Environ-Mental

Finally someone had the courage to say it: The planet would be better off without all these darn...people!

This is creepily reminiscent of the notorious statement by biologist David Graber:

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....[The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989, p. 9)

So I'm confused. Environmentalists are determined to reduce global temperatures, right? Why? If the global temperature were to rise 200 degrees tomorrow would the planet cease to exist? Would it burn to a crisp, crumble into pieces, and drift off into space? Nope. It would still be right here - granted, a much different place - but still making it's way around the sun every year, much like every other planet in our neighborhood. The only real difference would be that no one would know, because we'd all have gone the way of the Dodo. Life would survive - bacteria, invertabrates, etc. - just not human life.

I submit (and I know this is a controversial idea) that the Earth is in need of protection because humans live here. Environmentalism, at it's core, is about protecting life. If not, why aren't environmentalists on a crusade to reduce global temperatures on Mercury or Mars or Jupiter? Why does Earth deserve all this special attention? Because it's just so pretty?

So if it's acknowledged that protecting the environment is really about protecting life, then isn't the conclusion that humanity should be whittled down for the good of the environment idiotically backward? Well, only if you subscribe to the antiquated notion that humans are "special" in some way.

If, on the other hand, you have accepted the radically egalitarian view that humans are no better than the innocent cockroach that is made to suffer for our cruelty and excess, then it makes perfect sense. We should give up our lives (voluntarily, for now) to protect theirs. If we refuse (according to Dr. Graber) then it would be better if we were wiped out entirely. For people with this degraded view of humanity, reasoned debate is useless.

While we can take comfort in the fact that people holding this view will slowly whittle themselves away, I think it would also be helpful to limit any mischief they may cause in the mean time. So, I suggest a little exercise to calm the consciences of these radical environmentalists.

Consider this: In the infinite vastness of space there is certain to exist a place very much like Earth. Liquid oceans, abundant plant-life, a complex ecosystem. But on this planet, for whatever reason, rational beings have never evolved. The place exists, but we just haven't found it yet. We're not there to see it, or interact with it or - inevitably - destroy it. So even if the Earth is ruined by SUVs, plastic water bottles and those third world masses with the gall to demand (gasp!) food and shelter, other worlds will live on, unsoiled by our putrid humanity.

Doesn't that knowledge - that somewhere in the universe humans don't exist - give you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside? If so, every night as your (vile, human) head hits the pillow, take comfort in the certainty of a place devoid of the "people" you so despise. And when you wake up the next morning (to the ecosystem's chagrin), please spare the rest of us your craziness.