It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on. Whether from a lack of knowledge, a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, human advancement has exacted a heavy toll on the resources and species of Earth. To any rational person, that fact is indisputable. From the extraction of minerals to the deforestation of wild lands to the over harvesting of various animals or plants, the growth of humanity has brought great changes to our planet and has affected its previous balance. The question is not how much we have damaged the Earth, or even if the damage can be reversed. The question is not even whether or not we have the “right” to cause these changes. The question is why are we doing it so callously?
Our planet is the lifeblood of us all. Its resources sustain our lives, both physically and mentally. Each and every part of our environment is an integral piece of the puzzle that is nature. Nature is the trees and the lakes and the mountains. Nature is the bugs and the fish and the birds. Nature is the water and the air and the dirt. And we are part of nature too. All things, from the rocks to the whales to the daisies and the wind, have their place in the natural order. The difference between most things on Earth and humans is our ability to change our environment quickly and drastically and to adapt relatively easily. Add to that ability the fantastic success we’ve had with procreation and dispersion and you can see that humans leave a large footprint when we pass through the glen. And for the most part, as a species, we don’t really seem to care. Yet, somehow, we still consider ourselves to be the most intelligent life form on the planet.
Before you start rolling your eyes into the back of your head, let me clarify that I am not a “whacko-environmental-extremist-tree hugging-spotted leopard newt saving-protect nature at all costs” kind of guy. I can’t deny the fact that I love being out in the forest or in the mountains, listening to the sounds of birds and creeks and crickets. I relish a clear night in the warm spring desert gazing at the stars. But I also have no problem extinguishing the lives of mosquito’s and ants and weeds in my yard or cutting down a Christmas tree or digging for gold. I like things made out of wood, I like to drive my car, and I like to drink clean water too. Unfortunately, instead of living in a world where all these things can be found and enjoyed and exist compatibly, we have created one that pins the longevity of our species to our own ability to destroy the conditions that make our lives possibly.
To be fair, on the other side of the coin, we must recognize that nature is a constantly evolving creature itself, as evidenced in the scientific records of historic climate changes, the extinction of species, and the geological malleability land itself. The forces of nature have altered thousands of times during the billions of years the Earth has been in existence. Humanity has only been around for a couple hundred thousand. Surely any “damage” that we cause is insignificant is the larger context, isn’t it? After all, humans are part of the natural order too, so the things we do are really just part of the natural progression of Earth, right?
But here’s the deal folks. Despite what most of us are taught, humans don’t own the Earth. We share it. Only by accepting this very basic concept can both sides of the environmental issue come down from their fences so that we can begin to have policies that make sense. Tree-huggers must accept the fact that man has as much right as any other creature on Earth to adapt his environment to his needs. Forest burners have to accept the fact that our ability to cause great and rapid change comes with great responsibility to all those with whom we share our planet. Both sides have to learn to use common sense and humanity as a whole must choose to extend the life of our species through ecological intelligence instead of shortening it for short-term gains.
The concept of man being ruler of the Earth is shared by both science and religion, one of the few areas that they agree upon. From the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection to the audacious belief that technology can control nature, science places man ahead of all other species and conveys upon him the right to rule the Earth. Religion gives man this same right through the words of gods, who offer the planet to man in exchange for his devotion. But religion and science are both constructs of mankind, so it’s only natural that we would give ourselves the rights of control. I wonder what the other species on Earth would say if they had a voice in the matter. Would the snails vote for us? How about the rivers? Of course they can’t talk though, and that makes it easy for us to forget that they are just as important as we are, from nature’s perspective.
Still, human civilization exists on a different plane than other animals and plants, and to a large degree, we are the dominant species on the planet. We are the only ones with the ability to significantly change the planet, aside from nature itself. And because of that, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our adaptations to other species and to mitigate the damaging effects through replenishment of renewable resources and good management of our industries and practices. We have this responsibility not only to the other inhabitants of Earth, but also to the future generation of our own species, the future children for whom we profess to make the world a better place for. And we owe it to ourselves.
Current environmental policy appears to be created in an effort to insulate governments and businesses from having to adopt practices that reduce or eliminate hazardous pollutants while over-regulating private individuals through impact analyses and other legal red tape. It is a sham effort to give the appearance of eco-responsibility while rewarding bad stewardship with financial profits and a blind eye. Rather than encourage and insist upon the development of cleaner technology with reduced pollutants, governments pass out waivers and suppress innovation to sustain old corporations with deep wallets. Rather than punish the largest spoilers of nature, governments nit-pick at the little guys dumping paint thinner in the dirt.
It is time to end the politics of pseudo-environmentalism that plagues our government. It is time to end the extremist attitude that would prevent all human development of the planet or its resources. It is time to start using our brains with regards to our construction and our consumption. We need a policy that recognizes that natural diversity is not only healthy; it is essential to life on Earth. We need a policy that reduces junk studies and red-tape but that insists upon extraordinary protection of things like water and soil and air. We need a policy with the teeth to go after those who pollute, whether they are big business or the local tire shop. We need a policy that rewards innovation and shares new found knowledge. We need a policy that encourages reuse of existing development before building something new. We need a policy that puts the rights of humans in line with the needs of the rest of the world’s creatures and features.
We have the capacity to both use what the planet has to offer and to ensure that we don’t abuse what others also may need. Nature makes life hard enough at times with her storms and droughts and earthquakes and temperature shifts. Why do we make things even harder? Just to put a few million bucks into the already stuffed pockets of our “leaders?” Our government must decide to be better than that. We must challenge ourselves to adopting real eco-reform measures that would make the world a cleaner and more useful place for all of us while preserving the ability to change our world when we must.
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 19th, 2005 at 9:56 am and is filed under Common Sense, Environment, Government, Reform.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 19th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Ken, well written. The folly is to make this issue another ‘right-left’ chirade. It can not be beyond the wit of man to progress without destruction. Perhaps Malthus was right.
Thanks for your comment on H I and I hope you’ll continue to pop in from time to time. Regards.
March 19th, 2005 at 6:41 pm
First, despite your denial, you are a whacko, tree-hugging, enviro, greenie nut; but so much for the positive (tongue in cheek). I run across you from time to time via BE, your points are usually pretty far out there and I find I can almost agree on NOTHING that you say (including this post). I’ve just added you to my block list so that I don’t have to read such ramblings even for my required 30 seconds. So glad that you think that your positions are so well thought out, but news flash – they’re not.
Hope you have a happy forever – oh, and hug a tree, you’ll obviously feel better.
March 20th, 2005 at 4:47 am
First, I must say, it was awfully nice of “anonymous” above to wish you a “happy forever”. Anonymous hate-commenters are never that generous with me. You attract all the nice ones, KG! Especially considering he admits to a 30-second attention span.
Anyway, here is what first comes to mind regarding the politics of environmentalism. Doesn’t it seem like it should be considered a conservative value? I mean, conservatism means to preserve the status quo, to resist all but the most gradual change. So, preserving the environment should be included in that, right? Besides, environmentalism used to be called conservation, before it became apparent that conservation stood between the neocons and their profits (as in oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge).
March 20th, 2005 at 5:10 am
Another great post Ken, raising numerous points and ideas to cogitate. I noticed our dear Anon, spewing venom and running again. No one is stopping this nut from not coming back, particularly if his/her attention is not longer than 30 seconds, but I digress.
When the energy cartels have their hands so far down W, Rove and Co.s shorts that they can comb their short and curlies, you know that the issue of clean and green becomes political.
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2004/11/our-healthy-forests-clear-skies.html#comments
Environmental organizations can’t usually muster the grand sums of capital it takes to get an overnight at the Whitehouse to whisper sweet nothings in W’s ear, and breakfast in the Lincoln bedroom. Which reminds me, what happened the Kenny Boy Lay? Still galavanting about, eh?
Anyway, I think the solution has to start with the individual. If we each pledge to go as green as we can and reduce consumption, we would do well.
Keep in mind, this simple thought – the most strategic reserve of oil sits parked in the driveways and parking spaces of America. Every time you make a decision to fire up the combustionable, you burn up another chance to save and increase our reliance on OPEC oil. So, perhaps the most patriotic thing one can do is ride a bicycle, or walk or take public transit to work….or use only clean/efficient vehicles….
That’s my idea on where to start. We can all do our part, now isn’t that Patriotic?
March 20th, 2005 at 5:14 am
Ken,
Hunting down and shooting ignorants like anonymous above would be very good for our intellectual environment!
Let me add one nit to pick, I know you were being generous when you said “religion and science are both constructs of mankind” — religion certainly fits in that category but science (our ability to understand and manipulate nature and natural laws) is certainly (and ironically) a gift of a God.
March 20th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Man, the piker
We are in an inter-glacial period. The glaciers will be back if the history of the earth is an indicator. The glaciers will heap up all the works of man in the end moraine, scraping the planet to bedrock. Isn’t it a little vain to think that we people are ruining the earth?
Eventually, the sun will burn out. But long before that the rotation of the earth will have slowed to a stop. One side will roast, the other freeze.
The automobile was the cure to being knee deep in horse manure a little over 100 years ago. Progress happens in unexpected ways. This is the worst of all possible worlds and it has been for several thousand years. Try not to project present problems into the future; if they’re real problems they’ll be solved. New problems, caused by the solutions, will arise in their wake.
Lament the human condition. But not too much. There’s nothing you can do about it. Though you may have to try.
March 20th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
(responses)
Anon #1- It’s too bad you can’t offer anything constructive to the debate. Especially when you agree with nothing I say. Rational difference of opinion can be discussed for all to examine. Your blather does nothing. Thanks for not wasting any more of my BE credits.
H.I.- Thanks to you for dropping by too. Yes, we do have the capacity to progress without destruction. It is the will that worries me…
SheaNC- You are right that what we call environmentalism began life under the name conservation. Actually, I like the term conservation much more since it acurately reflects what needs to be done- conserving our resources and preserving our planet for future generations.
Windspike- It is so true that we must all do our part in the effort to reduce pollution, but giving up autos isn’t practical for everyone, especially those with long commutes. For those who can, greast! For those who can’t, there are a hundred other things to be done, from recycling your newspapers to picking up a piece of trash in the street.
As for the whole oil situation, I’ll be getting to that soon.
Thanks as always for stopping by.
Whymrhymer- When I said that science was a construct of man, I meant that the ways we explain things, the new ideas we develop, and our ability to advance our technology lie in the minds and capabilities of our species. Naturally, many things exist empirically whether we deduce them or not.
Anon #2- Yes, the natural cycles of the earth have ways of wiping out the excesses of humanity, but does that mean that we should just continue to do our damage while waiting for the next glacial freeze? Or should we make an effort to reduce our imprint on the rest of the planet?
Mankind may well die out long before the sun quits burning, but why should we hasten our own demise by poisoning our water and air that we all need for life? To sit by and idly watch is just a jaded response to the situation.
Is there nothing I (we) can do? As individuals, we can make only a very small difference, I know. But as a cohesive voice and effort, we could push for policy changes that can make a real change, and hopefully, a change for the better.
March 20th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on.
Maybe this explains why groups like the ACLU are so bent on destroying America.
March 20th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
I ran accross your page using Blog Explosion, and I appreciate your thoughtful outpourings; however, i must comment that your environmental concerns, although well-meaning, are somewhat poorly informed. I encourage you to explore alternative viewpoints such as those provided by the Cato Institute – one broadly applicable article on sustainable development can be found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa449.pdf
March 21st, 2005 at 1:28 am
(responses)
Jay777- A little off topic, don’t you think? But since you’re there, the same could also be said about organized religion or the profit hungry big businesses or the lying politicians…
Brandon- Thanks for stopping by. I’ll take a longer look at that report you mention ( I did a quick 2 minute run through), but you are aware that even the Cato Institute has an agenda that they follow, and aren’t necessarily advocating changing attitudes or policices if they will cost businesses money, even if those changes are in the best interest of creatures other than American citizens.
But I’ll still read the whole thing because I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know everything and can always benefit by other points of view, regardless of whether or not I agree with their conclusions.
March 21st, 2005 at 3:20 am
It’s not “uniquely human” to destroy one’s environment. All animals, left to their own devices, tend to overpopulate and use up resources. The sad thing is we don’t seem to do much better.
And to the ACLU hater, please explain how an organization that defends the Constitution against theocratic bigots, perhaps like yourself, is destroying America.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:25 am
To pansy, I have plenty of examples at my blog.
http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com
March 21st, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Well I’m here on my 30 seconds and just wanted to say what a well thought out and enjoyable post that was – I stayed well over my “minimum” stay
I certainly think that the world has to get over the concept of “us and them” whether environmentalist or big business and open the way to rational debate.
March 21st, 2005 at 10:11 pm
(responses)
Pansy- The difference between human destruction and that of other animals (if you can call overpopulation destruction) is that humans have the intellectual capacity AND the ability to control our actions. Not many of our friends in the animal kingdom are so lucky. Sure, overpopulation may come and go due to resource availabilty, but nature has a way of regulating these types of problems. No other creature uses and abuses the earth as we do.
Thanks for the comment.
Pewari- I’m glad you stayed longer than jsut 30 seconds. I agree that the whole “us vs them” concept is the real cause of so many of our problems.
Come back anytime.
March 21st, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I, too, have become wearied by the “us vs. them” mindset of this topic. I’m a conservative and I do believe in conservation. It’s only common sense to want to use our resources in a rational and reasonable manner. But as “theocratic bigot” (as pansi would have others to believe all Christians are), I am taught that God would like to see us exercise proper stewardship over the world He gave us.
But none of this means that we have to abandon current resources, or further exploration for those resources, until new technologies are developed to help ween us from our dependence upon fossil fuels.
And just out of curiosity; what’s wrong with making a profit? I happen to be a shareholder of Exxon-Mobile and the investment is making a better life for me and my kids. How does this translate into something ‘evil’ to the rest of the world?
March 23rd, 2005 at 4:43 am
(response)
M+ – Good to hear from you again. If only more people of religious faith held your same conceptual creeds. Proper stewardship is a no brainer- either because we are protecting a gift from god or because we don’t want to live in our own mess.
My newest post addresses your comments regarding energy resources, so feel free to comment on that one too.
As for profit, I don’t say that there is anything wrong with that, PROVIDED that it is tempered with a sense of responsibility. There is something wrong with any mindset that commands profit above all else. Many of our business leaders have that mindset and should not be rewarded with public contracts. Investments for our future is different from unadulterated greed.
March 24th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Ken, this is where I stopped reading… “But religion and science are both constructs of mankind,”
Do you have any faith in God? While man can come up with all kinds of scientific reasons to deny God’s existence, they still cannot explain how the universe was created.
Over the centuries, science has been based mostly on theories, most of which have later been debunked and disproved, while prophecies in the Bible written thousands of years ago have come to fulfillment since.
Science cannot explain it.
So I think you’ve put religion into the wrong catagory again, while trying to level the playing field between God and man.
March 25th, 2005 at 5:48 am
(response)
ottman- too bad you couldn’t make it through to the end. it must be hard to constantly have to not finish what you start just because someone is saying something you don’t agree with…
My own religosity is not the issue at hand. If religion were not a construct of man, wouldn’t there be only one or two religious theories instead of the thousands that have existed? Could one surmise that the theory of religion has been debunked and disproved as well? Or, on the other hand, couldn’t the vast difference of religious thought also show that your god is not the only god, or maybe even the “right” god? For you, obviously the answer is no. For others, the answer is yes.
Science can not explain all things…true. When that occurs, the scientists keep looking or admit their lack of knowledge. When religion can’t explain things, it is called “God’s Will.”
Finally, biblical prophesy can be interpreted to fit the historical happenings of many eras…why are the Christians of today so sure that the times they live in are the “end times?” Seems a bit self-important if you ask me. Perhaps that is why they are actively supporting the advance of the so called prophesies by making them happen according to their interpretation of god’s will.
March 28th, 2005 at 3:39 am
We must crush Mother Nature before she has the chance to do the same to us.
March 28th, 2005 at 4:31 am
(response)
Powers- Your comment is absolutely ridiculous. We can never crush Mother Nature, we can only sit by as she does her thing in the world. In fact, the more we rebel against the natural world, the more it will determine the fate of our species. We are but pieces of the larger puzzle, albeit changing pieces.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Brandon- Thanks for stopping by. I’ll take a longer look at that report you mention, but you are aware that even the Cato Institute has an agenda that they follow, and aren’t necessarily advocating changing attitudes or policices if they will cost businesses money, even if those changes are in the best interest of creatures other than American citizens.