Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad
I love your remarks and salute you for voicing them.
There is one slight correction I wish to propose:
We're not killing the planet!!
The planet was here 4.5 billion years before we came around, and will be here another 3 billion years after we're gone.
We're destroying the ecosystem and our chance of survival with it; that's what we're doing.
Evolution will continue unabated as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Hopefully in two or three million years after we've vanished, the Earth will be heaven again.
|
Thanks for the kind words and same to you. I get your point but I’m just using the phrase “killing the planet” to say the same thing. Consume all the natural resources, kill off all the life forms, and make it difficult if not impossible for life to continue in any form. That last one would require a nuclear war but hopefully we aren’t that stupid, though recent events make me wonder. If I were to say Mars is a dead planet, would you agree? Sure, the planet is still here but it’s dead as far as complex life as we know it is concerned. If we turn Earth into Mars, I would argue we murdered a planet. I’m curious, why do you think the distinction is important?
For anyone reading this I would also clarify I do not consider myself an environmentalist. I would simply say humans need to be good stewards of the planet. Those who consume indiscriminately and those who would ban consumption are both illogical and unrealistic in my opinion. For example, instead of banning Brazilian Rosewood, protect the rainforest, create Brazilian Rosewood tree farms and then harvest the wood responsibly. The solutions are complex, have long time horizons, are difficult to achieve, and have large financial costs. The extremes on both sides of this issue don’t help the situation.