What is climate crisis?

The safety debrief of sorts, for the fast unfolding crisis.

The real answer is climate crisis is whatever your experience of it is. No one else can define it for you. But when we try to understand what it means for others, it helps to have a common view.

Time to dive in.

Right to life

This common view is built from the experiences of everyone involved. It should be debated as often as necessary and updated if necessary. The only feature that should be maintained is the common view should be for everyone and not for/against a few. It can be appropriated and contextualized as necessary by anyone, but never for/against a few. *But why?*

Remember, collaboration and NOT competition is key to collective human success.

Even Darwin would agree, that ‘survival of the fittest’ might be, at best, best for intra-species success, but ‘collaboration with others’ was best for success as species as a whole (both intra- and inter-species)¹. The more we helped others succeed, the more likely we were to succeed ourselves. That’s what really unlocked the incredible human success.

The more you help others to survive, the more likely you are to survive.

If the common view was defined for the benefit of a few over others, it simply leaves others at a disadvantage like in competitive sports/games. As intuitive as it might feel to protect your own few over others, especially in a crisis; counter-intuitive but the scientifically true way to ensure their success is to ensure everyone’s success, even during a crisis.

Even if the science is to be ignored, it’ll feel like the real intuition and the right thing to do.

No matter which side of the few you are on distinctions (if any) - rich/not-rich, family/not-family, oppressor/ed, young/old, here/there, and then, now, or in the future, etc., the more you support the other side to survive the crisis, more likely you are to survive it as well. The more inclusive the common view of the climate crisis is, the more likely you are to succeed as well. *That’s why.*

That’s just you protecting the right to life which in turn protects yours. Fair enough?

The threefolds definition

A systematic (i.e. not just a one-time event) and organized exploitation (i.e. unsustainable use) of nature (not limited to the environment like forests, oceans, and other lifeforms, but also work done by humans) which results in the detriment of life-sustaining elements (like air, water, food, soil, etc.) for not just humans, which in turn is a threat to your survival (but not limited to just you). This threat is called climate crisis.

That’s a you-centered definition on purpose. Simply because it’s ok and everyone reading this at least understands humans. Let’s take a closer look at the threefolds of this definition.

Fold 1: The What

“A systematic (i.e. not just a one-time event) and organised exploitation (i.e. unsustainable use)..”

If something is done in excess, it’s abusive; if done in excess repeatedly, it’s an addiction; if done in excess repeatedly and it only affects oneself, one could find help; if done in excess repeatedly but it affects others and is done unknowingly, it’s still understandable and maybe excusable; if done in excess repeatedly but it affects others and is done knowingly in a systematic and organized way, it’s not ok.

Quite simply, not respecting others’ right to life by unsustainably taking from what belongs to them as well, is the cause and root of the problem of the climate crisis.

Fold 2: The How

“..of nature (not limited to the environment like forests, oceans, and other lifeforms, but also work done by humans)..”

Firstly natural resources are limited on the planet. If depleted it only results in it being unavailable for everybody, including you. Since, more people depend on nature and its natural wealth like forests, oceans, and other lifeforms, its exploitation is unsustainable.

Involving other humans to work in such exploitation for your benefit at their expense, would be straight-up subjugation. We wouldn’t want that, would we?

Nature, including humans, being systematically exploited is how the climate crisis started in the first place and continues to be driven.

Fold 3: The Who

“..which results in the detriment of life-sustaining elements (like air, water, food, soil, etc.) for not just humans, which in turn is a threat to your survival (but not limited to just you). This threat is called climate crisis.”

As a thought experiment even if others were to be ignored, such a system affects the very things that sustain life like air, water, food, soil, etc., and reduces these already limited resources for you. Eventually, there will be nothing of what you need. It’s a losing situation.

Such a system negatively affects not only you and those involved (through pollution, draughts, famines, etc.) but also other life forms that depend on them.

Even if we don’t understand at large, how all life in all the complex ecosystems of the planet affects our own lives, we at large understand enough to know they play an important role in the ecosystems that makes earth. That earth on which we humans figured out how - being more social and helping as many others succeed is the secret to succeeding at surviving ourselves. We, as humans, were the smart ones who figured succeeding in such a complex system in the first place. Spoiling systems of air, water, food, soil, etc. for others will be like dropping the cake we all figured out and could’ve had. We surely are capable of doing better.

The overall detriment of life-sustaining things affects not only you but also all of us, but it may further affect us all negatively if it affects others in the ecosystems negatively. That’d be a lose-lose situation.

If you think clean air, water, food, soil, etc. should be available to a few of your own over others (with private bunkers, air conditioners, water purifiers, etc.) to survive the crisis, you’d have fallen right into the trap. Threatening others’ right to life by protecting only your own doesn’t sound like a secret to succeeding in life by any means. Nature simply will un-select. ⬜

We don’t want to be unselected. Do we? That’d be a lose-lose-lose situation.

That’s it! That’s as broad and inclusive a common view as possible on basis of life that connects us all, that can be used to arrive at the definition of the climate crisis that, hopefully, most can agree on.

Of course, the climate crisis is part of something bigger which is not centered around humans; but as a first step towards understanding it, it helps to understand it with a human-centered perspective before the bigger picture.

---

TL;DR summary

• Protecting everybody’s life is key to protecting your own life. If you only try to protect yourselves, you are actually doing the opposite.

• The more you participate in exploiting nature, the more you ensure your own loss.

• The long definition of the climate crisis that we’ll refer to time and again.

---

Something missing? Could there be an even broader or more inclusive definition of the climate crisis everyone can agree on? Maybe not a you-centered definition? ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ version perhaps? Feel free to share your thoughts.

If this is your first time reading the ‘One Earth Letter’ series, here are all the letters and topics to be expected in this series in an attempt to build a human-friendly guide to the climate crisis; if you liked this one, you might like others as well - start with a topic you are most curious about and let curiosity take it from there. Don’t forget to subscribe though.

1. ‘Collaboration, not competition helped us evolve’ - Daniel Christian Wahl https://uplift.love/evolution-shows-collaboration-not-competition-helped-us-evolve/