"Let's save the environment." "Be green!" "Protect Mother Earth."
These slogans are shouted at us every day. The government, the media, the companies, the schools - and a lot of bloggers, too. But why?
The temperature of the earth is rising. Trees are being cut down. Species are going extinct. Weather is getting weirder. EARTH IS BEING DEFILED.
Therefore, we need to pour our money into programs that will help restore the earth; since we were the ones that destroyed it, we should be the ones to put it back together again.
I have an extremely simple solution to the entire environmental problem, that will solve it almost immediately. The solution is...
...we kill all the people. Everyone. Including ourselves. If we did so, the world wouldn't have to worry about the cars, factories, industries, and all that junk that is "destroying Mother Nature." If we got rid of the biggest enemy of nature, humans, the environment would be set for life.
Of course, we can't do that. No one wants to kill someone to "save the environment." But that is exactly what we are doing. For years, we've been spending thousands upon thousands of dollars in an attempt to help nature back onto its feet again - while every year, 15 million children are dying of hunger. Last year, Minnesota passed the "Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment" which increased taxes and diverts $300 million dollars every year to helping the environment - while in less than 50 years, those dollars could have satisfied the entire world's sanitation and food requirements.
So the question is: which do we care more about? The children in third-world countries, or the green pitcher plant? People, or things? We in America are blessed to have enough money to, after taking care of our own needs, see to the needs of others. It simply depends on who - or what - we spend that money on.
It's your choice.
The thing is, saving the environment and helping the children are not two mutually exclusive goals. A lot of sensible "green" initiatives are good for third-world countries AND the plant. Even just more efficient forms of energy help the economy and has a trickle-down factor to fight poverty and hunger.
ReplyDeleteBut, the problem, the way I see it, is a lot of these environmental policies are stupid and don't work, they're based on screwy science. People are idiots a lot of the time. And the consumer doesn't realize that they have the power to direct who their money helps. Right on, Faith.
[cheayh, scusi meh rant, a year of TP can do that teh yeh. ;P]
ReplyDeleteHey Haley! Thanks for the comment. Rebecca pointed this out to me as well. Yeah, I was doing a bit of ranting, so I wasn't being as organized as TPers are, hehe.
ReplyDeleteEr, why do we spend so much on the stupid war? Why did we bail out banks? I don't know. What I do know is that saving the planet and people is not mutually exclusive. Let me see, the Iraq and Afgan wars combined since '01 cost a whopping total of 993 BILLION. Yes, a real eyepopper, if we spent that cash on the planet (and therefore us too, we kind of need it, the Earth I mean) then maybe we wouldn't have hippies and co. shouting to begin with. And the planet would not be warming. And there would be plenty food. (just a side note, but there are now or almost at 7 billion people on this planet, all of which need certain resources like food, raw materials to make food and shelter etc. where do we turn when there isn't a single tree left? Or an acre of nutrient rich soil in which to plant and grow food?)
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
Yeah...I'm seeing (again) that I didn't make myself clear...oh well.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that we abandon the environment effort entirely. And I know they're not exclusive. There are a few great efforts to help people and the environment at the same time. But I'm just tired of people always harping on the environment when they could be helping real people. That's all. :D Next time I post I'll be clearer.
Bravo! It would be easier to make your point if you wrote it as satire, though, such as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
ReplyDeleteAh. Perhaps a satire is in order. Thanks very much! I might have an idea to work with, now.
ReplyDeleteGotta love "A Modest Proposal." One of my favorite satirical pieces. :)
Thanks again! If I do write a satirical piece, I'll be sure to post it and give credit to you.
I like your idea. Actually, it reminds me of a series of books I once read that had a galaxy split into warring factions. The Terrans were the normal people, the Saints were wacko environmentalists who were dedicated to cleansing as many planets as possible of destructive human influence. The books themselves were actually military sci-fi, meaning that the main plot involved battles and tactics by a group of wrecked commandos on a primitive planet, so discussion of the environmental issues was limited, but it was an interesting idea. I can't say I'd recommend the books themselves, actually, due to a content advisory on some of them (especially language-wise) but your post reminded me of them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this is something like the whole DDT mess. Whaddya want? Save millions of people now or take the chance that it doesn't cause cancer and save those lives? People lose sight of what's actually important in their quest to avoid a lesser evil.
I don't think it's really a trade-off between human welfare and environmental welfare, though. Like somebody else said, there's a lot of screwy science behind this. Decreasing the environment budget probably wouldn't do much to the planet.
I mean, I'm all for keeping the land nice and clean. I don't want to see the Earth become a garbage heap any more than the next person does. I like forests a heckuva lot more than I enjoy industrial complexes. But I think we're actually fine the way we are right now. We're more environmentally conscious and careful than man has ever been. Right around the 1970s is when we should have stopped all this nonsense--I think it was at a reasonable level then. As long as humanity is dumping stuff in the rivers and releasing toxic chemicals into the air, I think we're all right. But the limit should really be behaviors that harm other people. You shouldn't allow accumulated smog or poisonous things to be expelled willy-nilly, for example. The theory here is that what's bad for humans is bad for Mother Earth, so protecting one is already giving at least some measure of protection to the other.
So maybe we could combine the causes in one small area and help the environment by helping people :P
Overall I agree with you. Environmental issues have become a handy shield for politicians to use in order to deflect the harsher things. The money isn't going to defend the planet... it's going to defend the people who spend it.
Yup, there isn't some sort of line between environment and people. There are programs that help both, which I'm definitely all for.
ReplyDeleteIf harming the planet didn't affect people at all, I'm sure we would trash it.