| The Green: Earth, humans, and the need for self-preservation |
[26 Jul 2007|05:50pm] |
(edit: Yes, this is essentially an argument about semantics.)
The crescendo of eco-friendly activism has been steadily rising since I first had to watch that infamous Native American with the tear rolling down his cheek. This was, I believe, also the same point at which the fear of throwing away six-pack holders without first cutting all the holes into flapping, open fingers of plastic was also planted. From recycled paper and solar power to hybrid cars and saving endangered species, at the center of most of this eco-love is usually some variation of "Save the Earth!"
This, as far as I can reason, is bullshit.
That is not to say that I am somehow patently against all things pro-environment. It is the essence of the outwardly presented motivation that I take issue with: the idea that, somehow, humans can destroy the Earth. This is both arrogant and ridiculous. This planet has been here for billions of years, and barring some astronomical catastrophe -- and I mean that literally, as there are no known means by which we could somehow obliterate this chunk of rock via our own technology -- it will be here for several billion more. Homo sapiens has been wandering around for about a million years, which is a mere pin prick in the time line of this planet, and frankly the idea that we could "destroy" it is ludicrous, at least at this point in our technological evolution. When we start developing nova bombs or death stars or any number of planet-destroying weapons found only in science fiction and the like, then I will be happy to jump on the idea that the Earth itself needs to be saved. Every nuclear weapon in the world could detonate and I have no doubt that life (hopefully including some cool zombies or evil mutants or giant insects) will persist somewhere. It might not be human, but it will be life, and the planet will still be here. Ostensibly, the planet is in no real danger, at least not from human beings.
When people spout off about saving the planet, maintaining ecosystems and preventing global warming, what they're *really* saying, whether they mean to or not, is that we need to maintain the pH of the giant aquarium tank that humans live in, lest all the people go belly-up. It's self-preservation. A primal urge to keep the species alive and reproducing. It's the most basic of human instincts, and one I fully embrace and support (no, I'm not pregnant). Sure, it's often in there somewhere, behind the motto, inside the pamphlet, at the closing of a speech, but it's rarely at the forefront.
Besides the myriad of silly reasonings that accompany any burgeoning fanaticism, my main issue -- or I suppose, emphatic suggestion -- is the question of why activists/hippies/eco-warriors continue to make their appeals to the masses by putting forth the needs of plants and animals and other non-human things that supposedly need saving, instead of what seems obvious to me: US. Lots of people don't give a shit about smog levels here or there, or this or that resource running out, or some obscure animal that lives on a continent they've never been to, but I guarantee that any person whose DNA is worth passing on cares about *their* survival.
I guess it just sounds more admirable if we make it about saving other things, instead of the real issue, which is keeping human DNA alive and going.
Anyway, what I'm basically saying is:
maintaining the environment for human survival = good
fronting maintaining the environment for the sake of "the planet" = stupid
/end rant
p.s. Hi! :D
p.p.s. Future rant ideas not explored in this post: The logistics of recycling, Please tell me why we save endangered species, The confusion of cause and effect, The Earth is big and old and you're not, and Radioactive waste != oozing goo.
|
|
happy
hungry
busy![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
tired