Carol responds:
>I don't think my definition is arrogant at all if you regard Mother Earth in
>terms of the Gaia Hypothesis. If the earth functions as if it were a living
>organism, then it can definitely be harmed.
Harm is a human construct. The dinosaurs "harmed" local ecology simply by
the enormity of their appetities and the size of their feet. The various
meteors that have struck Earth have "harmed" her by our definition.
Volcanoes killed the dinosaurs and megatons of plants and millions of
species. Glaciers caused immediate harm, eventual good. These are all
natural events, neither good nor bad but by human judgement.
While humans may not be able
>to prevent a lump of something from orbiting the sun, earth may become a
>dead planet.
Well, go back a few billion years and Earth had none of the neat stuff that
we think we must protect.
(Dead planets are, after all, currently more prevalent in our
>solar system.) We are already affecting the atmosphere, soil, water, and
>existing ecosystems in ways that are causing extinctions and climatic
>changes and we are doing this without fully knowing how ultimately it will
>effect the delicate equilibrium which has resulted from checks and balances
>that have evolved over eons.
>
>Yes, the earth seems to be fighting back with increases in cancers, new
>diseases, and violent weather, so it may well rid itself of the offending
>species and restore itself. Trouble is, we'll be taking other species with
>us and earth will probably never be the same.
>
>I happen to like my definition because it is meaningful to me and helps me
>to evaluate
>my choices. Your definition is fine, too. Exact definitions are far less
>important than end results. I would very much like to see a planet where
>our descendents a hundred generations hence have as good a planetary home as
>I did when I was a child. Yes, I guess I am guilty as charged of wanting
>not just sustainability but regeneration! :-)
Me, too. Carol, I am purposely being something of a devil's advocate here.
Gary Snyder asked, "Why survive?" I think it is time to look at ecology,
sustainability, Earth ethics from new perspectives. What we have been
thinking has not made any major improvement. We are as zits on the face of
the Earth. Soon we will be gone. I think it is wrongheaded for us to become
martyrs for a condition about which we stretch to understand and still
fail. I am beginning to feel that if we simply act selfishly--for
ourselves, our community, our unborn descendents--we will be inclined to do
those things that keep Gaia cooking. I selfishly want clean air, clean
water, unending energy, no diminishment in lifestyle quality. Those
motivations tend to cause me to do what others would consider sustainable
actions.
In another few billion years, what you and I have done will have been as
nothing. Bottom line--we must do what makes us feel good. It's a matter of
style, class, morality, ethics, integrity.
"I am gently mad myself and resolved to live cleanly." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Gene GeRue, author,
How To Find Your Ideal Country Home: A Comprehensive Guide
http://www.ruralize.com
