Arizona's Weather and Baby Stuff Make Me Think

There was this article today about the record number 110+ degree days in Phoenix this year. I also read this interesting contrarian point of view on Global Warming today. I have also been reading Collapse which puts forth the idea that some societies choose to fail because of indifference or in some cases hubris.

The reason I bring all of this up is that I have been thinking more lately about how little we consider the impact of our lifestyle on ourselves and the environment. Now don't get me wrong, I like my air conditioning and my LCD TV as much as the next person, but I can't help but wonder about the long term cost of cheap and abundant consumer goods. I have been reading a lot lately about all of the toxic chemicals in nearly everything we use as my wife and I prepare a nursery. I found this site that analyses the toxicity of car seats, it is disturbing to say the least. Or how about the possibility of pytoestrogens in plastic that might be responsible all manner of reproductive problems including a long term drop in sperm counts.

The problem I see is that for the most part there are more questions than answers. It is nearly impossible with the information available to accurately predict the danger of many of these things. This is a topic that even the most open minded people do not want to talk about.

The simple fact is that we are running an unregulated experiment on ourselves. It is reminiscent of many of the societies cited in Collapse, who ignored the problems that conflicted with societal norms. What amount of information would lead us as a society to more closely examine the affects of our lifestyle? Will there ever be enough information or consensus to convince either side of the debate?

If temperatures continue to increase, will central and Southern Arizona be inhabitable in 50 years? 100? Will people that question the danger of Global Warming or unregulated use of chemicals ever be considered anything other than whiny alarmists? Will the alarmists ever concede that some of the things they rail against may be less dangerous (or perhaps not dangerous at all) when the facts come in? Will we ever have a rational conversation about the best way to deal with any of these issues?