Plato's (potential) political parallels

Towards the end of Monday’s class we discussed the comparison between Socrates’ argument for ‘risking the belief’ in a form of afterlife, and present day humankind risking the economic and environmental efforts to mitigate the effects of global warming. Though I do not intend for this topic to be the focus of today's blog, I haven’t been able to quiet my inner qualms with this comparison. (Disclaimer: I am not a global warming skeptic in the slightest; I do believe, very strongly, in making a conscious effort towards improving our planet’s (and our) health. I simply disagree with the comparison that was made. )

In Phaedo, Socrates explains that there would be no consequences for believing in the existence of the “psuche” after death, and that therefore one ought to believe, and live accordingly, rather than doubt. Plato’s Socrates suggests that “...those who have purified themselves sufficiently by philosophy live in the future altogether without a body…” (114 c-d) This pascalian-esque argument is quite convincing, considering no damage is done through seeking wisdom and knowledge. Similarly, the comparison to global warming attenuation attempts was likened to the pursuit of knowledge, in that no negative consequences could arise, only positives or nothing. Ergo, believing humankind caused global warming (and living accordingly) is, likewise, a belief that holds no potential inflictions and is certainly worth risking.
Though I certainly understand the initial similarities, these arguments are, upon further evaluation, incomparable. I believe it is a fallacious comparison considering the repercussions, many unintended, that accompany the active pursuit for ‘green energy’, including the matters of contention that have been, and will continue to, peel off from the original issue like capillaries. I am not suggesting that the consequences for attempting to move towards renewable energy would be more severe than those we would face by choosing to do nothing, but rather that, severity aside, there are already consequences resulting from our push towards renewable energies, and the existence of these consequences rebuke the comparison. This energy revolution will continue to create a ripple effect changes in our economy and political system that will also have repercussions (as economic and political advancements usually do). It is because of these consequences that I disagree with the original comparison.
Consequences include the economic and monetary uncertainty of countries that are further along in their reliance on renewable energies than the United States. Germany, for example, has experienced an average 86% increase in renewable surcharge prices since 2006. This renewable surcharge is almost solely responsible for the average power price in an average German household to increase by 6% (from 2006-2016). Which shouldn’t, considerably, be an impactful consequence, yet this price surge is accompanied by many other energy changes and restrictions (including a restriction on using firewood to heat your home as a co2 contribution preventative) that have turned into manipulative talking points for the far right wing parties to gain more popularity amongst German voters. (Ripple effect) The reason for this backlash is because of our uncertainty, and ultimately our fear, in regards to our planet and our unknown exact human contribution to its temperature; that uncertainty and fear feeds many a conservative. (Sound familiar?) There are arguably more prevalent consequences to consider, including the political consequences that will arise once the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund initiative begins collecting $100 billion (BILLION) a year beginning in 2020 from the world’s ‘rich’ countries for developing countries to begin converting their economies to green energy. Christopher Horner, a researcher who obtained primary information regarding this ‘initiative’ from the Obama Administration, articulated the resulting consequences better than I could in his claim:

“It’s not about climate. It never was, all they want is wealth transfers, for the poor in rich countries to pay the rich in poor countries.”

Woah, I told myself I was NOT going to spend my whole blog post on this topic but it seems I have, so I’ll stop myself there. This comparison seemed so confusing in class, and so passively made; Yet, I didn’t want to digress the class from the main point that was being articulated, so here we are with a much too lengthy blog post with too little relevance to Phaedo, and too much relevance to in-class argumentative tangents.  My next post will be much more interesting, and relevant, I promise!