Skip to main content

The Earth is not Fragile


I found myself cringing the other day listening to a well intentioned, yet completely ridiculous, city slicking environmentalist tell a room full of us how fragile the earth is. I wanted to scream "it is not!" but decorum got the better of me and I stayed quiet. It isn't fragile, not in any real sense of the word. The earth would just as soon wash us all away in a flood than conjure up a gorgeous sunset.

One of the most punk rock things you can do these days, particularly at dinner parties in liberal enclaves like where I live, is say you're skeptic when it comes to what people view as scientific consensus. Usually people think climate change, and are immediately offended by the idea that someone may disagree with what they've been told is humanity's most desperate and urgent threat. This is not to say I don't believe the earth is getting warmer, I surely do, or that I believe humans haven't had an effect on the environment, we certainly have. It's not so much that I'm skeptical of the science, I don't know enough about it to have a helpful opinion, I'm primarily skeptical about the way much of this stuff is presented. And when someone tells you something as vast and complex as the planet you are living on can be summed up as simply as "fragile," you should have alarm bells ringing. 

I consider myself an environmentalist and a leftist. I'm proudly orthodox in both those beliefs. I trace this, particularly the environmentalism, back to my grandfather who was president of the Sierra Club for western Canada for years and on the board of directors of the organization for a time in the late 1990's. (The Winnipeg Free Press did a wonderful write up on him several years ago.) He is a chemical using farmer who had seven kids, so you can imagine how well he fit in at director meetings in San Francisco. But he knows the earth. And he knows how to talk and work with others who actually live on the land, something the Sierra Club has had scarce luck with. (I'm biased here of course, but if the Sierra Club would have taken his approach more seriously it might actually be seen as more than a hiking club for people who live in cities that also raises funds for the Democratic Party.)

But there is an ideology involved as well, this isn't just a strategic difference. I'm convinced a main reason many environmentalists don't trust farmers is working on a farm is trying to conquer nature one day after the other. You gain a respect for it, but you don't coddle it. The "mother nature" metaphor demands we infantilize our relationship with the earth. And of course, we are the bad kids engaging in a slow but certain matricide. This is really much of the impetus surrounding environmentalism. There is not much of an attempt at understanding a complex problem, few attempts at winning over the people who actually live on the land, and leftist talk of "conquering nature" has been silenced as the liberal left feels more at home with the politics of guilt, a petty bourgeois self flagellation for an audience of the like minded. Contradictions, where the true left lives and breathes, are simply ignored. 

That fundamental contradiction of development versus sustainability was on full display a few years back in Ecuador. The leftist government found oil in the Yasuni National Forest and decided that if the international community would come up with half the money they could get from developing the oil field they would leave the oil in the ground. The logic is pretty simple. Ecuador is poor. Many other places in the world are not. If the rich world would chip in a measly 3.6 billion dollars (maybe the US could hold off bombing a country for a month or two) then this supposedly priceless land would be saved. Even if you don't know what happened you can probably guess. No one paid much of anything. The drilling began.

A recent study points out that one hundred companies have produced seventy one percent of global greenhouse gas emissions since the early 1970's. How much of this is the result of services deemed necessary by society and how much is due to relentless profit seeking? This is where the solution lies. Gaining political power is our most pressing battle. It is crucial to the health of our species that we win this battle. But we shouldn't forget that the earth is far less fragile than many of the people who want to protect it. The earth will be fine, even if we're not. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

  I voted for Joe Biden and hope he wins. I’m also alarmed at the increasingly transparent alliance between the Democratic Party and influential sectors of corporate America, namely media conglomerates and the technology industry. (Their relationship reminds me of the Republican Party and the energy industry.) It’s true there are conservative media outlets that are not friendly to Democrats, but it’s far less certain how objective the “paper of record” and other “serious” media would be to a post-Trump and post-COVID Biden administration that is politically and ascetically their peer. (I would say we are at a point of competing Pravdas, but that would be a slander against the Soviet newspaper’s pre-Stalinist period when it was a battleground of ideas.) Perhaps even more damning is the Democratic Party’s relationship to the technology industry, particularly when companies like Twitter and Facebook have shown they are prepared to unilaterally decide what’s true and what’s false. Not many
I’m somewhat familiar with the story, but haven’t seen the tv series “the plot against America.” Is it any good? I’ll admit I have doubts that will be difficult to overcome. My guess is it’s a well stylized but historically simplified attempt to frame international liberalism, particularly the US dominated post war order, as something deeper than what it has become- a value championed almost exclusively by the cosmopolitan elite and global corporations. I also predict that the entire post WW1 context (three months involvement and almost 120,000 Americans dead, split evenly between fighting and the flu pandemic) is lost to Lindbergh and his anti-Semitism. Is this accurate? “The man in the high castle,” another alternative history book made into a tv series that I actually did watch, missed an opportunity to dig into American militarism by not really explaining why so many high level American military members joined the Nazis. (We were supposed to believe it’s just because the Germans wo

Drones are pretty much the perfect weapon

There is no anti-war movement to speak of. There is, however, a small core of activists that like to think of themselves as the movement. Understandably, they have focused their attention on drones. This will continue to isolate them. Put bluntly, your average American doesn't give a shit about drones. Most people, myself included, aren't terribly interested in the abstract legal justification or condemnation of U.S. drone use. (Domestic law almost always takes a backseat to perceived national security threats and many Americans scoff at the very notion of international law to begin with. How dare the rest of the world tell us what to do!) Morally speaking, Americans continue to support "the troops" when they shoot kids in person so it's highly unlikely they're going to be too bothered when some nameless, faceless Pakistani boy gets blown up via a command center in Nevada. Sure, drone attacks create more "terrorists," but so does smashing down door