Comments on: The Planet Is Not In Peril

By: TootsNYC

TootsNYC — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:12:52 +0000

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?)

By: Natural

Natural — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:20:23 +0000

I just hope the day will come when people aren’t too distracted by politics to understand the truth about worldly issues.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:25:34 +0000

“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.

By: Dave G

Dave G — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 05:23:20 +0000

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

/end thread

By: battlesandblunders

battlesandblunders — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:16:44 +0000

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.

By: Siddhant

Siddhant — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:25:24 +0000

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……