Adding a bit more commentary to the site
Moons ago, I tuned my television to CNN to watch “Planet in Peril: Battle Lines.” Despite Anderson Cooper’s Jack Bauer-esque reporting and Soledad O’Brian’s sassy temperament I found myself quickly annoyed with the unending cry me a riverthesis that planet earth is under a direct threat. In a world with nearly unlimited problems I lament the fact that so much time, money, and concern are being wasted on a very old rock, floating weightlessly in an unfathomably large universe and not, instead, on this rocks inhabitants.
My frustration with the green community and it’s central mission, to “save the earth”, has been building for some time. I’m not sure when the purpose of being green shifted from preserving resources for further generations to treating the earth as a person, or dare I say deity, that we should make daily sacrifices for, but it seriously needs to stop for the sake of the green movement. We lose our ability to sell the notion of sustainability when we submit the earth as the sole benefactor. I cringe whenever I hear or read someone selling “green” products or activities by saying “we need to save the earth!” because the concept of saving (as in rescuing) our planet is so asinine it redefines absurdity.
Message to my fellow “greenies”: The Earth Does Not Need Saving
I sense that part of this compulsion to rescue the earth, from certain disaster no doubt, comes from a lack of perspective. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The average human lives maybe seventy years… longer if they have a dog. Nothing that humans come into contact with on a daily basis is older or more resilient than the planet earth. Many years ago it was pummelled by an asteroid off the coast of Mexico, even that didn’t spell an end for our perilous planet. It survived and we came later. If we were to continue our non green ways and continue to use earth’s resources without regard for future generations, what would happen to planet earth? Would it cease to be the 3rd planet in the solar system? Would the activity at it’s core stop? From the earth’s point of view would anything notable happen to it that could compare to its violent past? No, No, and No. (For more info on this, check out the “life after people” shows on the history / discovery channels… our earth recovers from us in a mere 250 years!)
But, if our ways aren’t a threat to earth what are they a threat to? What will happen if we continue to use resources the way we do now? Imagining this scenario reveals the true reason to use earth’s resources wisely… to preserve and protect humans. Our unwise use of earth’s riches are not and never will be a threat to our planet, but they will assuredly, be a threat to our children and their children, and so on and so forth. If we continue to take and use more than we need, there will be less for future generations. This, coupled with increasing population, will cause famine, disease, drought, fire, and all sorts of human suffering.
The Planet is not in Peril, We are. This is the message that members of the green community should adopt and use to promote sustainability. People rightly have more compassion for other people than they do for the earth and if we make people the reason to recycle or waste less water, we will be much more successful. But if we continue to prioritize the earth before people, we will fail.
So lets all come together and redefine our mission and our cause.
We are not a threat to nature, but subject to it.
The Earth does not need saving, We do.
and…
The Planet is not in Peril, We are.
Sorry CNN.
Related posts:
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I do not wish to argue…….but i feel that you’ve wasted your time writing this article…..
Scientifically speaking, Planet Earth is NOT in peril……i agree that Planet Earth will not cease to exist no matter how this climate crisis pans out……but…..people, including me, do not view Planet Earth simply in that sense….
To us all, Planet Earth means a lot more than just geomorphology……the life sustaining capacity of this big piece of rock is the reason why its more than just ‘a planet’…….
I’ll try do draw a parallel……for instance, a newspaper reads “Barcelona lose a soccer match…..”, but according to your logic it couldn’t be true because its the PLAYERS that lost the match…..but the newspaper doesn’t say so because the players are the vital part of the CLUB and without the players, Barcelona would mean nothing to the PEOPLE……
Similarly, Planet Earth without life on it means nothing to the PEOPLE…..
Thus, when we say ‘Planet Earth’, it USUALLY also includes the life it sustains…..(i apologise for any grammatical errors……
I 100% understand your point. I guess what i’m trying to say is that many people do not include people in their version of “planet earth” or do not emphasize them nearly enough. That to some the planet minus people, is more important than the people themselves.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
/end thread
“Saving the Earth” does not mean rescuing the third rock from the sun anymore than “The Right to Life” applies to cows, the bacteria that causes the bubonic plague, or any other non-human living thing. In both cases the anthropocentric point of view is assumed for the sake of brevity. “Saving the Earth for our decedents to continue to exploit” and “The Right of a human fetus to Life” are just too clunky to get any airtime.
I just hope the day will come when people aren’t too distracted by politics to understand the truth about worldly issues.
This made me laugh: “longer if they have a dog.”
(Just wanted you to know that someone spotted and admired your clever repartee.)
I see both points–but I do worry that the semantic shorthand actually blinds some people to the fact that people are the point.
(I always wonder, when people talk about “saving water,” do they think that the water they use leaves the planet? Doesn’t it all move around? I may waste water by watering my lawn, but does that negatively affect the entire planet’s water supply, or only the water supply in my municipal area? Bcs doesn’t that “wasted” water go into the ground, and water some plants, and maybe enter the ground water? And then evaporate later, and become part of the clouds, and come down as rain somewhere else? Not that you shouldn’t try to lower your own use of it, but how horrible is it really, if your particular region has plenty of water?)