Saving the Planet or Ourselves?

[Vercingetorix]

Originally Posted by Robert M. Lilienfeld, management consultant and author (b. 1953) and William L. Rathje, archaeologist and author (b. 1945)

Myth: we have to save the earth. Frankly, the earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment - making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so.

Discuss

[BouzoukiJoe A.K.A. wrecker130 AKA Chuck Norris AKA joeforbroke (banned)]

Finally someone talking sense.

Now let's turn the discussion to whether it's better to save the current generation or future generations...

[Straegen]

I was making that exact same point to some of my enviro-friends a couple nights ago when I was getting lectured about recycling. Not that I am against recycling just not in its current form in this country.

[calwolf]

I agree with the quote posted above. Our current best estimate is that there has been life on the earth for about 3 billion years... and we've only been around the last several hundred thousand, at best. Regardless of what actions humans take (or don't), life on earth will go on.

So, putting it in a human context, we should do all we can for the preservation of our own species. Recycling, for instance (which has been mentioned), is one useful way of making sure that the resources our species "needs" are around for future generations. Aluminum, steel, and many other items can be recycled an infinite number of times, requiring far less energy expenditure than extracting new raw materials (which cannot happen indefinitely). If we want to survive, anything we can do to assure clean air, water, food, etc for ourselves and our posterity will be action well worth taking, regardless of "economic cost".

That said, I think our stewardship should extend beyond selfish anthropocentrism. If our actions are accelerating extinction and loss of biodiversity for species besides our own (which they are), we ought to do something to attempt to mitigate those effects. If we make a mess, we ought to clean it up.

Disclaimer: I'm a PhD student in ecology/biology, an active "environmentalist" (whatever that means), and occasionally give lectures to church groups about the theological basis for good environmental stewardship.

Thanks for bringing this up, it's a topic that needs to be discussed far more often than it is.

[Straegen]

Few people are against recycling, but the process of picking it up using large quantities of fossil fuel seems counter intuitive. I also don't like tax money subsidizing an industry that should be able to sustain itself.

[cummings66]

Have you stopped to consider that much of the business bailouts are tax money based? That our system is not allowing the free markets to work?

Recycling is no more of a handout than corn growers and ethanol, farmers being paid not to plant crops, etc. There are more things than you can think that are done the same way.

[ektess1]

Good points all, and I love that quote. I am going to use it in my future discussions on this subject.
Global warming gets talked about alot. Anybody how studies earths history knows that the earth has gone through warm and cold cycles. However, if you look at it with this quote in mind, you realize it is in humanities best interest, not the earths, to get a grip on this.

[Straegen]

IMO, that is not the list of companies you want to be included with. I also don't think they should bailout the companies at least the way the are doing it. I think subsidies at least in practice are one of the many things wrong with our big government philosophy. I also don't believe in the "free market" since IMO it has never at least for any significant duration existed.

There are recycling models that actually make money such as China's recycling used computer parts for precious materials. There is enough money in aluminum and several other recycling systems for a business to spring up, but as long as we are propping up a ridiculously inefficient and wasteful recycling system it will be a long time before a home grown more green alternative comes along. Oddly by making it a hand out program we are stifling its growth as an industry and its innovation.

[emt]

I think making money should be the maybe & usually not possible and Gov't subsidy is ok to stimulate recycling. Some camera crews recently filmed a lot of toxic waste dumps that american compaines were paid to dispose of items and then paid china to take it. Everyone made money in the chain and the land became a toxic dump.
What do you think of the "Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone." So, is it necessarily bad to lose a species?

[Straegen]

If you are going to subsidize this industry why not subsidize the end product rather than specific companies? If they took the money going into the pocket of garbage collection companies and artificially inflated the price of recycled goods, there would be more innovation to collect and refine those goods while at the same time attempts to process more recycled goods. Possibly a technology that filters all garbage for recyclable goods would spring up. Opposed to the current system of presorting by the customer, picked up by fossil fuel guzzling trucks and then resorted by the recycling company. These garbage companies have an incentive to do the least amount of work to get the subsidy. It is a strange system that was fought for by greenies, embraced by politicians who could get paid by garbage companies for the subsidies and appear like they are pro-environment.