[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: the future is wild, review

> Though you do have a point that extensive accidental human damage
> is probably a unique achievement.

There is nothing "accidental" about the damage. We merely plow through
whatever barriers stand before us in the mythological theory and childish
opinion that it belongs to us anyway so why shouldn't we destroy it if we
feel like it -- like two year olds with a new toy they very purposely break
to see what it looks like on the inside. The accidental part is that there's
any natural world left at all to save.

> I'd say no, exactly human.  You should not define humanity by
> its mistakes,

Why not? Should we then merely close our eyes and be purposely ignorant?

nor denigrate humanity for being successful,

We may find, as a species in future years, that it might have been better to
celebrate our success slightly less and considerably less destructively.
When the oceans are dead, the rain forests are all gone, the atmosphere is
more heavily laden with CO2 and we are eating each other for lack of food
elsewhere, your descendants might well wish we'd been a bit less

> observe that recognition of human achievements leads only to
> arrogance or a groundless sense of superiority.

Doesn't it? Ask ignorant "creationists" what they think of this planet. If
that isn't arrogant and groundlessly superior, I don't know what you'd call

People do take
> responsibility for damage because they recognize both the consequences
> of their actions and their ability to fix mistakes, acts considered
> mistakes because of the damage done.

It would have been nice to substitute avoidance for repair.

> Let's not ascribe too much significance to errors, please.

Again, why not? Our species is most notable for its errors. If it had been
notable for its wisdom, this conversation would not be taking place -- or is
all this damage to the earth the result of aliens from outer space?