Reply To: The recent "discovery" of Dark Matter

[Rezwan]

Humans are important to humans, the rest of the universe doesn’t care – I’m with you there.

But now that I see it – I find this’s not what I meant by consciousness:

Also as it turns out, if humans are the only conscious life on earth, then we’re the only thing capable of appreciating any life at all. With humans out of the picture, if the sun goes nova and earth is boiled, no other conscious being would know or care.

I’m sure that lots of animals, in the midst of their predating and competing with each other, find time to enjoy the day, to wallow in the mud, roll on the grass, feel the exhilaration of leaping out of the clutches of predators. In fact, they may feel more alive than we ever could, with our guilt trips and existential angst, righteousness and ennui. And, as far as appreciative audiences go, I’m sure most life forms would rather pass up on us. I think people are the only ones who crave audiences. Animals prefer not to be seen.

And I’m sure that when a big catastrophe strikes, those animals would low and whimper and raise their eyes to witness the destruction in very real despair.

I hate tree hugging environmentalists, with their holier than thou attitude. It’s like to them nothing would be better than for humans to be removed from the equation. But without those humans, who is left to perceive the beauty? I don’t trust any big mass movements, particularly Al Gore’s kind. I think they’re just after power and control. The environment is just a Convenient Excuse.

I hear you on the holier than thou thing.

And getting us out of the equation might be nice for the animals, it wouldn’t be nice for us, and so – it’s not going to happen.

But…”Without humans, who will perceive the beauty?” Human ability to perceive natural beauty is not that high on our list of selling points. Picture some wife beater – his wife, bruised, broken bones, telling him she’s going to leave, and he says, but honey, if I wasn’t around, who would appreciate you?

I do like the idea of exploring human importance to nature, and building on that portfolio. The partnership angle. For example, we can prove our worth by developing asteroid deflecting skills and increasing habitat and diversity, which would be in the other critters’ self interest.

We’ve already figured out how to fix nitrogen – a key limiting factor in life. But we just use it for our own crops and don’t apply it carefully, so it ends up a pollutant. It doesn’t have to be. It could be a real asset to nature. In some cases, engineering could help increase habitat all around. Beavers make dams to improve habitat for the things they need. We can be like beavers! (I just had to say that.)

So, the environmental movement doesn’t resonate with me because its focus is on punishment and guilt, not on partnership with nature. It’s misanthropic. But the people who complain about the environmental movement the most tend to be even less interesting. I don’t get any vision of nature and humanity from them. Rather, the idea of nature as property is reinforced, which seems really petty to me. Miserly. Coming from a place of small-ness, and in its own way misanthropic, in that it doesn’t see people as capable of being bigger than their own petty resource needs. More worried about being regulated (which is, at heart, a power struggle/territory dispute). Conversations between these two groups I find utterly boring and depressing.

This planet and the life on it is so much more than that. And people are more than that.

Not resource-mongers.

I get so bored at parties where all people can talk about is their latest acquisitions. “In this endless race for property and privilege to be won, we must run, we must run, we must run” – Bright Eyes.

Upshot, I want to find people whose environmental vision really resonates, strikes true.

And no whiners.

Did this sound whiny?

Heh.