01 September 2010

The Earth Can Save Itself

From a nihilist perspective, saving the planet is a fairly confusing idea. Honestly, I don’t even know where the danger is coming from. Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great if we used less resources and destroyed less nature if only for the effect on quality of life. But, objectively speaking, I don’t think the planet is in any peril that we can either accelerate or prevent. Let us not forget that 4 billion years ago, the planet was a violent and muggy place, inhospitable to all multi-cellular species that live today, yet here it is, still revolving around the Sun. What I’m trying to say is that the plea to “save the planet” is quite disingenuous and a bit of an exaggeration. Sort of like calling a pageant winner “Miss Universe” instead of “Miss Vain Humanity.”

I’m writing this as a gunman is pacing the lobby of the Discovery Channel building in Maryland. His mission is to get the Discovery Channel to broadcast various shows to help “save the planet.” I think what he really wants is relief for his guilt. He feels guilty for everything society has done to change the landscape of Earth’s surface. He fears for his species’ survival. He’s also a nutcase. Here is a summary of his demands of the channel:

1. Promote restrictions on reproduction.
2. Stop pretending that saving lives is heroic.
3. Stop focusing on war because the root of war is overpopulation.
4. Denounce immigration.
5. Promote environmental harmony.
6. Get the message across that humans are disgusting and should not be allowed to breed.
7. Find solutions for unemployment.

This guy has got it all wrong. If I wanted humanity to go away then war, destitution and overpopulation would be the first things I would promote. Joking aside, it is clear that this man suffers from societal guilt. He also has his perspectives all messed up.

On Sunday (see my previous entry), I heard a comment that I had to immediately refute. The comment was this: humans are the only species that are out of balance with their ecosystem. It is a classical example of the guilt that environmental activists try to instill in society. Frankly, it is bullshit. I was much more polite when I offered my rebuttal though: The history of species on Earth is filled with examples of populations wrecking havoc on entire ecosystems. Introduce an energetic predator into a community with low predation and watch the devastation. While we may frown at the thought, we have to understand this is the way of the world. Nature has no justice.

There is no standard unit of evolution. There is no single factor that determines if a species is evolutionarily fit. Most of all, no single species or ecosystem is inherently more valuable than any other. Just because humanity has invented morality doesn't mean the universe follows its lead. Do I think we should save the forests and stop killing animals? Yes, of course, it really sets off my compassion sensors when shit like that happens. It's a selfish desire, but I'm honest about it. I think the world will be a lot less interesting if we kill everything in it. But beyond that, there really is no actual impetus to act in any particular way.

Responsibility is a subjective term that means nothing out of context. Humanity is hardly a blip on the cosmic radar and yet it has such a huge sense of importance. If Yellowstone were to blow its top, would we blame ourselves if we survived? What’s so great about this intelligence we’ve got when we can’t even organize for our own rational sakes? The planet will survive long after we’re gone. I think we should look at environmentalism for what it is: selfish, but comforting. If we’re going to “save the planet” we should understand that we’re only saving what is familiar to us. Until the meteors come.
Posted by Andrew Gonsalves at 4:51 PM
Labels: ,

3 nibbles:

  1. With regards to responsibility, I do think we are responsible for our actions that have lead to the decimation and extinction of species. Overfishing sharks, tuna, crabs, etc. Overhunting dodo birds and tazmanian tigers. We have even been attributed with overhunting megafauna in North America to the point of extinction. The things we do to sustain ourselves beyond what's actually necessary to survive that cause major impacts on ecosystems are things that I think we should take responsibility for and try, technology and knowledge permitting, to reverse any negative recourse for which we have been directly attributed.

    Yes, fires do occur naturally in hot areas or when lightning strikes. No, fires caused by littered cigarette butts should not go unchecked because it wasn't what I consider a "natural" cause, i.e. non-human acts of nature that lead to natural phenomena.

    Yes, species do naturally go extinct from time to time. No, that does not mean it's okay for us to eat or hunt a species into extinction left and right.

    Even on a light note, I don't see how overpopulation would be helpful unless you are referring to non-human species. The more of us there are, the more we take and decimate. Following that line of sarcasm, I would argue that disease, vectors, and war, would be most beneficial. Let the microbes and pests kill us off in hoardes and what remains can battle it in hand to hand combat like the good old days when hand operated weapons were used instead of remotely operated machinery.
    ReplyDelete
  2. akasha: What do you tell an antelope population that devastates the land that it overgrazes? Do you make it feel guilty? Do you try to teach it to graze less? Better question: who is judging us and saying that any of what we do is right or wrong? It is all just self-induced guilt.

    Personally, I think the guilt angle works like religion: you have to believe it to be affected. Look, I am all for treating the environment with a lot more delicacy, but I refuse to feel guilt. I am a proponent of clean air and sustainable energy, but I will not wrack myself with guilt. I believe what I believe because it'll make for a more pleasant existence, not because we are all evil sinners who poison the Earth with our taint.
    ReplyDelete
  3. This reminds me a lot of a certain George Carlin routine, if this is the sort of thing to float your boat:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

    As a note, I also believe a lot of environmentalists have the angle all wrong. As you said, they fill people with a sort of religious guilt about the ravages of civilization on the planet. But just like religious guilt, it doesn't seem to do much when it comes to actually making people behave better.

    David Suzuki, a rather famous environmentalist in Canada, hosted a show called "The Nature of Things." One of the more memorable episodes for me was one detailing exactly how we rely on nature to survive. The biosphere is almost entirely responsible for cleaning our air, purifying our water, protecting against erosion, processing pollution, renewing previously barren lands. Our current standard of living can be attributed to the fact that these things are taken care for us. If the day should come where we are exploring space and have taken on nature's burden easily with our advanced technology, then so be it. But we're very far from that now.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)