For deep ecologists nature has an intrinsic value that must be respected; its fragile and harmonious equilibrium must be protected from the Barbary of the modern industrial world. Less extreme environmentalists may not fully share this view but, with a remnant of guilt for having left the Garden of Eden, they are under the influence and the control of a sort of neo-inquisition.

To me, nature is a place of struggle for all forms of life. It is not in equilibrium; at most we can observe quasi steady-state episodes that last for more or less long periods. By creating societies based on reason, on rule of law, and on democratic processes, humanity has made possible that such steady-state situations can be maintained for a while, at least in the interest of our own specie.

The Science & Technology community has a “can do - solve it” approach: it considers that is only a matter of time and resources for the human civilization to be capable to understand better what it does to the climate (science) and to make the necessary corrections (technology). Geo-engineering is getting fancy, and controversial too.

This is hubris at work. This extreme arrogance of overestimating human capabilities is practiced at both ends of the problem: humanity capable of destroying the ecosystem and at the same time able to repair it. The doctrines of “ecologism” and “technologism” are working together in a dialectical way. But hubris is not a just benign sin, it can lead to crime. It pretends full knowledge and control, and lets believe in the impossible until irreversible excesses are committed. And by denying the right to doubt, it abolishes responsibility.

Around the climate issue, it is an ironic situation that engaged ecologists are accepting technology as part of their solution. Usually, such group reject technology as human evil. Or it may just be a necessary compromise until the shiny future of a life in full harmony with Gaia will become reality (included cell phones, computers and organic food). Karl Marx was also considering capitalism as a necessary evil on the path to a classless society. This may be the role of so called clean technologies.

When looking at the forces engaged, human beings move less energy than microbes. The half zettajoule that they produce each year is like a fart against the wind, 0.01% of the energy received by the Earth from the sun, or equivalent to less than half a millimetre of rain. We are capable of measuring our energy production and consumption with quite accurate bookkeeping methods, but does this meticulousness makes it important?

Yes, we have deforested, grown crops, raised livestock, built cities and roads, mined coal and metals, but won’t these scars never heal? Why have we to dig deep to find remnants from earlier civilizations? Isn’t it because nature took back its rights over Mayan temples or Sumerian dwellings?

Yes, we have an impact on the environment: particularly on our direct living conditions and those of higher animals, by contaminations and pollutions.

Yes, we are exploiting precious reserves, and their exhaustion is probable. But in 1972 when the club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth”, oil reserves were estimated at 20 years. Today, 42 years later, the current estimate is more than 40 years. If the arithmetic is right we won 62 years. We even don’t know if the peak has been reached. But yes, we have a logical intuition that these reserves are finite.

These are not the arguments of a denier: this is a call for modesty.

No, we are not doomed to all catastrophes. And we are not the cause of all of them. Nature doesn’t need us, the reverse is true.

Human intelligence has made us capable to leverage natural resources, such as energy and plant growth, to provide us with quite enjoyable living conditions. But the job is not yet done. There remain one billion people suffering malnutrition and diseases, and many more not enjoying the basic freedom that education, rule of law, economic growth, and democratic institutions should provide.

The climate hype pushes to oblivion such overwhelming priorities: this should not be!