I always find it funny when people say 'look how perfect the Earth is to support life' when in fact most species have evolved and adapted to the way the Earth is...If we lived on Mercury, we'd think Mercury was the only special planet that could support life the way we knew it
I feel we are looking at things backwards or upside down. The Earth didn't evolve to suit our needs, we evolved in such ways as to utilize Earths resources.
And the most important bit about this is that this adaptation to the Earth's resources have happened over billions of years. We didn't get to where we are in a couple of lifetimes. And I think its important to remember this because we are changing things on Earth - we are changing its nature.. Whether it's the atmosphere or the land or the water, everything is naturally changing and also changing because of us (humans). Change in itself is not a problem but the changes need to be slow so that we can adapt. Drastic changes only mean that we will have to cope better and have to work harder and faster to adjust to the world around us.
Whatever change we create should take effect slowly so that we (and other species on Earth) can adapt to the same.
5 comments:
Wow!
I won't say I've read a lot of posts on your blog. But this was the first that comes close to combining critical thinking, philosophy, human psychology, your opinion--everything in one post! :)
I totally agree with you. And your piece was very sensible and such a relief as against the shrill 'in thing'--"We are greatest criminals to be living on the Earth because (we can use our brain and) we are killing 'Mother nature'. Brain is the worst organ in the entire human body. :(".
Very aptly titled, too.
Just a small typo you made in the last line--'should take affect slowly' should have been effect.
Why did you try to convince me that you don't 'think'? Good, I had never believed you! :P
Looking forward to more such posts from you. :)
BTW, it is said that had the Earth been 10 percent farther from or closer to the Sun, life would not have been possible. ;)
TC.
Firstly thanks for pointing out the error - corrected it.
Secondly it would be fun to find life on a planet beyond Earth - the the whole 10% farther theory goes down the drain.
I always believed this but I'll tell you what finally got me to articulate it. Was watching a program on TV where they were talking about the Earth's atmosphere. And they were talking about these communities that live high in the mountains (I think the Andes). The Oxygen percentage up there is 11% instead of the 21-22% at sea level. The locals have lived there for ages and are used to this low level of O2. When the Spanish entered to settle there the low level of O2 affected their reproductive system. The first baby from a Spanish woman was born some 53 years after the Spanish moved in. Now obviously if I say Earth adapted to support life, how is it that there are people living and thriving in half the normal amount of O2 levels :)
The bit about 'slow change' comes from this interesting graph that was in 'The Inconvenient Truth' (where he has a time line and has mapped human population growth - in case you have seen the movie).
P.S. - I don't think too much only once in a while when it's easy and obvious :P
Find it funny that people can actually say that!
I guess, 'the inconvenient truth' is Al Gore documentary.
Well, as luck would have it, I'd watched a live presentation by him to studio audience, and he'd frightened the audiences by plotting a graph in a very shrewd manner, which was totally misrepresenting the trend on temperature rise. That point on, I lost interest in what he'd to say! :(
Your repeated attempts at trying to convince me (and others!) that you don't think much, somehow makes me suspicious of you! Really! Or maybe your 'much' is very different from saamanya junta's! Don't know what to conclude! I think I should take lesser interest in conspiracy theories about World domination by anonymous (nonChinese) people. ;)
Yup it is the Al Gore documentary. See this is the problem with people like them...they go to this major extreme to try and win their cause but it actually does more harm because people switch off. You need to feed people only as much as they can take. You'd rather try to make small difference in which a huge number of people actually participate than have a few people who are crazy about your cause and change their entire life around it etc.
Well I think whats happening here is that I am saying things that make sense to you. It's like we both have arrived at the same point and therefore it's easy to assume that we have taken similar paths to get there. I think when I say 'I don't think too much' I am drawing a comparison to myself some 10 years ago or so. Back then I actually thought a lot and it got me no where. I think what happens now is that I have (actually has you mentioned) a keen sense of observation and a different (as compared to average people) perspective on things. Not much thought goes into things I start to say and believe (unless they are huge things)...in the sense I don't spend hours and hours studying the pros and cons of having a certain kind of ideology etc. If it 'feels' right I go with it. Of course I am not denying that both quality and quantity define something but I find I don't spend much time on my thoughts and neither do I look to do any refining of the same. The processing happens quickly and the outcome is taken up as it is.
Post a Comment