. I've met people in much poorer countries, like Ethiopia, Bolivia, or the Central African Republic, who seemed much more optimistic than many of us. It's hard to say why this is the case. Perhaps it's our well-being that's to blame. We're doing so well that we unconsciously feel like it can only get worse. Loss aversion can have a dampening effect. But that's just speculation. I can't explain why, but I've sensed more optimism in many cultural circles than among us.
Sarah Platz spoke with Dirk Steffens
The Commission has recognized that solutions to climate change are already available, it's now a matter of implementation. In various cultures, individuals have shown more optimism about the future despite facing challenges, potentially due to a different perspective on well-being.
