A Conversation for Humankind's Responsibility to Earth: Inaction is Not an Option

Or... (the nihilist's point of view)

Post 1

Mu Beta

Does anyone try to hold the algae responsible for the deoxygenation of the pond?

There's an awful lot of presumption that I'd like to take issue with here. Not least that it seems to be almost entirely lacking in factual content. But I've been routinely unsubbing from PR recently, so that's little by way of argument.

For a start, must we really take it as a given that the continued progeny of the human race is a good thing? Granted, we would all want our current living descendants to fulfil a moderately happy life, but I'm not sure I subscribe to the point of view that a burgeoning human race would be in any way fruitful. 99.99% of the species that have lived on the surface of the Earth are extinct and, sure as Dawkins is a raving atheist, our turn will inevitably come. 10,000 years is not such a bad lifespan for a species.

If a more selfless point of view is adhered to, any suggestion that we somehow 'own' this planet and have a duty to it are - to say the least - pompous, arrogant and completely lacking in any sense of scale. Any negative effects we have on the atmosphere or oceans can self-right in a geological wink of an eye. The planet as an entity is not going to be damaged by an extremely short-term arise of sentient beings. Again, it's only a mis-placed instinct for self-survival that is triggering this sort of moralising.

It seems to me that there's an awful lot to be said for inaction. There are a number of very real global threats which will comfortably put any amount of human activity in the shade. I'm intrigued by the 'scientists' who claim that continuing pollution will trigger the next Ice Age; are they also going to hold us to task for an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano or a meteorite strick from the thousands of invisible lumps of cosmic rock that pass within a galactic fingernail's width every year?

The Entry espouses the value of the precautionary principle without acknowledging the rather important fact that it is, indeed, only a _principle_. Principles - at least in a scientific sense - operate in a completely objective reality, assuming the complete and safe detachment of any observers. All scientific principles, in fact, are contradictions of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as stated that an observer must always affect that which is being observed. And having a principle that's a contradiction of another principle is a whole morass of nasty logic. Put in the English language, principles are guidelines rather than immutable laws.

And finally, how on Earth can anyone consistently preach - and I don't think that's an exaggeration of the fact - that 'we must do something', without offering a single rational, coherent or practical example of what 'something' might consist of. That's kind of ironic, isn't it?


Or... (the nihilist's point of view)

Post 2


I think you're right in arguing that Earth would heal itself if the human race died out. But are we wrong to work for the continuation of the human race?

Personally, I find it possible to consider the extinction of the human race as a whole with equanimity. But when I think that this means my son, my nieces and nephews, their children etc, I care desperately smiley - brokenheart.

And yes, none of the predictions are certain but it isn't certain that smoking causes cancer and heart disease, but that hasn't stopped the Government from legislating to stop smoking in public buildings. We have to proceed on the balance of probablities.

Or... (the nihilist's point of view)

Post 3

Titania (gone for lunch)

I think Mother Nature is doing her best to wipe out the human race by any means possible - and I wish her luck.

Because, frankly, we're the worst nature disaster so far, completely ignoring the balance of all living things.

Or... (the nihilist's point of view)

Post 4


I don't see " Mother Nature " wiping out anything. I cannot say the same thing about mankind, though.

But it is remarkable, in view of the methods humankind have devised in past ages for energizing production, manufacturing and propulsion (not to mention the heating of dwellings by filthy coal and wood), that we have not all gone the way of the dodo long ago.

From a biblical standpoint, it is interesting to note the promise delivered to mankind more than 4,500 years ago as recorded in Gen. 8:22, " While earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. "

Taking into account that " Mother Nature " and " God " more or less equate (depending on one's viewpoint of the origination of the cosmos), it is noteworthy that the biblical prognostication remains so far, correct. And that should lead us to contemplate whether or not, through our wiser use of natural resources, God or Mother Nature will see fit to indefinitely preserve us.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more