There is no planet B

AWG_Pics said:
An interesting article that makes it even more clear why we should enjoy and protect this place we have.
https://aeon.co/essays/we-will-never-be-able-to-live-on-another-planet-heres-why
My fear is that not enough people understand that, or if they do, they cover it up because of profit motives. A recent article about Exxon executives in the 1970s, covering up warnings from their engineers is a prime example.

I’m also conflicted about my own contributions due to desires to wander about in truck and camper.

We has met the enemy, and they is us.
 
Wandering Sagebrush said:
My fear is that not enough people understand that, or if they do, they cover it up because of profit motives. A recent article about Exxon executives in the 1970s, covering up warnings from their engineers is a prime example.

I’m also conflicted about my own contributions due to desires to wander about in truck and camper.

We has met the enemy, and they is us.
That Exxon report was disheartening. Having made technical presentations to the upper management of an international oil company, I can verify that those people are a different breed of cat than most of us. The most unsettling thing I read while working for them was in an annual stockholders report. It was one line about accounting for the cost of an oil tanker that had run aground off the coast of France. I could not find a single word in that report or anywhere else that my company had learned any lessons or decided to take proactive preventative measures against future spills. It was just a minor bump in the finances. A cost of doing business. That was when I knew I had to change careers. Which I did.

I am pretty sure the effect of you or I driving our gassers into the back country is less than a thimble's worth of effect in an ocean of change. I view it as celebrating the beauty of nature before it becomes impossible to do so for one reason or the other.

Keep exploring and gathering those amazing photos of yours. It is really all we can do now. The earth will be fine in the long run. Human influences will peak, fade and then disappear. Life and nature will go on.
 
Yup, Ma Nature makes the rules we all live and survive by, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. And most do not have a clue. I agree, the earth will survive and recover from anything we do to it. Give it a little of that "geologic time". Mankind, I'm convinced, will not. Our suicide mission will continue.

And another "yup". Yup, we'll continue to explore it while we still can. :)

Thanks for sharing the article!
 
Mom earth has it's natural cycles,we as the leading "thinking" animals living here
have to figure how to contribute less and adapt more.
Take care of our home in space ,it's the only one we have.
Take only pictures ,leave only footprints.

Frank
 
I believe Jacques Cousteau said, "Every environmental problem we face can be traced to overpopulation." This is the eight-billion-pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. Our basic economic systems all rely on an ever-increasing number of consumers and producers. That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. If we had had the sense to limit human population to a reasonable carrying capacity for the planet, we'd have no environmental problems. But the Selfish Gene still rules.
 
JHanson said:
I believe Jacques Cousteau said, "Every environmental problem we face can be traced to overpopulation." This is the eight-billion-pound gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. Our basic economic systems all rely on an ever-increasing number of consumers and producers. That is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. If we had had the sense to limit human population to a reasonable carrying capacity for the planet, we'd have no environmental problems. But the Selfish Gene still rules.
Yes, and well said.
 
I've noticed that it very difficult to convince the most adamant population size critics to do the right thing. I do not expect this selfish attitude to change. \_(ツ)_/;

Paul
 
PaulT said:
I've noticed that it very difficult to convince the most adamant population size critics to do the right thing. I do not expect this selfish attitude to change. \_(ツ)_/;

Paul
My favorite example of that is Ed Abbey, the god of so many environmentalists, who fathered five children with five different women.
 
JHanson said:
My favorite example of that is Ed Abbey, the god of so many environmentalists, who fathered five children with five different women.
There is the old saying: "Does Edward Abbey love the wilderness, or does Edward Abbey love Edward Abbey in the wilderness?" I don't like his writing, which strikes me as intensely boring punctuated by juvenile fantasies. I did not know about his unrestrained procreation, but I guess I am not surprised.
 
JHanson said:
My favorite example of that is Ed Abbey, the god of so many environmentalists, who fathered five children with five different women.
Hmmmm, "rules for thee but not for me". A pattern?
 
Foy said:
Hmmmm, "rules for thee but not for me". A pattern?
He also measured distance by the number of six packs and threw the empties out the window. But I never have considered Ed to be an "environmentalist" and certainly not a "god". He was just a contrary, misanthropic old curmudgeon who drove a cab in New Jersey (or New York?) in between park service jobs.
 
I’m also conflicted about my own contributions due to desires to wander about in truck and camper.

I’ve had the same conflicts.
 
I've had numerous run-ins with the deniers-of-everything who say, "Well if you're an environmentalist you should go live in a cave." Such a brilliant retort. I don't live in a cave, and there's no need to. If we changed certain things about our activities on earth we could solve the problems we face without the need to eat baked cricket casserole and go back to riding horses. But it would take worldwide cooperation, and the chances of that happening are slim. The Selfish Gene functions at national levels as well as the individual. My wife and I travel extensively, and firmly believe travel and cultural exchange do far more good than harm. The worst thing that could happen to the world in terms of both peace and environmental protection is isolationism.

At home we genuinely try to mitigate our impacts. Our house in Tucson produces more electricity in a year than it uses. I put significantly more miles on my bicycle each year than on my FJ40. In the end, all I try to do is end each day with a clear conscience.
 
JHanson said:
I've had numerous run-ins with the deniers-of-everything who say, "Well if you're an environmentalist you should go live in a cave." Such a brilliant retort. I don't live in a cave, and there's no need to. If we changed certain things about our activities on earth we could solve the problems we face without the need to eat baked cricket casserole and riding go back to horses. But it would take worldwide cooperation, and the chances of that happening are slim. The Selfish Gene functions at national levels as well as the individual. My wife and I travel extensively, and firmly believe travel and cultural exchange do far more good than harm. The worst thing that could happen to the world in terms of both peace and environmental protection is isolationism.

At home we genuinely try to mitigate our impacts. Our house in Tucson produces more electricity in a year than it uses. I put significantly more miles on my bicycle each year than on my FJ40. In the end, all I try to do is end each day with a clear conscience.
That's a great view IMO.
Thanks
Frank
 
JHanson said:
<snip>
The worst thing that could happen to the world in terms of both peace and environmental protection is isolationism.
<snip>
I believe it was Mark Twain who once wrote “War was invented so Americans could learn geography.”
 
Wandering Sagebrush said:
Thanks Jonathon

Having lost a number of friends, and been shot at in a country where we didn’t belong, that quote resonated with me.
So true. As with many of Twain's quotes, humorous but poignant.
 

New posts - WTW

Back
Top Bottom