Sponsored Links
 |
|
Conservative thoughts from New Jersey & California |
|
Can Man Really Destroy the Planet?
by Steve
11/28/2004 10:17:00 PM
The Guardian reports that a London based think-tank will soon release a report claiming that Global Warming will actually benefit mankind, citing a number of reasons, one of which is that it will produce more fish.
I find such excuses to be amusing, but then, nor do I support the idea that Man is destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels.
Let's break down that statement. "Man is destroying the Earth". Is it really possible for human beings to destroy the Earth? That is, actually render it lifeless, into a ball of useless rock, much like the Moon?
Absolutely not. Even if we launched a global thermonuclear war, throwing the planet into a long winter, killing people and animals everywhere, the fact is that the Earth will continue, even without us. It will produce new forms of life, and will continue doing so until the Sun expires.
Even if the polar ice caps melt, causing the ocean levels to rise, flooding the coastlines all around the world, the Earth will not be destroyed. Life, along with human beings, will continue to thrive as always.
What environmentalists are concerned about is that the current state of the Earth will change. But then, the Earth has always been in a state of change. Temperatures have fallen and risen over and over throughout the Eons. The continents have been moving, volcanoes have been changing the face of the landscape, and life forms have been evolving.
So, why are environmentalists against change? Actually, they are not. They are just against change coming at the hands of human beings. They actually believe that human beings are unnatural. That is, we are not a "valid" component of the Earth, as if we didn't belong here. Anything we do is unnatural, except when it comes to indigenous people.
That's why animal rights activists are against humans eating animals, but don't mind animals eating animals. That's why it's ok for beavers to cut down trees but not ok for humans to do so. Somehow, human actions are destructive, while animal actions are natural. Can anyone explain that to me?
So let's face it, there is no such thing as "destroying the Earth", and there is no such thing as "saving the Earth". The Earth is beyond our control. In the end, we may end up killing all of mankind, but the Earth will continue without us. I suppose to an evironmentalist, that's a good thing.
I find such excuses to be amusing, but then, nor do I support the idea that Man is destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels.
Let's break down that statement. "Man is destroying the Earth". Is it really possible for human beings to destroy the Earth? That is, actually render it lifeless, into a ball of useless rock, much like the Moon?
Absolutely not. Even if we launched a global thermonuclear war, throwing the planet into a long winter, killing people and animals everywhere, the fact is that the Earth will continue, even without us. It will produce new forms of life, and will continue doing so until the Sun expires.
Even if the polar ice caps melt, causing the ocean levels to rise, flooding the coastlines all around the world, the Earth will not be destroyed. Life, along with human beings, will continue to thrive as always.
What environmentalists are concerned about is that the current state of the Earth will change. But then, the Earth has always been in a state of change. Temperatures have fallen and risen over and over throughout the Eons. The continents have been moving, volcanoes have been changing the face of the landscape, and life forms have been evolving.
So, why are environmentalists against change? Actually, they are not. They are just against change coming at the hands of human beings. They actually believe that human beings are unnatural. That is, we are not a "valid" component of the Earth, as if we didn't belong here. Anything we do is unnatural, except when it comes to indigenous people.
That's why animal rights activists are against humans eating animals, but don't mind animals eating animals. That's why it's ok for beavers to cut down trees but not ok for humans to do so. Somehow, human actions are destructive, while animal actions are natural. Can anyone explain that to me?
So let's face it, there is no such thing as "destroying the Earth", and there is no such thing as "saving the Earth". The Earth is beyond our control. In the end, we may end up killing all of mankind, but the Earth will continue without us. I suppose to an evironmentalist, that's a good thing.
2 Comments:
-
That is a well put together thesis, but there are a few major problems. For one thing, eviromentalists are not "upset" about having change thrust upon them, but by the fact that the change is being brought by mankind. A fair reason to be upset seeing as global warming has been scientifically proven to be a possible destruction of humans. If we continue to allow ourselves to help global warming, then it becomes a race of time, if we can find another planet that we can suit to fit human conditions. However, as this fate is most likely inevitable, based on the judgement that humans will not become extinct naturally(I do not include atomic war to be a natural cause as humans are the only specie on earth capable of destroying itself in it's entirety). Preventing global warming will significantly lengthen the amount of time to complete our colonization in a new location. And ultimately, if possible, allow humans around 5 billion years on earth.
By
, at 9:58 PM, April 09, 2008
-
Re: "global warming has been scientifically proven to be a possible ..."
Nothing about global warming has been proven. Its very existence as a phenomenon has, in fact, been questioned. The possibility that if it exists, mankind has something to do with it is very much an open question despite what the media and some scientists would have us believe. It is a theory as are any of the possible consequences of this possible phenomenon.
Yes, the globe does warm up. It also cools down. Which is it doing at any given moment? One thing is for sure, it never stays precisely the same. How does that impact the climate? Nobody really knows.
We suspect that mankind's burning of fossil fuels could raise "global average temperatures" but since we have no absolute method for measuring "global average temperature," there's no way to know. Even if we knew absolutely that the globe was warming up - in absolute terms, we couldn't possibly know whether so-called "greenhouse gases" has anything to do with it since it is a multi-variable phenomenon and there's no way to segregate possible causes. We may never be able to know whether burning fossil fuels causes the Earth to warm.
Yet, we are being asked to make a huge shift in the way we live. Make no mistakes about this. We are not being asked to install efficient lightbulbs or drive hybrids. Those are baby steps in the greenies effort to begi9n any sort of change they can convince us to make. The real goal is to do away with cars entirely and install solar panels on our roofs if we want any kind of power in our homes. The goal is to institute the sort of lifestyle that will require government control over everything. We should always resist government control. That's why conservatives and others are drawing a line in the sand and saying PROVE global warming, put up or shut up.By
Dave, at 5:05 AM, April 10, 2008
| Post a Comment | |
| Back to Homepage | |
A political blog mixing conservative New Jersey with libertarian California.
Smoking Dogs Media
Dave
New Jersey
Steve
California
Previously on Political Dogs
- Ron Artest and the Mob Mentality
- Giving Thanks to the Appropriate Parties
- Something to be Thankful For
- British Lawmakers Still Don't Understand Terror
- CDC Admits Errors in Obesity Risk Study
- Dan Rather Ain't Going Anywhere
- Fish Have Feelings Too
- San Francisco Considers Plastic Bag Fee
- Dutch Lawmaker Urges Halting Immigration
- Adolph Hitler Comes Back to Power