Planet Earth exists as a vehicle for life. Earth exists, and supports a variety of life; animal, vegetable and mineral. Earth (and all of its life) exists because of a perfect alignment of circumstances, and tries to maintain a balanced harmony between all of its ecosystems and passengers. The planet is a whole system that looks after its own, overall, interest to survive in our solar system.
Earth is finite; it is NOT an endless supply of resources to be devoured by its passengers. Energy is matter, and matter is energy; and conversion between them is happening all the time. An activity that the planet is very good at, on its own cycle. Human activity (the extraction and use of Earth's resources) is incongruent with Earth's natural cycles, and throws the planet off its natural evolution, like when a spinning top loses its balance during the spin (if interfered with), and at the of end the spin when the rotation stops. As we continue to interfere with the natural evolution of the planet (wobbling the spinning top), the Earth will fight back to regain and maintain the equilibrium of a balanced 'spin.'
If we don't take care of planet Earth, planet Earth will 'take care of us.'
Earth has a limited life span, which will end when our star, the Sun, goes Supernova and incinerates the planet (converting everything into energy). However, Earth's ability to sustain life as we know it will end long before then. Until we have developed space travel and colonization to leave a dying Earth, we have to assume that we'll be here until the Earth can't sustain us. Then the only question remans is; do we want the rest of our time on this planet to be shorter, or longer?
If we continue to consume the Earth's resources in an unsustainable way, we will clearly be on the short path; 'cause we'll run out of stuff (with which to eat, heat, shelter and make our iPads).
Rick Santorum is a VERY dangerous man ...
In framing Barack Obama's environmental policies as "some phoney ideal, some phoney theology. Oh, not a theology based on the bible, but a different theology," Rick Santorum has not only mis-aligned himself with his own Catholic Church (which has acknowledged that human-caused climate change is a real and growing danger to our planet ... and is a profound moral challenge that trumps partisan theology), he has also plainly stated his overtly dangerous environmental philosophy; subjugating the health of our home, planet Earth, to the whims of man.
Santorum clearly announced his faith-based world-view/philosophy about environmentalism that "this idea that, ah, that man is, is not, is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. Ah, and I think that is a, is a phoney ideal. I don't believe that that's what, that's what were here to do; that, that man is here to use the resources, and use them wisely, to care for the earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective; man is the objective."
Well, are we doing such a good job of husbanding and stewarding the Earth's resources, that we can now focus on man as "the objective." I think not.
By ignoring the scientific consensus on climate change, calling it "patently absurd," "junk science," and a conspiratorial "scheme" by the left to justify more government regulation; and accusing 'secular' leftists (lead by President Obama), of promoting a "world view that puts the earth above man.", Santorum makes it clear that he despises any person, movement or organization that disagrees with his world-view; subjugating the Earth to the demands of man. Since he is so keen to represent the Republican party to become the President of the USA, he must surely believe in the anti-regulation, laissez-faire, unfettered capitalism firmly posited by that party.
This makes Rick Santorum a VERY dangerous man. As President of the USA, he will more than likely enact economic and environmental policies that further degrade the planet's health. He will support and encourage the fallacy of 'continuous economic growth.' Planet Earth is finite; in resources, and capacity to sustain life as we know it. Unsustainable utilization of Earth's resources will shorten our life on the planet; and make the rest of that time miserable; as we deal with the consequences of extraction and conversion (matter to energy) that occur, out of alignment with Earth's natural cycles. It's almost universally agreed that planet Earth experiences a continuous cycle through cold and warm periods. However, with the natural cooling cycle that we should be in, being reversed by industrialization (in only the last 150 years, releasing about half of the carbon that took Earth tens of millions of years to absorb and convert into petroleum), we are in the process of toppling the spinning top. That's why our effect on the planet is called 'global warning;' because we should be entering a period of global cooling. Our effect on the natural cycles of the planet is throwing weather patterns out of alignment and creating more significant 'natural disasters;' not only threatening our comfort on the planet, but maybe even our very existence, prematurely ending, if we take the planet past it's 'tipping point.'
Thinking beyond our own lifetime; well beyond many lifetimes, and into the future of mankind and life on the planet ...
- If we assume that human activity is NOT degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do NOTHING to improve our utilization of Earth's resources; then we still have a problem because we are consuming Earth's resources in an unsustainable way.
- If we assume that human activity is NOT degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do SOMETHING to improve our utilization of Earth's resources; then we'll improve our chances towards a longer existence.
- What if we assume that human activity IS degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do NOTHING about it; we are shortening our existence on the planet, or
- What if we assume that human activity IS degrading Earth's health and ability to support life, and do SOMETHING about it; we are improving our chances towards a longer existence.
We have a responsibility to leave the campground in a better state than how we found it. If we don't (and focus on our immediate and selfish needs only), we are laying the foundation for an unsustainable, uncomfortable and much shorter time on the planet.
But ... what if man's existence and utilization of planet Earth IS part of the natural evolution of the planet?
Maybe our existence IS a natural part of the Earth's entire ecosystem, and we're to use the resources of the planet as we see fit. We're effecting the natural cycles of the planet, but maybe the resultant aggregate cycle is supposed to become the NEW cycle. Then, it stands to reason that if we want to lengthen our existence on the planet, doesn't it make sense that we take better care in utilizing those resources. Either way, improved resource utilization will prolong our stay on the planet; and make it much more comfortable (but not necessarily convenient).
And for those who blindly support unfettered capitalism ...
Even if we merely think of the planet as a ball of economic resources to be used at will, doesn't it make business sense to shepherd sustainability, and not use up all the resources in such a short period of time? The less impact we have on the natural cycles of the planet, the more comfortable, and longer, our stay will be.
The planet needs leadership that thinks beyond the trappings of power, religion and fallacy. Earth needs leadership that thinks about human existence beyond our own lifetime.
No comments:
Post a Comment