Skip to main content

The Earth: What We All Have in Common

It's no secret that Earth Day is one of the very few holidays that I actually like, in no small part because Corporate America hasn't really figured out a way to commercialize it to no end (don't worry, I'm assured that they're working on it). For one day, we are asked to look at the world around us, see the very real environmental problems, and do something about it. But of course, one day isn't enough, not by a long shot.

If we are to make a difference, we must begin to fundamentally change the way we view ourselves and our relationship to the Earth. For too long have we considered ourselves separate from nature, outside and above it, given dominion to do as we wish. Many are now beginning to realize that this cannot be so, that as humans we are inextricably linked to nature and what we do to it will eventually affect us. The days of easy energy and endless productivity of goods, all done while raping the environment, are coming to an end because they must, because the easy energy is running out and our indifference is killing off species at an astounding rate.

So we have to adapt. We have to change. We must begin to reform the way we do agriculture, the way we think about consumption. As a species, we must confront the world that we have helped to create, for the challenge now is to undo much of what we have done for the past two hundred years. It is our choice, but should we fail in this task, we too will suffer. Even as patches of garbage the size of Texas float in the Pacific, even as coral reefs are bleached because of more acidic oceans, even now I cannot think that we are too late. There is still time, but it has to start now, and it must start with each and every one of us. For this is an issue that cuts across petty boundaries of tribe, religion, nation, for the Earth is what we all have in common.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...