Environment: Should It Be Protected Or Not?
If the environment is so important to us, then why are we just talking about it and doing nothing to protect it?
The Earth is here to stay, It will adapt to its new settings, but what about us? Will we be able to adapt to the new settings?
If the Earth decides to go sarcastic on our asses, we will become extinct just like the dinosaurs and the mammoths.. Humans are already an endangered species, despite our growing numbers. We’ve driven many species to extinction over the past century and soon it will be our time. The sooner we realize it, the better it will be for us.
There have been many warnings, but we being humans, will always chose to ignore it because of the “nothing has happened to me yet, so why bother?” attitude. Only when one, personally, goes through a screw up does one realize that he/she needs to do something about it. Until we all go through the adverse effects of our doings, we will not respond and by the time we each have gone through a screw up, it will be too late.
Fun it out in these last days.. \m/
yes it should! we would not be here without the environment we take for granted.
I like your thoughts…and your photo-metaphors on your blog are just sensational. You have taken some really uplifting pictures.
Thank you for sharing them!
Thanks a bunch for your appreciation
Please keep coming back and share your thoughts on whichever post you might find interesting
On a cosmological scale, Earth will continue to hurtle through the Universe faster than a bullet: orbiting the sun in the outer reach of a spiral galaxy expanding at an ever-faster rate. B
Like the dinasaurs indeed! We humans are SO arrogant regarding our rational thought. Ever wonder why the rest of the species on the planet don’t have it? It’s my theory that they don’t need it. They have advanced to a place on the upward spiral of consciousness that intuitive thought is all that is required. I mean – in the judeo christian model – who got kicked out of the garden? Hint…..it wasn’t the animals. It’s my belief they are still here desperately trying to get it through our thick rational skulls how to get back in……
Ha ha.. Awesome \m/
I am super happy to get a new and really fresh perspective to all this mess..
On a cosmological scale, Earth will continue to hurtle through the Universe faster than a bullet: orbiting the sun in the outer reach of a spiral galaxy expanding at an ever-faster rate. But on this scale nothing ever gets done.
The two meaningful perspectives are called “anthrocentric” (sometimes called “anthropocentric”) and ecocentric.
On the anthrocentric model we always keep building; nature is here for us. If we want it to be a city for us to live in, it becomes a city. If we want it to be farm land then it is so. If we want it to be natural then we either leave it or manage it accordingly. The argument is that if we really want nature then market forces will dictate that to us. In the mean time we keep building in the knowledge that technology will catch up and help us out.
The ecocentric model notices that no one seems to want nature. But nature has an inherent right to life as much as we do. Nature’s in ability to stick up for itself is no excuse to exploit it. Technology is not guaranteed to catch up and people don’t know what they need, much less what they want.
The mid-point is called “sustainability”. It’s an idea to tend towards, and I think it’s attainable. It takes the anthrocentric principle and it flips some of the details on their heads: we wait for the technology first (if it’s not guaranteed to come, we wait it out), we actually research what we need (and this includes research into what we need to be psychologically happy as well as physically healthy), we do not exploit nature and instead we find a way to work with it (the simple concepts to think of are things like planting a tree or two for everyone cut down, or to plant a forest to off-set carbon emissions).
It also weaves the ecocentric model into the antrocentric model (or, better said, it tries to weave people into a proper understanding of what is natural). We respect that nature has an inherent value as well as its medicinal, recreation and other resource value (on top potential undiscovered value). If discoveries like the Yeti crab can inspire us to look at how weird and wonderful nature is then we’re on the right track in terms of our frame of mind.
The IPCC tells us we’re committed to a lot of the damage, and continuing only makes us worse. We should really consider what this means: we have already upset the farming, caused droughts and flooding and countless deaths in deep and unnecessary suffering for people who are not yet born. We are not leaving the legacy our descendants deserve.
As an individual you have to sort out who created what and what is your (our) responsibility in all of this. I will not be hear forever and those that follow…well that is self explanitory. It makes us the leaders. What example are we setting? Who’s plan was creation? Are we following those command and responsibilities?
I like the boldness of this devil’s advocate kinda view, but it’s really much too black-and-white and put too simply. Which is a neat trick of yours, because now I really feel compelled to write something in answer.
Your first hypothesis is not correct. You say “we” aren’t doing anything, and I guess you mean we = humanity. Last time I looked, humanity was made of individuals. There’s plenty of people who try to save the planet, the environment, endangered species, … Unfortunately, this passion, or urgency, or simply, the will, of these people hasn’t permeated the thick heads of a lot of decision-makers yet. It also hasn’t made an impact on a large enough part of society to force decision-makers’ hands, you’re right. That’s pretty hard though, when “society” doesn’t even raise enough pressure to deal with situations of hunger and poverty (issues that are tackled easier and less controversially as wars). Hm. I might have collapsed my own argument right there. Or wait, no, because these are global issues and that means you have to fight in each state, and then fight again on the international playing table, which is extremely hard, because, and there I totally agree with you, humans en masse are stupid and prone to ostrich tatics (head in the ground – if I can’t see the problem, it doesn’t exist). Doesn’t mean that individuals are like that.
What I wanted to say though: just because some people are too stupid to see the danger, should we just sit back and say ‘So what? It’ll happen sooner or later anyway’? Do we adopt the same attitude when we see someone running towards an abyss – just shrug because obviously that person is so stupid he/she will fall in eventually in any case? Or do we try and stop them?
As often as I sometimes think that humanity doesn’t deserve to survive, eventually, a fight’s not over till it’s over.
The ‘we’ was directed more towards the people that don’t care
The uncaring morons definitely don’t deserve to survive.. I am just waiting for their species to get wiped out so that the world can become better again for the remaining ones who do care about it..
These sick freaks only know to pollute and pillage. Their actions are going to have some dire consequences and the funny thing is, they don’t seem to give a damn. I say, I would let these idiots walk and fall into the abyss, I don’t want to stop them. In fact, after they fall into the abyss, there is an endless pit of fire waiting to entertain them
If only they stop what they are doing, but why would they stop? They seem to love what they are doing and we teach ourselves to follow our dreams and do what the heart wants.. lol..
You may enjoy reading about the phenomena called “The Tragedy of the Commons”.
It basically says that if we all think we’re not making an individual impact and we basically all think we’re getting our individual needs then we delegate the issue. The problem is that the resource is “common”, there is no one to delegate to–it’s a communal resource.
As an issue, it is best combated by “Game Theory”. This is a theory based in statistics that either (in continuous-variable issues) finds the best risk-to-pay-off balance or (in discrete-variable issues) finds the best solution.
Both are quite well explained on Wikipedia.
Thanks for stopping by my blog and ‘liking’ it. Your visit is appreciated.
Love your photos and smile at your observations. My theory is that one day there will be born the ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’, that one person who finally overloads planet Earth and it falls out of the sky and POOF we are no more, no more. Overpopulation of any species always leads to an adjustment by Nature.
True that!
Of course! Take care of the environment. I think that humanity has great potential to make a great global society that takes care of the earth. Some people call me optmistic but I don’t care.
Check out the Venus Project for a vague idea of what some people are suggesting.
Wow! That some crazy stuff!