Friday, April 09, 2004

Things that make you go hmmm

One of the news bits (and that's all they are is 'bits') on the radio this morning warned of the impending demise of Greenland's ice sheet. Of course, they never have time to tell you that this predicted event is 1,000 years in the future. I don't think I'll spend much time worrying about it.

But it got me to thinking about the 'save the planet' types out there. In order to take the viewpoint that mankind is destroying the environment, don't you have to start with an underlying assumption that the environment is currently in its best possible state? I mean, you wouldn't want to preserve it in a state that was less than optimal, right? So what is it that makes Greenland's ice sheet the preferred state of nature? What if it was better all around that Greenland didn't have an ice sheet? Wouldn't the global warming activists then be arguing for keeping the earth in a sub-prime state?

The other logical assumption you have to make to accept the viewpoint that mankind (or wymynkind, if you prefer) is destroying the balance of nature is that mankind is not a part of nature. The very same people who advocate natural selection and survival of the fittest are the ones who advocate the preservation of species. Pick one or the other folks, you can't have it both ways.

I think it's an easy argument to make that the world will be a DIFFERENT place in another 1,000 years. It's a much more difficult argument to make that the world will be a WORSE place in another 1,000 years. (Physically, I mean. Morally and spiritually is another matter entirely.) So far, most of what I hear is that DIFFERENT=WORSE and that's not necessarily true.

  • |