Humans are strange. We collectively seem almost incapable of preparing for the future. We either just react out of fear (such as the War on Terror or War on Drugs, but these are impotent acts that serve no purpose) or we don't even notice (sometimes actively avoiding aknowledgment of) the real threats.
I hear people arguing about Global Warming. Its a stupid debate based on ignorance and ideology. We do know that the global weather is changing. The reasons are less clear, but that is all the more reason we should be careful. This is known as the precautionary principle. We should stop adding massive pollution to the environment not because we know what it does but because we don't know what it does.
Anyways, we do know that pollution is bad for us. If pollution doesn't lead to climate changes that kills us, then the pollution itself might kill us. The increase of many diseases such as cancer is probably directly related to pollution. We look for cures for cancer, but why don't we look for preventing it at the source? Is there a reason we want to poison ourselves? Are we collectively trying to commit suicide?
We could've entirely converted to alternative energies decades ago. Why are we still arguing about alternative energy? Why don't we instead invest our best minds in finding a solution? Pretty much everyone agrees that we'll run out of oil fairly soon. Why do humans have to wait until the last moment, until its almost too late before acting?
Also, why are we so careless? More animals have died because of the Industrial Revolution than from the Ice Age. Actually, we don't even know how many species we've killed. Most species have probably gone extinct before they were discovered.
On top of all of this, when Yellowstone blows it will be the biggest volcano in the world. It would annihalate the whole population of North America and blacken the skies for months across the world. The magma pocket is overdue for explosion and its been more active recently.
Any single factor is of limited importance. Climate change isn't necessarily significant in itself. However, mutliple factors combined simultaneously could be game-enders for our species. So, we have massive pollution, massive extinction and ecosystem collapse, massive climate change, and massive volcano. Instead of increasing the number of possible threats, wouldn't it be smarter to decrease them? A Yellowstone explosion would certainly change the global environment and cause widescale species extinction, but we are already doing this to ourselves. Are we so excited about total annihalation that we can't wait for nature to do it for us?
If we humans don't manage to kill ourselves and all of life on Earth, it will be direct evidence of God's intervention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hey Marm!
"Instead of increasing the number of possible threats, wouldn't it be smarter to decrease them?"
Ya know, there are so many ways we could annihilate ourselves, not too mention, yellowstone and giant asteroids and microbe epidemics and all those factors that we have little control over. All this tends to lead to a sense of learned helplessness and apathy. This results in the old escape clause, "welp, we gotta go sometime, so what difference does it make"
So I'm not so sure it's mere stupidity and not more a chosen ignorance as in "Forget it, I don't want to know.
Love your blog. I have recently started an outside blog of my own, (one not related to my work) called www.peacefulself.com.
I kinda figure most of the folks at Gaia have been gettin' tired of my blathering so I thought I'd present my gift to the world HA!
I like how you think so I figured I'll put myself down as a "follower" which is actually a new service of Blogger.com
Peace Bro!
mikeS
Hey Mike,
You win the prize for being my first commenter.
Derrick Jensen writes about this subject. He theorizes that our whole society is based on a victimized/victimizer model which relates to how we relate to the whole world.
A child growing up in this culture of victimization has two choices. Either they grow up to be victims (learned helplessness and apathy) or victimizers. Or one other possibility. They grow up to be defenders of the defenseless.
There is one criticism someone from Gaia made about Jensen. In denying the victim role as a worthy option for the human race, he seems to be placing nature in the victim role with humans as the defenders of helpless nature.
I've had similar thoughts about Jensen. He focuses so much on humans as the problem that he ends up presenting an anthropocentric worldview... which I suppose is to be expected as he is a human writing for other humans. For Jensen, nature becomes a backdrop to humanity's failure and possible redemption.
Quite different than Jensen's view, I'm also attracted to the view of Peter Wessel Zapffe (which I learned about initially through Thomas Ligotti). Zapffe's Existentialist interpretation of nature (and specifically humanity's place within it) brings an interesting balance between the nature-embracing Jensen and the nature-denying Gnostics.
Here is the concluding paragraph to an article about him:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue45/45tangenes.htm
Some find his zeal as a mountaineer, humorist and early champion of environmental conservation rather at odds with his philosophical pessimism. According to another friend and eco-philosopher, Sigmund Setreng, this paradox is resolved by considering the ‘light bliss founded on dark insight’ of the bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism – a wakened sage who accepts the futility of human accomplishment. In any case, Zapffe lived as he taught in reproductive matters, staying childless by design. Apart from Berit Zapffe, his spouse through 47 years, his name is now borne only by one of the arctic mountains he pioneered. As for Mt. Zapffe’s philosophical counterpart, it presents an austere, yet impressive, vista of the earthly vale of tears. In a letter dated 1990, its conqueror described his ‘view from the final cairn:’ “The human race come from Nothing and go to Nothing. Above that, there is Nothing.” At the close of his last major writing, Zapffe answers all who despair of this view. “ ‘Unfortunately,’ rues the playful pessimist, ‘I cannot help you. All I have for facing death myself, is a foolish smile.’ ”
Although, Zapffe does have some similarity to Jensen. Both seem to beleive that humanity or civilization at least will eventually fail. The difference is that, despite Zapffe's pessimism, Jensen is the gloomier of the two. Jensen dealt with severe depression and Zapffe was happy.
I'm not sure what Zapffe's view is. I don't think it can't be called learned helplessness. Zapffe would agree with you (and so would I) about your not being sure it's mere stupidity.
However, I'm not sure to what extent the ignorance is chosen either. Ignorance seems to be partially an inherent quality of human nature in that our ability to perceive and conceive is so severely limited. But its true that there is an element of the desire to not to know.
I just checked out your blog. You have some impressive posts on it. I haven't yet done much with my blog(s). I guess I've been reading more lately than writing, but for me reading always eventually leads to writing.
Good luck with offering your gift to the world. May it be well received.
"I like the way you talk too."
Peace,
Ben/Marm
Post a Comment