"we'll rant and we'll roar like true British sailors..."
I have several rants stored up. Who knows what order they'll come out, but here's number one, inspired by Colin Beavan's blog entry and its follow-up.
Okay people, I'm tired. It's not just the travel anymore, it's not even the difficulty in finding work. I'm tired of hearing people repeat things without becoming more informed and--possibly even?--thinking for themselves. The object of my antipathy today is specifically those people who believe that human beings are a plague upon the Earth, a cancer which reproduces itself while cannibalizing its host.
While I agree that humans in the modern developed world have a tendency to do this, and people in the developing world are trying their darndest to do mimic our consumption, it's an awfully narrow, myopic way of looking at the world, on par with lumping white people together (no Micks or Goldbergs need apply, eh wop?) or talking about gender and sexuality through the lens of only the past seventy years. Yes, I'm talking about history! Despite what popular culture would have us believe, men have worn skirts, the sexual revolution of the 60's wasn't the first or most radical, and the rich have been pitting the poor against one another since a way to accumulate wealth was invented. Not only that, but human beings have a natural tendency to increase tilth (soil fertility) and biodiversity, if the majority of the past 100,000 years are any indication.
Sure, we played a big hand in destroying the megafauna (natural climate change did, too), and the indigenous people of North America destroyed their last horse centuries before the Spanish landed, but I find that somewhat balanced by the intentional use of edge effect to increase food supplies and forage for game animals, and by such techniques as low-temperature bio-char techniques practiced as much as 7000 years ago in South America, producing what is now called terra (or loma) preta. In other words, humans have been altering their surroundings since long before the agricultural revolution, and generally to the advantage of the entire ecosystem.
Look familiar? It's called a Triskel
The implications of this go far beyond the question of whether human extinction is desirable, in my mind. Not only could our continued existence be beneficial to all life, but the very linguistic underpinning of our assumptions about the role of humanity experiences a major shift. Instead of conceiving ourselves as either destroyers or preservers, it opens up a third option: The role of creators (I must admit a small amount of heretical glee in expressing this perspective, but it stands on its own as well). This would mean that, rather than merely preserving wild nature, or preserving our natural resources--for future exploitation? What does it mean to call them "resources"?--we can conceive of ourselves as capable of doing something proactive. Obviously, I hope, this isn't meant to be limited to gardening and horticulture, but those are subjects near and dear to my heart, with which I'm familiar. Not only that, but these are concrete things we can do, right now, to improve the world--not reduce the damage, as so many so-called environmentalists suggest with recycling and getting better gas mileage--but actually creating something of more-than-human value that didn't previously exist. I'd like to hear examples from others as well: I feel confident that any field of study or expertise can produce at least one process or product which is actually good rather than merely less bad.
Mitsu Tomoe - a 'mon' or crest comprised of three 'teardrop' or 'comma' shapes - symbolising
'In' (Japanese equivalent of the Chinese 'Yin'), 'Yo' (Yang) & 'Mu' (No-thing-ness). Also representing,
among other things, the interrelationship between Heaven, Earth & Human(kind)
Okay people, I'm tired. It's not just the travel anymore, it's not even the difficulty in finding work. I'm tired of hearing people repeat things without becoming more informed and--possibly even?--thinking for themselves. The object of my antipathy today is specifically those people who believe that human beings are a plague upon the Earth, a cancer which reproduces itself while cannibalizing its host.
While I agree that humans in the modern developed world have a tendency to do this, and people in the developing world are trying their darndest to do mimic our consumption, it's an awfully narrow, myopic way of looking at the world, on par with lumping white people together (no Micks or Goldbergs need apply, eh wop?) or talking about gender and sexuality through the lens of only the past seventy years. Yes, I'm talking about history! Despite what popular culture would have us believe, men have worn skirts, the sexual revolution of the 60's wasn't the first or most radical, and the rich have been pitting the poor against one another since a way to accumulate wealth was invented. Not only that, but human beings have a natural tendency to increase tilth (soil fertility) and biodiversity, if the majority of the past 100,000 years are any indication.
Sure, we played a big hand in destroying the megafauna (natural climate change did, too), and the indigenous people of North America destroyed their last horse centuries before the Spanish landed, but I find that somewhat balanced by the intentional use of edge effect to increase food supplies and forage for game animals, and by such techniques as low-temperature bio-char techniques practiced as much as 7000 years ago in South America, producing what is now called terra (or loma) preta. In other words, humans have been altering their surroundings since long before the agricultural revolution, and generally to the advantage of the entire ecosystem.
Look familiar? It's called a Triskel
The implications of this go far beyond the question of whether human extinction is desirable, in my mind. Not only could our continued existence be beneficial to all life, but the very linguistic underpinning of our assumptions about the role of humanity experiences a major shift. Instead of conceiving ourselves as either destroyers or preservers, it opens up a third option: The role of creators (I must admit a small amount of heretical glee in expressing this perspective, but it stands on its own as well). This would mean that, rather than merely preserving wild nature, or preserving our natural resources--for future exploitation? What does it mean to call them "resources"?--we can conceive of ourselves as capable of doing something proactive. Obviously, I hope, this isn't meant to be limited to gardening and horticulture, but those are subjects near and dear to my heart, with which I'm familiar. Not only that, but these are concrete things we can do, right now, to improve the world--not reduce the damage, as so many so-called environmentalists suggest with recycling and getting better gas mileage--but actually creating something of more-than-human value that didn't previously exist. I'd like to hear examples from others as well: I feel confident that any field of study or expertise can produce at least one process or product which is actually good rather than merely less bad.
Mitsu Tomoe - a 'mon' or crest comprised of three 'teardrop' or 'comma' shapes - symbolising
'In' (Japanese equivalent of the Chinese 'Yin'), 'Yo' (Yang) & 'Mu' (No-thing-ness). Also representing,
among other things, the interrelationship between Heaven, Earth & Human(kind)