People who want to poo-poo the environmental movement are fond of making a particular argument. It goes like this:
You go on and on about how the earth is "in trouble" and "out of balance." But guess what, dude, the earth is billions of years old. Nothing we could do could hurt it.
Yes. Right. Obviously. Though we may take ourselves out, and a good chunk of the earth's current biodiversity with us, the planet itself will survive and eventually regenerate new species.
What I don't get is ... so what? Why does this pop up so often? What's the force of the argument supposed to be? It mystifies me.
Comments
View as Flat
Icelander Posted 12:10 pm
04 Dec 2006
It really comes back to their self confidence. If they don't think that they're worth saving, they won't think that anyone else, even the species itself, is worth saving.
I recognize that, for all our faults, humanity is worth something. Intelligent life, like ours, is the rarest and most precious thing in the universe.
Permalink
Deborah Byrd Posted 1:18 pm
04 Dec 2006
It's not just that we affect Earth. We affect it, and Earth affects us in turn ... the effects cycle back and forth between us.
It's always been this way. Humans have evolved in response to Earth. Blaming humanity for affecting the Earth is like blaming the wind for causing the trees to sway.
Deborah Byrd
Earth & Sky Radio Series
"A clear voice for science."
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:03 am
05 Dec 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:26 am
05 Dec 2006
But every now and then one encounters scenarios of terrific pessimism (it is not impossible that Lovelock has thought along those lines) that suggest that human beings are on the way to wrecking the biosphere-supporting balance of the planet so radically and irreparably, especially now through GHG emissions, global warming and global "weirding," that in time the earth will devolve to a state resembling that of either of her sister planets, the second and fourth rocks. Venus of course cannot support life. Mars not impossibly can, if there is some liquid water that persists there: very remote and hard to find, apparently, if it does, and presumably the living organisms would not be diverse or numerous.
I certainly do not think that environmentalists need to endorse such scenarios. But they may be useful to keep in mind, as cautionary images.
Biodiv understands such slogans as "Save the Planet" best, I think. "Planet" means the planet as we know it now, which supports human life very well. To "save" it means, to keep the planet in that condition as best we can, for the sake of everyone whose well-being is a matter of concern for us, in the first place our families and friends, then all human beings, both those we know now and those who will follow in the future.
And I would add, we also have a responsibility for the well-being of other species too, if perhaps not to the same degree.
Hence, the "guess what, dude" critics are wrong to suggest that nothing that human beings do really has any kind of significant effect. But also, it is wrong to suggest (and I am not sure David is exactly doing that) that we have no moral responsibility for the state of the earth's biosphere, both present and future.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:08 am
05 Dec 2006
(1) Assume that humans have been here as long as the Earth, have weathered all previous changes, and will continue to persevere. I suppose we have, if you want to include our ancestors all the way back to single-cell organisms. But most of our relatives did not make it this far. And it might be our turn to have our branch on the tree of life pruned a bit.
(2) They have the highest confidence that while life around us changes, adapts, evolves to fit the new climate over 10 of millions of years, just like it has in the past, somehow we will be the first species to find shelter from the winds of natural selection. Our descendents will be sitting in their lawn chairs watching entirely different fauna roaming about on the horizon.
I think Jared Diamond covered this problem quite well in his "Collapse" book. There is a segment of society that believes it will always come out on top... due to military power, economic power, our technological fixes. And the only thing they really manage to achieve is the opportunity to be the last to die as civilization -- which they suddenly learn is quite important -- crumbles beneath them.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:27 am
05 Dec 2006
Although our hallmark as a species is adaptability, note that we do not live in the deep ocean or on the moon. Even we have our limits. If we change the planet too much, we will create a place that we did not evolve to live on that will exceed even our capacity to adapt. Evolution takes huge amounts of time. There is no time to evolve to match our rapidly changing environment.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:41 am
05 Dec 2006
P.S. Ironically, in order to increase carbon storage through forests, old-growth forests should be logged.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:42 am
05 Dec 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:52 am
05 Dec 2006
"There is no time to evolve to match our rapidly changing environment."
There MIGHT be time to evolve... but there will be a severe population bottleneck. I can imagine a small tribe somewhere... just a few hundred people... whose descendents will be amazed by the ruins they find as they move out to repopulate continent after continent. I wonder what they will think. I wonder if they will contemplate the horror of the disaster as we contemplate the extinction of dinosaurs.Or will they will realize... they are fortunate everyone else perished. Otherwise they would not have the opportunity to spread across the globe.
Apparently, everyone who does not consider global climate change a problem probably believes their descendent will be among the few hundred survivors and not the billions who leave no legacy.
Is there a way to tap into pure selfish desire to survive and have their children's children survive... or are people essentially programmed to not look beyond one or two generations?
Permalink
Orion Kriegman Posted 6:31 am
05 Dec 2006
Of course, the Sun is supposedly turning into a Red Dwarf in 5 billion years or so.
So this might be Earth's last chance to enjoy sentient complexity.
For what that's worth.
Orion is the Organizer for the Great Transition Initiative(http://www.GTInitiative.org)
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:28 am
05 Dec 2006
Though this is rather altruistic... not worrying about our own destruction because it will provide something else with an opportunity to replace us.
I'm a bit more selfish than that. Maybe it would help to believe in reincanation. Then everyone would get a second chance!
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:16 pm
05 Dec 2006
An infection by LIFE has transformed the third hunk of rock from Sol and turned it into EARTH as we know and love it.
This planet is what LIFE eats, it has nothing really to do with us. The oxygen and the water are parts of LIFE's body, made by LIFE for LIFE, so lets get it right.
Earth was not earth before. And if you take away all that is living here, then you will have a hunk of rock again, and not an Earth.
So yes Earth can be lost but we won't care if that is the case, because we will be long gone then.
But all that does not really matter. LIFE never dies, it just moves on.
HEY wait a minute, don't forget me!!
Well, if you wish to remain on an EARTH you all had better clean up the act we all follow ...no lets write a new play, we know so much more now.
:)
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 2:25 pm
05 Dec 2006
If LIFE becomes extinct here.... it will have to start again on Venus. That is not for you and me.
Here we are and here we live or die.
What we do in the next several decades are crucial to our survival. IMO
Can the decisions be left to people totally devoid of the reality of dirt under their fingernails, where money thrown at a problem fixes it???
No amount of money will fix this problem
So who will step up and say for sure, we will save LIFE from extinction here?
Who are the selfless leaders with a clear direct conscience who are not blinded by money or power.
Where are Plato's Philosopher Kings??????????????
Permalink