This is a poignant lament for the many vanishing breeds of animal species. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:
“Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment – that is, by exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement would hold verbatium as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is that an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products.”
Herman Daly and Kenneth Townsend
What drives our economies is waste. Not need, or even demand. Waste. 2nd law of thermodynamics. It drives our lives, period.
First of all, don’t tell me you’re trying to stop the ongoing extinction of nature and wildlife on this planet, or the destruction of life in general. Don’t even tell me you’re trying. Don’t tell me it’s climate change that we should focus on (that’s just a small part of the story), and you’re driving an electric car and you’re separating your trash or things like that. That would only mean you’re attempting to willfully ignore your share of destruction, because if you do it, so will others, and the planet can’t take anymore of your behavior.
This is the big one. And the only ones amongst us who don’t think so are those who don’t want to. Who think it’s easier to argue that some problems are too big for them to tackle, that they should be left to others to solve. But why should we, why should anyone, worry about elections or even wars, when it becomes obvious we’re fast approaching a time when such things don’t matter much anymore?
The latest WWF Living Planet Report shows us that the planet is a whole lot less alive than it used to be. And that we killed that life. That we replaced it with metal, bricks, plastic and concrete. Mass consumption leads to mass extinction. And that is fully predictable, it always was; there’s nothing new there.
To continue reading: Mass Extinction and Mass Insanity
An alternative perspective.
The cite should be at theautomaticearth dot com, not antiwar dot com.
ikdr,
I did not read the entire article but I certainly got the gist, the main thesis of which I heartily agree. I was hesitant to post Mr. Meijer’s article because of the overwrought rhetoric, but there was one point in which I am agreement. I do not think it is so much an issue of environmentalism versus individualism as it is a tragedy of the commons issue. Through both predation and destruction or pollution of habitat, humanity is destroying many plant and animal species. While some of this is unavoidable, some of it is tragic. Why should rhinos be wantonly slaughtered so the horns can be sold as an aphrodisiac, or sharks for shark fin soup? Like I said, I don’t think it is environmentalism versus individualis or animals versus man. I just think the reasons many animal and plants species are being eradicated make little or no sense, and often stem from the tragedy of the commons problem. Often, nobody has a financial incentive to protect animals and plants, and many have a financial incentive to destroy them or their habitat. There are economic ramifications as well. All sorts of fish species have been severly overfished, because specifying property rights in the ocean is difficult to impossible (I can’t remember the last time I saw abalone on a menu). I don’t have a ready answer as to how to prevent or mitigate this, but once a species is gone, its gone. Humans can derive no benefit from plants or animals that no longer exist.
Mr. Gore:
First, I thank you for your prompt response. If you did not read the entire (admittedly lengthy) article in order to reply quickly, may I respectfully request that you do so, at your leisure? I think you’ll find that it addresses the root cause for the existence of the tragedy of the commons issue – which I fully agree underlies the problems you cite. However, I see much evidence that those kind of problems are often – to put it mildly – overstated. Why? For what purpose? In cases where they aren’t, property / market based solutions are not only not considered, they are frequently denounced, and, in more than a few instances, outright criminalized – why? I have more I would like to say about all this. Would it be OK with you if I posted some of those thoughts here, later, when I get them more sorted out?
I will give the article the attention it deserves and read it in its entirety. I also agree that any number of problems that fall under the environmentalism rubric are massively overstated and market and property rights solution are often dismissed based purely on ideology. As for your addressing other issues later on, of course that’s OK and you need not ask. This is a sight devoted to liberty and that includes the liberty to post when you feel like it.
Thanks for both the article link and the edit. Good to know someone is paying attention. I fixed the mistake, but will not have a chance to read the article until tomorrow.