We've heard all the talk lately about global warming and what can be done to solve the problem.  Everything from recycling, driving less, buying hybrids... just generally "going green."  But what surprises me is that nobody has seen the easiest solution to all of our global warming woes, and that solution is:  pollute more. 

The earth has gone through multiple phases of global warming and global cooling, yes, (which is the only thing global warming skeptics like to pull out of their obviously limited repertoire), but the concern now is that it is happening at such a rapid rate that it is not allowing the earth to properly counteract what we've been contributing to it.  Therefore, it should be noted that with every mentioned cause of global warming there has only been one constant persisting, and that constant is Humans.  I noticed this in from my own correlational research on the matter, which consists of me looking at line graphs of people and of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.  I do my research the easiest way possible, I like to find little facts and then disregard the complexities of them to draw my already solidified conclusions. It should also be stated that I have completed not only a biology course in my lifetime, but a geology course as well and am currently involved in a second biology course.  Having filled you all in with that bit of my background, I will focus now on the solution. 

As I have mentioned, I have noticed, alongside the increase in CO2 emissions, an increase in human population.  This human population increase is exponentially the same as the CO2 increase.  The commonly accepted "Global Warming" equation looks (in my own formula) something like this, with the variables h, C, E being humans, carbon, and Earth respectively:

 h^x = C^x = - (E) <--- False Statement

As you can see in the equation, the human population increase by "x" power is equal to the carbon increase by "x" power.  The second equation shows the outcome being negative Earth.  However, I find this equation a false statement.

To find a true statement, the equation should be modified to look more like this:

given: a.) h^x = C^x

b.) h^x + C^x   = -h = -(C) = +E

Now this may seem confusing at first, but if it is looked at closely, the solution obviously holds true.  With the increase of "h" and "C" to the x power, and then adding them together, it first results in negative "h".  The reason for this is that the increase in people and CO2 leads ultimately to more people dying off.  Not initially, no, but over time the environmental costs and economic costs will ultimately result in drastically reduced resources.  Drastically reduced resource mean less people being able to survive, therefore natural selection takes place or simply, people choose to reproduce less.  With the imminent population decrease resulting from global warming, one can infer that the atmospheric carbon levels will decrease as well, therefore SOLVING GLOBAL WARMING which results in positive Earth.  So therefore, drive a lot, make them babies (bonus: pro-lifers can use this as an anti-abortion selling point to the far left), and do whatever you can to speed up the process.  The faster we contribute, the sooner to issue will resolve itself.  And for the coup de grâce, everyone surviving ends up with a beach-front property, which contributes to the redevelopment of a strong, healthy, thriving economy.  In the end, everyone - environmentalists and politicians - win.

larger view

I FEEL.  I know pleasure, pain, sadness, abandonment, heartbreak, depression, anger.  I've known my fair share of dramatic emotion.  More importantly, I know the effect of dramatic emotion over rational thinking.  I know of the influence that strongly emotional presentation and pseudo-artistic lyrics can have on the mind of someone who is desperately seeking legitimacy as a person, or seeking something to identify with.  Unfortunately, what has taken ahold of the popular slot of local music that is so damningly attractive, is (and I use the term in the loosest sense) "Scene".

        & nbsp;  

It is no stretch to assume that most people have had their moments where Jimmy Eat World's album Clarity has struck a chord in their own lives.  The Used's "Taste of Ink" certainly has its relevancy at many points in life.  So does the emotionally charged, obsessive driven lyrics in Glassjaw's "Two Tabs of Mescaline".  People all share, to some extent, the same fear of loneliness and confused questions that can sometimes infect our mentalities.  Music by nature is emotionally charged. This is what music as art does; it presses the multi-faceted pieces of human thought and emotion into highly attractive and often therapeutic expressions of the human condition.  Music is art when it is crafted out of legitimate emotional connectedness to the thoughts it is expressing.  However, art is not socially isolating yourself in order to legitimize your connectivity to the music you listen to.

        & nbsp;  

There has emerged a vogue, especially in the philosophical viewpoints, which has become overly romanticized by the fairly recent set of theatrics present in Emo 'Scene' music and culture.  And although this zeitgeist is not completely new, its popularity has certainly become more widespread.  This zeitgeist is the adoption and perpetuation of defeatism, despair and desperation as the core of individual identity for the sake of legitimacy and a false sense of depth.  It has sunk its claws into the cultural psyche and has certainly made its mark.

        & nbsp;  

The way this "Scene" strikes me is as fashion, and not much else.  It is blind conformity and the sacrifice of true reasoning and self for the sake of fashion.  Fashion disguised as art.  Music is designed as an expression of that which affects our lives... not the dictator of how we live them.  Now, I am in no way suggesting that music is the cause of a number of problems that we are currently experiencing.  I am, however, saying that a large portion of popular music being created, in all slots of the musical industry's hierarchy, has become constitution for many individuals and is symptomatic of a population that has abandoned true logic and reasoning for something that has become the epitome of fashion: to be an artist.  We've become charged with the idea that art is suffering, and that, because suffering is an intense emotion, we must create it in ourselves to feel what has almost become so endearing in many eyes and almost the only emotion worthy of attention: thus we become artists. 

        & nbsp;  

This is the same reason every other person in this culture, when questioned on future career prospects, submits the same answer (or at least one similar in nature): a photographer.  The idea that pointing a digital camera and taking black and white pictures of friends looking sad qualifies as art is far from anything I would consider art.  Or even a possible career choice.  And no, Photoshop manipulation of color photos does not count either.  But it sounds good doesn't it?  "I am going to be a photographer."  It sounds edgy.  It hits the ears with almost the same resonance as 'journalist' or 'painter' does.  It sounds like purpose.  But more than just purpose - it sounds like a deep purpose; it sounds like a fashionable purpose.  It sounds like a purpose that only someone with deep feelings could understand as a profession.  The decision would have to be navigated by the deeply feeling, connected part of oneself that people can look upon as tragically beautiful.  Key word there is tragic.  And judging by much of the "work" I've encountered by the majority of these individuals, tragic is precisely the aim.

        & nbsp;  

Why photography though?  Because the instant gratification offered by being able to point and click and not have to submit oneself to the rigors of actually developing a talent is so damn appealing to a generation that barely even knows how to do their own laundry.  It is simple and to be able to do it poorly is almost impossible.  It doesn't take any time or any dedication so it is entertained as a career option to people who want to live only by visceral means than by any sort of connection with the way life really works.  And to challenge what is visceral to people is to challenge ones competency to understand their own motives.  Who is going to ever admit that what they are doing is not really how they know as true in their core, but rather a demeanor adopted in order to not just fit in, but feel alive and connected to the things that we've come to praise as the hallmark of "coolness"?  And the structure is perfect.  An identity based off of receiving theoretical pity and rejection is self perpetuating.  If the identity is embraced by others, the mentality maintains in order to continue receiving the positive attention gained from negative emotion.  If the identity is rejected, it reaffirms their disposition and is kept at the hip as evidence for those who believe that the individual can get out of their "troubles" if they so chose. 

        & nbsp;  

We've hit a point in our culture where tragedy is romanticized and celebrated, and people willingly adopt tragic lifestyles in order to feel accepted and emotively beautiful. This is the mentality found in a majority of "Scene" music.  It's the notion of hopeless romanticism being expressed in song, but without anything constructive to contribute other than therapy in the times which those issues are relevant; which shouldn't be its responsibility.  But the problem arises when the music that is supposed to be an artistic expression that is ingested as therapy for correlative events is interpreted as a framework for how to structure one's life.  These are people trying to establish identities that are based off of perpetual tragedy and loneliness with no real desire to resolve any of it.  This is why, if a situation were to come along allowing a path out, it would be breaking with their perception of their true self (enter also a notion of "being real").  Answers are perceived only as challenges to the severity of their 'situation', and if their 'tragedy' is being questioned, then their identity is being questioned. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle erroneously rationalized by begging the question.

         & nbsp; 

This culture has begun to try to satisfy a corroded sense of what 'love' is by crafting interpersonal appeal toward pity and donning a persona of the rejected.  Couple this with a strong affinity for instant gratification and you get emotionally crippled individuals that scream "nobody loves me" without any real depth to their reasoning, as many today are doing.  This because many have been nursed on the idea that all of life's troubles are going to be solved by sitting back and waiting for a messiah, in whatever form, to appear and grant them love and wealth.  Waiting not only for their needs to be met immediately, but also expecting someone else to bear the responsibility of making it happen, whether it be in the financial, romantic, or any other realm.  But ultimately, the reason why they are truly unhappy is because they are expecting everyone else to cure them without wanting to play their own part.  If they are doing some participating, the expected give to take ration is almost "I'll walk this mile if you carry me the other ten."

        & nbsp;  

Again, it is not the music itself that is responsible for this emerged zeitgeist, but it is the way in which people interpret and create their identities as synonymous with this music.  We've been watching too many movies portraying love as something ever dramatic and passionate which can only satisfy you if everything lines up in the most picturesque manner, or, if not picturesque, then as long as sappy music strikes up behind every word that lovers speak between each other.  These things speak to the idea that "I would be happy if only I had the perfect companion" or "I would be happy if only I had a child to love me unconditionally".  If this is the case with you, you will never be happy.  Music, however, is far more portable then the occasional romance fantasy.  The iPod is a direct representation of that.  Ultimately, happiness is triggered by outside sources, but fulfillment is created within.  And by imagining life in such a way as to rely on others to fix your world, rather than to assist you in fixing your own world, is to build a house upon sand.  After all, it is much easier to sit at home and accept the "truth" that you are alone and that one day someone will come along and single handedly mend every hole in your heart, saving you forever from anything that has ever caused you problems.  The drugs will no longer be necessary.  The cigarettes and alcohol?  No longer.  Love will reveal itself as profound and sacred and everything bad will slip away.  Now let's reenter reality and see just how likely this scenario is.  The answer is 'not very'.  The reason these ideas are entertained at all is because of the initial high one gets from starting a new relationship, or anticipating the messiah.  It may seem as though the world can be taken over by this feeling, but in the end, the source causation still exists.  I do believe that there is a right person out there for everyone, but I also believe that under this type of cultural mentality, even if the two found each other, they would sabotage it for the sake of maintaining the status quo and ensuring infinite commiseration.   

And this is all coming from somebody who has spent years of his life tending to these sorts of people. Collecting pile after pile of shattered hearts that come from people who thrive off of lyrics such as in Bright Eye's Lover "Love is just an excuse to get hurt", or "Take this razor and sign your name across my wrist so the world will know who left me like this" from Bayside's A Synonym for Acquiesce, or the epitome of execrable writing in Hawthorne Height's Ohio is for Lovers "So cut my wrists and black my eyes so I can fall asleep tonight... or die, because you killed me, you know you do you kill me well..." and so on.  

My point is that it takes more than just hoping and love to survive.  It takes a hell of a lot of work.  Love is a major player, but it's not the only player.  It's as important as the engine is to the car, but without the wheels or the body, it wont do you a damn bit of good.  And if you truly wish for things to change, you have to be ready to actually make a move and not live in acquiescence.  But as long as being fashionable is valued over fixing old roads and ensuring the strong construction of new ones, we will find our society slip further and further back into our emotional infancy.