"Have more solutions than problems, but"...
Scientific findings about 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 in an interview with ntv.de that the solutions are already on the table, and now it's time to apply them. In his opinion, there is no sensible alternative to optimism - neither in personal crises nor in the big problems of humanity. That, he says, is ultimately a matter of logic.
Mr. Steffens, I've rarely read anything more optimistic than this sentence on your Instagram profile: "Through death, life becomes immortal." Can you explain that in more detail?
It may sound philosophical, but it's fundamentally a matter of natural science. Evolution needs death. If organisms were immortal, they could not 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, possibly better-adapted host bodies with new ones. 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 threatening findings about climate change or species extinction often evoke more future anxiety than hope in many people.
Let me try a somewhat macabre parable: A colleague of mine once got sick after an expedition and was in the hospital. He wasn't doing well. 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 we know, thanks to natural science, that the plague, if recognized early enough, is easily treatable with an antibiotic. In a way, that's the situation the whole human race is in. We're facing potentially deadly threats because we're destroying natural systems. But we also know what we can do against it. We even have more solutions than problems, but so far we've been too hesitant to apply them. That's dangerous: If you wait too long with medicine, there's no cure left.
You have to explain that more closely. What do the solutions for climate change look like, and why aren't we implementing them?
In the context of climate change, there are two main questions: 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, our way of life, and there are already many concepts for that. Second, we need to think about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and eventually remove them from the atmosphere. Geoengineering is one keyword, but it doesn't have to be just big machines pulling greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. There are also natural methods. Increasing the number of whales or penguins, for example, which fertilize marine algae with their excrement, which then absorb a lot of CO2, would help. So, in a way, more consistent nature conservation might do more for climate protection than futile debates about speed limits on highways. There are dozens of approaches I could tell you about.
Indeed.
Let's take agriculture as another example. Society constantly argues about how it should be operated. Farmers and environmentalists often evaluate problems very differently. However, science actually knows quite well which farming methods would be better, such as regenerative agriculture. Or responsibly used genetic engineering. And moderate use of chemicals. We must not demonize anything, we must remain open. I don't want to call all-clear, 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 are dominated by hopelessness and frustration. Should research more aggressively promote 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 succeed?
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 over the stage in Denmark without any farmers' protests. 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 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 renunciation and bans.
Now, natural science can provide hope in the topic of climate change. But it helps less with other crises, such as war and flight. How can one remain optimistic nevertheless?
I have made a insight of the philosopher Karl Popper my personal motto: "There is no reasonable alternative to optimism." Who gives up, has already lost. Our narrative of the future must be positive. Imagine: We are walking through the desert, where there is absolutely nothing - neither water nor plants. I suggest building the greatest architectural achievement of mankind here, which incidentally costs incredibly much and takes incredibly much time. A building without practical use, in which no one can live. 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 say is the power of the narrative. Be it religious, political or social. Stories create perspectives. The future will be what we speak of it today, because narratives set the course. Without them, we can't solve problems.
This can cost a lot of strength. Aren't there also situations, possibly hopeless, in which it would be more reasonable to admit failure and give up?
Clear, in everyday life, though not in major human problems, because failure is not an option there. For then, giving up would simply mean the end of civilization. In the end, being optimistic 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 for 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. Those who justify inactivity by saying that it won't work anyway are heading for certain doom. That's what I meant by: Optimism is the only - reasonable - option. Pessimism is unreasonable. An optimistic mindset also implies the obligation to act, to take responsibility.
Could one say, in light of this, that optimism goes beyond mere hope?
Absolutely. I would say that an optimism that only hopes and does not act is pointless. Actually, optimism is often confused with naive hope or belief. Do you know that 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 he doesn't get in because he believes that God will save him. The water rises, he has to go onto the roof, another boat passes by, but 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.
Many people would say that, in a time full of crises, faith gives them the confidence and thus the strength to carry on.
One must not forget why religion emerged. In the past, people 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 to cooperate. This narrative was often religious. Making people work together towards a common goal is a practical function of religions. There are scientists who say that our civilization could not have arisen without the invention of religion. What's important here is: it's about the invention of religion, not the truth of religion.
It is often said that Germans lag behind in their ability to be optimistic. As a science journalist, you've traveled a lot. Have you noticed a difference in the ability to be confident among different cultures?
Yes. And that really gives me great puzzles. It's paradoxical that we Germans complain so much about our country, although we are better off 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. One can only speculate why that is. Perhaps our well-being is to blame. It's so good that unconsciously the feeling arises that it can only get worse. Loss aversion can have a depressing effect. But that's speculation. I can't explain why, but I've felt more optimism in many cultural circles than among us.
Sarah Platz spoke with Dirk Steffens
Despite the challenges presented by global warming and climate change, the Commission has advocated for optimism, suggesting that the solutions are already within our reach.
In fact, Dirk Steffens, a science journalist, stresses that if we apply the existing solutions for climate change with vigor and determination, we can turn the tide and create a better future for all.
