Does the planet need saving?
|April 21, 2009||Posted by Anthony under Blog, evolution, General, Global Warming, politics, scientism|
Reflecting on the global warming/environmental propaganda being delivered to my son in elementary school, I was left shaking my head. Whatever it means to ‘save the planet’ it can’t possibly mean ‘save the planet.’
The planet isn’t going anywhere. The planet doesn’t care if it is polluted. In fact, ‘polluted’ is a term that is only meaningful relative to we human-folk. Indeed, ‘save the planet’ can, on the best construction, only mean something to the effect, “save the habitats that we consider important to life.” Presumably, with all the expressed fear that the ocean levels will rise, etc, what we mean by ‘life’ actually is ‘human life.’
The slogan ‘save the planet’ is an attempt to make the endeavor bigger and broader than our own selfish interests so it is ironic that the statement is only meaningful in the context of our own selfish interests. After all, if ocean levels rise and swamp creatures (for example) lose their habitat other creatures- marine ones- will gain habitat.
If the polar bears go extinct due to climate change, they will only be subjected to evolutionary processes that have allegedly been going on for millions and billions of years. The tropical climate of yesteryear- when the earth apparently was actually quite warm- was home to all sorts of animals that have now gone extinct. Presumably, with a new, warmer climate, evolution can bring about new species. On what grounds do we favor the polar bear over these new creatures?
In short, there is no substantive way to approach the issue of ‘saving the planet’ that really means ‘saving the planet.’ It has to mean ‘saving our own habitat and preserving our favorite species.’ Of course you can’t mold young minds with that. Good brainwashing is never honest about its real intent.
And what might be the real intent? Well, if ‘saving the planet’ reduces to some preservation of human interests, it boils down to some humans deciding which interests are to be front and center. It probably comes down to a raw power play by select humans who care nothing about the planet, nothing about humanity in general, and nothing to do with any preferred solution. Rather, it has everything to do with them being the ones to decide. And any slogan, any platform, any agenda will do so long as it puts them in the driver’s seat and the rest of us going along with it.
For obviously, tyranny by collective assent is much preferred to tyranny achieved by bloody rule, if only because the former is so much more efficient and doesn’t require disposing of any bodies.