REleamses

[Mark Walker]

Doug Yanega wrote:

> The planet, certainly, but all the other organisms on it? It doesn't appear
> impossible for us to reduce the planet to a sterile waste, if we do things
> just right. Are you *POSITIVE* that we cannot push the climate past the
> threshold conditions for it to become permanently overheated? Are you
> *positive* that all the thousands of nuclear warheads around will never be
> used, and that if they are, that this won't eliminate all terrestrial
> vertebrates, and much of the rest? A planet populated by little more than
> bacteria is not a very promising legacy. Myself, I wouldn't put it past us
> to have that sort of destructive potential. It probably *is* our choice, to
> save or destroy. All depends on what we do, exactly, but the worst-case
> scenarios are pretty grim.

Actually, I can't say that I disagree with Doug exactly.  But how should we
interpret all of this?  Will man ultimately be considered simply as another
catastrophic pressure imposed on the planet?  Or will we be considered as
mismanagers, who while given the privilege to enjoy the planet with a
heightened sense of awareness were also given the responsibility to see that it
was treated with respect?  Is there right behavior to be described in terms of
how we interact with our planetary home?  So who will we be held accountable
to?  Ooooooh.

I recently made the following statement:

Let us continue to try and make _right_ choices, even if in the long run the
entire set of possible outcomes might ultimately be equally amoral.

Here's another controversial editorial comment for your enjoyment:  It is of
higher importance that we learn to love one another than it is to love our
planet.

Mark Walker.