REleamses

[Paul C Weaver]

This is what I mean.  Yes I think we should be concerned about pollution, 
loss habitat,ect...  But why are we concerned!  We are concerned for our
very existence.  When humans final kill themselves because of all the
things mention earlier the destruction will be over and the earth will
begin to heal itself all over again and new life forms will take over.  
Of course this may take millions or billions of years to recover. My
point is that we are only saving ourselves as a result of "Saving the
environment"

PEACE,
PAUL

On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Dr. James Adams wrote:

> Dear Paul Weaver and Listers,
> 
> As you all know, Anne Kilmer wrote:
>  
> > > absolutely. We are a catastrophic and lethal infection which is 
> > > about to bring the planet's ecology crashing into ruin.
> > > It'll do just fine without us though. Probably didn't miss the 
> > > dinosaurs one bit. or, on the other hand, we are the glory of the 
> > > universe, about to make this planet into a paradise. Our choice. 
> > > I like the second option. That's what I'm working on. Paradise is 
> > > an achievable goal, but it does involve loving each other, and (hi 
> > > there, Harry) lower forms of life. We become so confused in 
> > > arguing over the path that we forget our common goal, I think.
> 
> Then Paul Weaver wrote:
> 
> > I find this statement troubling .   Who are we to think that we can save
> > the planet or destroy the planet.  The planet has been here for billions
> > of years before man arrived and will be here billions of years after man
> > has left. "Save the environment " you say .  But what you really mean is
> > "Save yourself". The environment will adapt and thrive in the long run
> > even if man made it unlivable for himself.  Organisms would still live and
> > find away to evolve.
> 
> All right, so Anne may be a little off the wall with some of what she 
> says (sorry, Anne), but at least her motivation is in the right 
> place.  Talk about troubling -- I'm much more disturbed by what you 
> say, Paul.  It seems to me that we shouldn't be concerned about 
> anything we do to the planet.  Do you think that we should not try to 
> do something about pollution, about endangered species, etc., all 
> things which we (humans are responsible for?  "Save yourself??"  Where 
> the hell did you get that from this discussion?  Is it not possible 
> for at least some humans to be truly concerned about the earth that 
> we live on?  I grant you that if we do something to save/improve the 
> environment, in the long run we will save ourselves, but it is 
> (hopefully) not the selfish act you make it sound like.  Mark Walker 
> does present an interesting biological possibility, that we are just 
> another one of evolution's creatures, and that the earth will deal 
> with us accordingly.  But I don't think he meant it in the selfish, 
> do nothing way that you suggest, Paul.
> 
>     Enough philosophizing for today, especially from someone who 
> doesn't do it much (makes my head hurt!).
> 
>     James
>