Gene wrote:
> 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.
Well said, Gene. And for the most part I agree, assuming people can see
the connection between selfish interests and a healthy environment (not
always evident in the actions of humans). But, I don't know how happy our
descendents will be in one or two hundred years with what we leave behind.
And I don't think they will be too impressed with the rationalization that:
" 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."
Perhaps there is a middle perspective between the short term (0.5 - 5 year)
outlook of most of todays cultures and the geologic millions or billions of
years. Would we do things differently is we take a 200 year perspective?
Or 50? Or 2000? This sounds like something Jeff could write about.
Eric Storm
