Author Article: ‘Is Humanity Suicidal?’ by Lyric Hughes Hale

Yale author Lyric Hughes Hale reads The Carbon Crunch by Dieter Helm and asks some troubling questions regarding  humanity’s attitude to itself. Are the arguments concerning climate change underpinned by a belief in our own indestructibility? Do we appreciate the precariousness of our global political, economic and environmental situation? Is humanity suicidal?

Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. 

– Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1978 Harvard Commencement Address

The warmest year in US history.  Hurricane Sandy.  The majority of Americans now believe that climate change is caused by human actions, but they don’t really act on this belief, as they steer their massive SUV’s to record-breaking Black Friday sales.  Despite the evidence of climate change that is all around us, why don’t we change our personal behaviors, and our public policies? Oxford professor Dieter Helm, in his new book,  The Carbon Crunch quotes biologist Edward O. Wilson’s 1997 essay ‘Is Humanity Suicidal?’

 Unlike any other creature that lived before, we have become a geophysical force, swiftly changing the atmosphere and climate as well as the composition of the world’s fauna and flora…No other single species in evolutionary history has ever remotely approached the sheer mass in photoplasm generated by humanity.

 This quote sent me scurrying to online dictionaries to uncover the meaning of the highly evocative word “photoplasm”.  A rare and exciting occurrence for a logophile:  “no results found”.  The only other usage of the term seems to be on websites devoted to ghosts.  So I feel free to assign to photoplasm the following meaning: similar to protoplasm, living cellular matter, but all lit up as viewed from an orbiting spacecraft, creating a phosphorescent haze around the globe, pulsating at major population centers.  Ten thousand years from now, will these lights still shine, or will we become yet another dark planet with no visible signs of life?  It is a haunting possibility.

In the midst of general hopelessness and expectations of more super storms, I appreciate Prof. Helm’s rational approach to climate change, which acknowledges the role of politics, but is not rooted in it. Helm concludes at the end of his fully researched book “It is not beyond the wit—and the sheer ingeniousness—of humans to crack climate change”.   He does not advocate a world of whirling, noisy windmills.  Instead, he believes a gradualist approach to curbing carbon consumption could be a realistic alternative, moving from coal to gas for example.  However, he can be scathing when it comes to efforts he sees as misdirected:

Our current path is not getting us anywhere.  The emissions keep going up and nothing of substance has yet been achieved after more than two decades of effort…All the international summits and agreements have been little more than showmanship…None of this should be at all surprising for it is based on what to all intents and purposes is analogous to a fairy tale.  Along comes what could be one of the greatest threats in human history, and it is claimed that the energy sector can be converted from an overwhelmingly carbon-based one to almost zero carbon in the space of half a century, all at just a small cost, or even a profit, based on the simplistic assumptions about economic growth…The fantasy is that it will cost us little or indeed nothing than we would have paid anyway, and this is a deceit that lies at the heart of the failure to achieve much over these two decades of trying.

 In other words, the chimera of a perfect of world with clean, free energy is destroying what could be a better world that is dependent on less harmful forms of carbon energy.  Growth in the emerging economies, while desirable on many levels, has created a new set of problems.  China has dramatically increased its use of coal, pushing worldwide consumption from 25 to 30% of world energy use.  Now that China’s growth is slowing, can we expect a new government heavily burdened with multiple agendas to make an investment in reducing carbon emissions?  Even if Beijing agrees, there are many barriers to implementation at the local level.

Just as government plays the critical role in disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, climate change is an issue that must be dealt with on a global level.  Here we come to a key institutional weakness in terms of global governance.  There is no override that can be deployed to stop any nation from wreaking havoc on its neighbors.  In the absence of such institutions, Helm proposes a cross-border carbon tax.

Perhaps unfairly, China has been called to task for its resource consumption.  However, as one link in the global manufacturing chain, about half of what China consumes as a manufacturer is exported to high-wage nations with higher thresholds of environmental regulation.  When US companies exported jobs to China, they also exported pollution.  In order to create a truly fair carbon tax, Helm says that this import loophole must be taken into account.  In this sense, the recent upsurge in manufacturing in the US, along with our increasing energy independence, is all good news.

California has implemented a “cap and trade” approach to limiting carbon emissions and lowering greenhouse gases, which could be a model for the rest of the country and other countries as well.  This is essentially a new tax that has also resulted in significant revenues for the cash-strapped state. 

While I was writing this article, I was reminded by a friend of the play by Henrik Ibsen, Enemy of the People.  A doctor in a Norwegian town discovers that a tannery upstream has tainted the baths that have made the town prosperous.  He is dismayed that no one is interested in his solution, which is neither quick nor cheap.  The majority wants to continue their lives, ignoring the danger:

“What sort of truths are they that the majority usually

supports? They are truths that are of such advanced age that they are

beginning to break up. And if a truth is as old as that, it is also in

a fair way to become a lie, gentlemen.” 

― Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People

In addition to the fiscal cliff, we are also facing a physical cliff in terms of degradation of our environment.  By the time practical solutions to climate change are implemented, which will involve a not inconsiderable initial investment as well as behavioral changes, will it be too late? By the time the majority of nations agree on what to do, will they agree on what is truly feasible?

I am not concerned by the science, or by the economics of better energy utilization and climate change.  Both ideas and information are plentiful.  Capital is available.  What I am worried about is the adolescent tendency we have to think we are indestructible.  After all, it is highly improbable that any of us are here at all.   In nature there is no guarantee that we will continue to survive and thrive.  We do not comprehend our own fragility. Unlike the ants studied by Edward Wilson, we seem incapable of sacrificing for the good of the whole. We are facing political failure on a global scale, with global consequences.   So my answer to Wilson’s question is, yes, we are suicidal.  All we can do is hope that nature is more resilient than we dare imagine.

By Lyric Hughes Hale

Lyric Huges Hale is the author of What’s Next and a contributor to a range of publications, including the Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Current History, and Institutional Investor. “China Takes Off”, published in 2003 and written jointly with her husband David Hale, is one of the most oft-cited surveys of China’s economic ascendency. Ms. Hale studied Japanese at Northwestern University and graduated from the University of Chicago with a degree in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. She has lived and studied in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Share this


  • November 28, 2012


    I enjoyed your elegantly written post, but I was doubtful about the emotional tone, specifically the critique of those who don’t respond, emotionally, the same way as you do. Hurricane Sandy and anecdotes about the summer weather were shocking and important but they don’t prove anything about climate trends. Do most of us really understand the science of climate change? I readily admit I don’t, but I do know this: the Cosquer Cave near Marseille ( contains Neolithic drawings from c. 30,000 years ago; it was discovered in 1985. The entrance is some 120 feet BELOW sea level. In other words, without any increase in carbon emissions or anthropogenic interventions, the global climate has changed enough to raise sea levels by presumably at least 120 feet in a comparatively short span of global time.

    I am not sure why we generally seem to have an unspoken assumption that, but for human activity, the climate is stable, when even a cursory knowledge of the climatic longue dureé shows how massively variable it is. I am not saying that climate change isn’t important, by the way, but I think we have to separate out from it the idea of causative human ‘guilt’ or ‘blame’. When we do this, what’s left is a free-floating human wish to communicate our emotional state that seeks to make other people, who are different, feel what we feel.

    We can project our depressiveness and suicidal thoughts on to anything. Some of us might be old enough to remember the chiliastic frisson of the impending Crisis of Capitalism, plus a few more: the Bomb, the Rapture, Islamic jihad, destruction of habitats/species/rainforest, the Millennium Bug, comet Hale-Bopp (google it!), asteroid impact, acid rain, earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, the Yellowstone caldera … The list has fakes and presumably real ones, but who knows, until it happens, which is which?

    Meanwhile, it is not a small matter that we, in our extraordinary time between oblivions, might try to live in some kind of grace. I hope I don’t sound like a ‘denier’, an idiot or a lemming. Emotional arguments that polarize ‘us’ and ‘them’ harden disagreements; they also reduce the sum total of empathy with those who – for many reasons – are unhappy/suicidal. Further, they disserve the outcome you want.

    Unfortunately I’m not offering any better kind of hope or resilience in nature, but I think we can and should legitimately disburden ourselves of the weight of climate-change guilt. Perhaps this could help start political change …

    • November 28, 2012


      In fact, sir or madam, you sound exactly like a denier. Your comment is so filled with inaccuracies, half-truths, and meaningless statements it is hard to know where to begin. Nevertheless, as I am feeling feisty, I will try to address your points in order.

      First, you may not understand the science of climate change, but there are people who do. They are called “scientists.” They are actually pretty good at it. You should take a gander at what these scientists have figured out:

      Second, yes, the sea level has changed considerably since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago. You are correct that this occurred without “anthropogenic interventions.” However, you are completely incorrect that this happened without any increase in carbon emissions. Carbon in the atmosphere increased from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280ppm over the past 20,000 years. More carbon = temperatures rise = no more ice age. Now, human activity has increased the carbon from 280ppm to 390ppm – just as big an increase – in only 100 years. Carbon has not been in the atmosphere in such high concentrations for almost 3 million years. Think about that for a moment.

      Third, you appear to be questioning whether human activity is contributing to climate change. Your argument seems to boil down to “gee wiz, this climate thing is just so complicated and change-y, we can’t blame humans for just how variable it all is.” Again, go talk to the scientists. What, you think we can work out quantum mechanics but can’t figure out how the gases our civilization produces interact with heat? Gimme a break. You want to talk about the importance of climate change without talking about causation? It’s like me saying we should talk about the importance of your broken arm, but we should leave aside all that silly human “guilt” and “blame,” like the fact that I broke it. But climate change as a free floating wish to communicate our emotional state – what hogwash, I don’t even . . . .

      Fourth, your list of things to worry or not worry about is bizarre. If you can’t tell between “Nuclear Bomb” and “Rapture” which one presents the greater threat “until it happens” then you, sir or madam, are an idiot. No, you’re right, I concede, there’s just no way to know whether Hale-Bop or Islamic terrorism is more worth worrying about, so totally incapable are we humans at predicting the future.

      Fifth, you seem to take the author to task for “emotional arguments that polarize ‘us’ and ‘them.'” Funny thing though, the author universally uses the term “we.” You are the only one using the terms “us” and “them.” Well, until now. But I don’t mind being polarizing if necessary.

      Finally, what this all comes down to is you thinking we all need to free ourselves from climate “guilt.” Sure, why not. No more guilt. No more blame. Good. Now, what do we do about the fact that our entire global energy system is built around fuel that emits gases that cause climate change? I’m not asking you to feel guilty, I’m asking you what you think we should do about it. Do you see the difference?

      • February 1, 2013


        Thank you for replying in such – perhaps you might not see it this way – loving detail. In terms of the emotional tone of your reply, though. I wondered why you think that being ‘feisty’ is the way you convince other people that what you say is true. Ridicule of others who see things slightly differently from you might make you feel better, but how does that help reduce carbon emissions? Learning from the bitter lessons of history, some people may also feel chilled by the words of those seeking power who ‘don’t mind being polarizing if necessary’.

        My first reply to Lyric Hughes Hale’s very interesting original post was about the diffuse projection of emotion on to incipient catastrophe; it may have little to do with its ostensible subject. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

You must be logged in to post a comment