Don't Tell Chicken Little
March 19, 2004 9:09 AM Subscribe
Earth Woes The Earth may be on the brink of a sixth mass extinction on a par with the five others that have punctuated its history, suggests the strongest evidence yet. More here.
We're all too caught up in our human woes, it seems, to care.
That's a terrible thing.
These pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere - and the grindingly implacable human tide and human greed ( more to the point) driving them make my skin crawl.
It is an evil not unlike that which Arendt described - impersonal, bureaucratic, and banal. But - unlike Arendt's evil, the human destruction of biodiversity is largely unintentional and rooted in ignorance.
I always thought that I could feel these grim processes decades ago, long in advance of my intellectual awareness of them. Now, it has been confirmed that there are pervasive changes ongoing even in the most remote depths of the Amazon. All the Earth's life is shifting under our weight now. And if it, one day, jolts our world with the sudden lurch of seismic slippage, will our civilization survive?
Is it too much to ask of human consciousness, that it recognize that we live in a bounded system? That it admit that Earth is not a flat and infinite pae but, instead, a sphere? To marvel at the thin skin of soil and air which supports us all? Perhaps it is - and I have to wonder this seriously when, although men and women hold their children more dearly sometimes even than their own lives, we mostly seem unconcerned that human-generated, growth altering toxins are now flushed into the mouths of newborn infants, with their mothers' breast milk, as they nurse. Are we unconcerned, even, about this?
Or do such concepts stretch our collective, innate mental limitations a little too far?
Or have we merely been entranced, narcotized and stupefied by our media and entertainment, our toxins and our drugs? And if so does it, in the final analysis, matter - if we cannot throw off these chains?
Considering this, I have to stop and wonder whether Loren Eiseley might have been correct in likening humanity to a type of ravening fungal spore which would soon be expelled from it's collapsing Earth-pod out into the galaxy.
posted by troutfishing at 10:22 AM on March 19, 2004
That's a terrible thing.
These pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere - and the grindingly implacable human tide and human greed ( more to the point) driving them make my skin crawl.
It is an evil not unlike that which Arendt described - impersonal, bureaucratic, and banal. But - unlike Arendt's evil, the human destruction of biodiversity is largely unintentional and rooted in ignorance.
I always thought that I could feel these grim processes decades ago, long in advance of my intellectual awareness of them. Now, it has been confirmed that there are pervasive changes ongoing even in the most remote depths of the Amazon. All the Earth's life is shifting under our weight now. And if it, one day, jolts our world with the sudden lurch of seismic slippage, will our civilization survive?
Is it too much to ask of human consciousness, that it recognize that we live in a bounded system? That it admit that Earth is not a flat and infinite pae but, instead, a sphere? To marvel at the thin skin of soil and air which supports us all? Perhaps it is - and I have to wonder this seriously when, although men and women hold their children more dearly sometimes even than their own lives, we mostly seem unconcerned that human-generated, growth altering toxins are now flushed into the mouths of newborn infants, with their mothers' breast milk, as they nurse. Are we unconcerned, even, about this?
Or do such concepts stretch our collective, innate mental limitations a little too far?
Or have we merely been entranced, narcotized and stupefied by our media and entertainment, our toxins and our drugs? And if so does it, in the final analysis, matter - if we cannot throw off these chains?
Considering this, I have to stop and wonder whether Loren Eiseley might have been correct in likening humanity to a type of ravening fungal spore which would soon be expelled from it's collapsing Earth-pod out into the galaxy.
posted by troutfishing at 10:22 AM on March 19, 2004
Ooops - that should have been "a flat and infinite plane"
posted by troutfishing at 10:24 AM on March 19, 2004
posted by troutfishing at 10:24 AM on March 19, 2004
And if it, one day, jolts our world with the sudden lurch of seismic slippage, will our civilization survive?
I sure hope not. It's long past time to replace it with something better.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:33 AM on March 19, 2004
I sure hope not. It's long past time to replace it with something better.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:33 AM on March 19, 2004
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.
posted by mcgraw at 10:45 AM on March 19, 2004
posted by mcgraw at 10:45 AM on March 19, 2004
Is this thread discussion an example of the sort of liberal self hatred which the religious right would cure by it's muscular, disciplined christian activism?
posted by troutfishing at 11:18 AM on March 19, 2004
posted by troutfishing at 11:18 AM on March 19, 2004
These pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere
Pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere are the norm. Life on this planet has never been and will never be static, whether humans are here or not.
Species are always going extinct. Yes, at some times species go extinct quite a bit more rapidly than normal, and we call these mass extinctions. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction, it's not the first. And yes, it may be that it's largely due to human activity. So what?
Billions of years ago, the earth's atmosphere was very different than it was today. Most significantly, there was no oxygen. No organisms had developed photosynthesis yet. At the bottom of the food chain were organisms which, rather than deriving energy from sunlight, got it from inorganic chemicals they found in the environments, often in environments we would consider harsh. Finally, photosynthesis evolved. Photosynthetic organisms started pumping out incredible amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere. There's something you may not know about oxygen: it's very reactive. In fact, it tends to be rather toxic to many species which did not evolve in an oxygen atmosphere. As the oxygen in the atmosphere increased, many many species died.
I can't help but think that some people, had they been around then and had the power to prevent it, would have stopped the oxygenation of earth's atmosphere in the name of "biodiversity."
Life doesn't exist in some fragile equilibrium where it will be wiped out if things are changed ever so slightly. There are many, many, many possible equilibria which allow life to exist. Some species don't survive the shift from one equilibrium to another. Some species come to exist only because they are possible in the new equilibrium, and never would have evolved in the old one.
Are humans making radical changes in the environment? Sure. But nowhere near as radical as what photosynthetic bacteria did billions of year ago.
Individual species are fragile. Always have been, always will be. Life as a whole is not at all fragile--it is incredibly robust.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment
Please. Many mammals have developed a natural equilibrium with their environment--but not instinctively. The ones we see all have such an equilibrium, not because they instinctively developed one, but because the ones that didn't develop such an equilibrium all went extinct. For every mammal species alive today, there are probably hundreds that didn't make it. They didn't develop an equilibrium with their environment, "instinctively" or otherwise.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:13 PM on March 19, 2004
Pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere are the norm. Life on this planet has never been and will never be static, whether humans are here or not.
Species are always going extinct. Yes, at some times species go extinct quite a bit more rapidly than normal, and we call these mass extinctions. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction, it's not the first. And yes, it may be that it's largely due to human activity. So what?
Billions of years ago, the earth's atmosphere was very different than it was today. Most significantly, there was no oxygen. No organisms had developed photosynthesis yet. At the bottom of the food chain were organisms which, rather than deriving energy from sunlight, got it from inorganic chemicals they found in the environments, often in environments we would consider harsh. Finally, photosynthesis evolved. Photosynthetic organisms started pumping out incredible amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere. There's something you may not know about oxygen: it's very reactive. In fact, it tends to be rather toxic to many species which did not evolve in an oxygen atmosphere. As the oxygen in the atmosphere increased, many many species died.
I can't help but think that some people, had they been around then and had the power to prevent it, would have stopped the oxygenation of earth's atmosphere in the name of "biodiversity."
Life doesn't exist in some fragile equilibrium where it will be wiped out if things are changed ever so slightly. There are many, many, many possible equilibria which allow life to exist. Some species don't survive the shift from one equilibrium to another. Some species come to exist only because they are possible in the new equilibrium, and never would have evolved in the old one.
Are humans making radical changes in the environment? Sure. But nowhere near as radical as what photosynthetic bacteria did billions of year ago.
Individual species are fragile. Always have been, always will be. Life as a whole is not at all fragile--it is incredibly robust.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment
Please. Many mammals have developed a natural equilibrium with their environment--but not instinctively. The ones we see all have such an equilibrium, not because they instinctively developed one, but because the ones that didn't develop such an equilibrium all went extinct. For every mammal species alive today, there are probably hundreds that didn't make it. They didn't develop an equilibrium with their environment, "instinctively" or otherwise.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:13 PM on March 19, 2004
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment...
Um, DevilsAdvocate, you realize that's an Agent Smith quote?
posted by F Mackenzie at 12:47 PM on March 19, 2004
Um, DevilsAdvocate, you realize that's an Agent Smith quote?
posted by F Mackenzie at 12:47 PM on March 19, 2004
No, I didn't. Consider me trolled.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:54 PM on March 19, 2004
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:54 PM on March 19, 2004
Not intended as a troll, DevilsAdvocate. No worries.
You make some interesting and valid points. Although, I wouldn't want people to follow that logic and adopt environmentally irresponsible behaviour as a result.
posted by mcgraw at 1:05 PM on March 19, 2004
You make some interesting and valid points. Although, I wouldn't want people to follow that logic and adopt environmentally irresponsible behaviour as a result.
posted by mcgraw at 1:05 PM on March 19, 2004
I agree with that ultimately all enterprise, human or otherwise, is futile at geological or astronomical timescales. However, I reject that this absolves us of responsibility to act in a manner that minimizes our impact on other organisms and the Earth as a whole.
A Manifesto for Earth
posted by dpkm at 1:32 PM on March 19, 2004
A Manifesto for Earth
posted by dpkm at 1:32 PM on March 19, 2004
Although, I wouldn't want people to follow that logic and adopt environmentally irresponsible behaviour as a result.
Nor would I, and I did not mean for my rant to suggest "do whatever you want to the environment." Rather, it is a screed against those environmentalists (who certainly do not make up all environmentalists, or even a majority) who seem to wish to take a snapshot of the ecosystem as it is today and preserve it in exactly that state forever, as well as against those who would take an increasing extinction rate to be some sort of harbinger of doom.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:41 PM on March 19, 2004
Nor would I, and I did not mean for my rant to suggest "do whatever you want to the environment." Rather, it is a screed against those environmentalists (who certainly do not make up all environmentalists, or even a majority) who seem to wish to take a snapshot of the ecosystem as it is today and preserve it in exactly that state forever, as well as against those who would take an increasing extinction rate to be some sort of harbinger of doom.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:41 PM on March 19, 2004
I think that without combining sentience with the urge to reproduce and to monopolize and expend all available resources a species cannot "ascend" to dominance on its home planet.
As civilization progresses we see that the ability and rate of consumption increases exponentially.
Sadly I also think that this built-in self-destruct mechanism is why the galaxy is so obviously devoid of successful, enduring space-faring species.
That's my Singularity - no transcendent Rapture into Silicon Nerdvana but instead a climb to dominance followed by rapid die-off. I am reminded of the moties in Niven/Pournelle's "Mote in God's Eye".
posted by meehawl at 2:27 PM on March 19, 2004
As civilization progresses we see that the ability and rate of consumption increases exponentially.
Sadly I also think that this built-in self-destruct mechanism is why the galaxy is so obviously devoid of successful, enduring space-faring species.
That's my Singularity - no transcendent Rapture into Silicon Nerdvana but instead a climb to dominance followed by rapid die-off. I am reminded of the moties in Niven/Pournelle's "Mote in God's Eye".
posted by meehawl at 2:27 PM on March 19, 2004
I followed one of the links at NS and I saw more evidence why even these doom-filled gradualist scenarios are perhaps the best we can hope for. How hot to the oceans have to get before we precipitate wide-spread methane hydrate eruptions?
posted by meehawl at 2:39 PM on March 19, 2004
Paleontologists have long puzzled over the mass extinction at the end of the Permian. There is no evidence for a large asteroid impact, but sharp changes in carbon isotope ratios indicate something triggered massive releases of frozen methane hydrates from under the sea floor and in permafrost ... Bob Berner of Yale University calculated that a cascade of effects on wetlands and coral reefs would have reduced oxygen levels in the atmosphere from 35 per cent to just 12 per cent in only 20,000 years - a fleeting moment in geological time ... Lungs used to higher oxygen levels strain desperately for oxygen, and fill with fluid. The lack of oxygen would have left most Permian land animals gasping for breath, suffering from nausea, headaches, and inflamed lungs. Marine life would have suffocated in the oxygen-poor water.
posted by meehawl at 2:39 PM on March 19, 2004
What I have NEVER understood is why humans have to live aboveground at all. Personally I've always wanted to live in a concrete bunker thousands of feet deep - but that's just me.
Why do we have to build our cities aboveground rather than underground? I've never felt as comfortable as I have in nuclear bunkers or incredibly deep caves/mines while spelunking. It seems to me that the creation of vast, nearly pollution-free cities underground that only interface minimally with the Earth through massive air vents in the ground (along with scientific monitoring stations for things like tectonic activity and weather) is the ideal.
posted by Ryvar at 2:55 PM on March 19, 2004
Why do we have to build our cities aboveground rather than underground? I've never felt as comfortable as I have in nuclear bunkers or incredibly deep caves/mines while spelunking. It seems to me that the creation of vast, nearly pollution-free cities underground that only interface minimally with the Earth through massive air vents in the ground (along with scientific monitoring stations for things like tectonic activity and weather) is the ideal.
posted by Ryvar at 2:55 PM on March 19, 2004
Sadly I also think that this built-in self-destruct mechanism is why the galaxy is so obviously devoid of successful, enduring space-faring species.
At the risk of derailing, I have my own hypothesis about why the galaxy is devoid of species engaging in interstellar travel.
In order to be adaptable to changes in its environment, a species needs for its individuals to be relatively short-lived. In order for natural selection pressures to shape a species, you have to have somewhat rapid turnover in the species. As new elements which can effect a species' survival appear in the environment, species (as a whole, not individuals) need to adapt to that element, which can only happen if the time from one generation to the next is relatively short, in order for selective pressure to have its effect on the species. And in order for the time between generations to be short, you also need lifespans to be short--if there are a hundred generations all alive at once, the new individuals will lack resources to survive--so a short time between generations, in order for a species to be effective, also requires a short lifespan.
What I'm getting at is that I don't think there are going to be any intelligent species that have individuals with lifespans on the order of thousands of years.
Now, suppose also that the speed of light really is an absolute limit. After all, everything we know so far indicates that it is. Sure, science fiction gets around it more often than not, but as far as we know there's no way around it. Maybe there isn't any way around it.
Stars are on the order of a few light-years apart, so it would be a journey of a few years, minimum, to get from one star system to the next. It's going to be difficult to get even near light speed for most of the journey. Not every star will have interesting planets around it that are worth exploring, let alone possible to live on. Bottom line, it may take hundreds of years to get from one's homeworld to another interesting planet.
And if the lifespan of an individual is, say, no more than one or two hundred years, who would undertake such a journey? Sure, science fiction writers can imagine colony ships where people leave, knowing they'll die before they reach the world the ship is traveling to, only to have their great-great-grandchildren reach the new world. But really, who would set out on such a journey? (Admittedly, this is the weakest part of my argument, where I'm making completely unsubstantiated assumptions about alien psychology.) And even if they did, they would likely only set out if they had already identified a reasonable destination--it's less likelier still that they'd just go out exploring without knowing if there's anything worth finding at the end of their journey.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:20 PM on March 19, 2004
At the risk of derailing, I have my own hypothesis about why the galaxy is devoid of species engaging in interstellar travel.
In order to be adaptable to changes in its environment, a species needs for its individuals to be relatively short-lived. In order for natural selection pressures to shape a species, you have to have somewhat rapid turnover in the species. As new elements which can effect a species' survival appear in the environment, species (as a whole, not individuals) need to adapt to that element, which can only happen if the time from one generation to the next is relatively short, in order for selective pressure to have its effect on the species. And in order for the time between generations to be short, you also need lifespans to be short--if there are a hundred generations all alive at once, the new individuals will lack resources to survive--so a short time between generations, in order for a species to be effective, also requires a short lifespan.
What I'm getting at is that I don't think there are going to be any intelligent species that have individuals with lifespans on the order of thousands of years.
Now, suppose also that the speed of light really is an absolute limit. After all, everything we know so far indicates that it is. Sure, science fiction gets around it more often than not, but as far as we know there's no way around it. Maybe there isn't any way around it.
Stars are on the order of a few light-years apart, so it would be a journey of a few years, minimum, to get from one star system to the next. It's going to be difficult to get even near light speed for most of the journey. Not every star will have interesting planets around it that are worth exploring, let alone possible to live on. Bottom line, it may take hundreds of years to get from one's homeworld to another interesting planet.
And if the lifespan of an individual is, say, no more than one or two hundred years, who would undertake such a journey? Sure, science fiction writers can imagine colony ships where people leave, knowing they'll die before they reach the world the ship is traveling to, only to have their great-great-grandchildren reach the new world. But really, who would set out on such a journey? (Admittedly, this is the weakest part of my argument, where I'm making completely unsubstantiated assumptions about alien psychology.) And even if they did, they would likely only set out if they had already identified a reasonable destination--it's less likelier still that they'd just go out exploring without knowing if there's anything worth finding at the end of their journey.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:20 PM on March 19, 2004
Why do we have to build our cities aboveground rather than underground? I've never felt as comfortable as I have in nuclear bunkers or incredibly deep caves/mines while spelunking.
1) It's a lot cheaper to build above ground.
2) Most people prefer sunlight and fresh air to dark, dank caves.
It seems to me that the creation of vast, nearly pollution-free cities underground that only interface minimally with the Earth through massive air vents in the ground (along with scientific monitoring stations for things like tectonic activity and weather) is the ideal.
Massive undeground cities would interface a lot more with the Earth than today's massive aboveground cities do.
posted by kindall at 3:27 PM on March 19, 2004
1) It's a lot cheaper to build above ground.
2) Most people prefer sunlight and fresh air to dark, dank caves.
It seems to me that the creation of vast, nearly pollution-free cities underground that only interface minimally with the Earth through massive air vents in the ground (along with scientific monitoring stations for things like tectonic activity and weather) is the ideal.
Massive undeground cities would interface a lot more with the Earth than today's massive aboveground cities do.
posted by kindall at 3:27 PM on March 19, 2004
However, I reject that this absolves us of responsibility to act in a manner that minimizes our impact on other organisms and the Earth as a whole.
Why do you believe we have such a responsibility?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:34 PM on March 19, 2004
Why do you believe we have such a responsibility?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:34 PM on March 19, 2004
So lets see, the earth has withstood: multiple impacts from comets and asteroids, massive volcanic eruptions, forest fires, ice ages, cataclysmic floods, etc etc, and life seems to have held up pretty well.
I am sure that what people are doing now is not doing the earth any favors, but as for it destroying all life on earth... are we really that full of ourselves.
Of course, we could just test this theory and let some cowboy start dropping nukes, if it happens, my moneys on the cockroaches to go sentient in 400 years.
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 5:27 PM on March 19, 2004
I am sure that what people are doing now is not doing the earth any favors, but as for it destroying all life on earth... are we really that full of ourselves.
Of course, we could just test this theory and let some cowboy start dropping nukes, if it happens, my moneys on the cockroaches to go sentient in 400 years.
posted by Pink Fuzzy Bunny at 5:27 PM on March 19, 2004
I am sure that what people are doing now is not doing the earth any favors, but as for it destroying all life on earth
Nobody said "all life" - that's absurd. The best case scenarios for global warming show 10-20% of all species extinguished. Medium projections run 20-40%. Extreme projections are in the 70% range. But these are all based on the current gradualist behaviour - if we get an unforeseen catastrophic event or change in the biosphere then all bets are off - it could run to the 90%+ seen in several earlier Extinctions.
But life is resilient. Even if, somehow, all surface and oceanic life was somehow extinguished, there are extremophile lithosphere organisms existing 10+ miles down that would eventually emerge and evolve into new surface organisms.
But life after an extinction takes strange twists. Read the bit above regarding the methane hydrate Permian Extinction. The weird Lystrosaurus burrowing reptile emerged as the planet's primary land animal, accounting in some cases for 90% of all fossils found for a period of time, because it existed in deep burrows and was thus well suited to survive with low oxygen levels.
The moles will inherit the Earth?
posted by meehawl at 6:29 PM on March 19, 2004
Nobody said "all life" - that's absurd. The best case scenarios for global warming show 10-20% of all species extinguished. Medium projections run 20-40%. Extreme projections are in the 70% range. But these are all based on the current gradualist behaviour - if we get an unforeseen catastrophic event or change in the biosphere then all bets are off - it could run to the 90%+ seen in several earlier Extinctions.
But life is resilient. Even if, somehow, all surface and oceanic life was somehow extinguished, there are extremophile lithosphere organisms existing 10+ miles down that would eventually emerge and evolve into new surface organisms.
But life after an extinction takes strange twists. Read the bit above regarding the methane hydrate Permian Extinction. The weird Lystrosaurus burrowing reptile emerged as the planet's primary land animal, accounting in some cases for 90% of all fossils found for a period of time, because it existed in deep burrows and was thus well suited to survive with low oxygen levels.
The moles will inherit the Earth?
posted by meehawl at 6:29 PM on March 19, 2004
I'm buying lots of shovels.
Meanwhile - I second meehawl's judgement. There are many recorded sudden, massive extinctions and climate shifts in the Earth's recent past - but fewer explanations for these. There are many tripwire mechanisms, and surely some not currently well known, which might set off mass extinction. Soon. But don't worry. Go back to bed. Sleep tight, or well at least. But, pay no mind to these things.
posted by troutfishing at 7:53 PM on March 19, 2004
Meanwhile - I second meehawl's judgement. There are many recorded sudden, massive extinctions and climate shifts in the Earth's recent past - but fewer explanations for these. There are many tripwire mechanisms, and surely some not currently well known, which might set off mass extinction. Soon. But don't worry. Go back to bed. Sleep tight, or well at least. But, pay no mind to these things.
posted by troutfishing at 7:53 PM on March 19, 2004
"Pervasive, ongoing changes in the biosphere are the norm. Life on this planet has never been and will never be static, whether humans are here or not.....Species are always going extinct. Yes, at some times species go extinct quite a bit more rapidly than normal, and we call these mass extinctions. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction, it's not the first. And yes, it may be that it's largely due to human activity. So what?"
So what? - Well, let me extend that line of reasoning a little further. "Why should we legislate against murder, theft, rape, and child molestation? After all, humans have been doing these things since the dawn of time, so it must be in our instinctual nature. And genocides too - those must be in out nature. Why bother trying to stop such things? They will always exist as long as does humanity."
The point is that humans have the capacity for self reflection and even moral self reflection.
I hate to say this, but I find this "...so what?" sentiment concerning the destruction of countless species, many of which have existed for tens or even hundreds of millions of years and even persisted through some of previous known mass extinctions (there are five previous big ones), to be rather grotesque.
Or, to put it a bit more personally - "Oh, gee. I guess I did run over your (wife/husband/child - insert family member here). I was in a bit of a rush. Shame about that. But so what? These things are inevitable."
Or, put that logic into the mouth of a psychopath who's just unleashed a genetically modified virus designed to wipe out 99.999% of humanity in a few weeks time. "Well, species extinction is inevitable. Humans were going to die off eventually. So they did it a little quicker. So what?"
And, how about this substitution - "All those Jews, they were going to die eventually anyway. So they died a little sooner than they would otherwise have. So what?"
Sorry, DevilsAdvocate. I couldn't let that one stand. "So what?" doesn't cut it, in my book.
posted by troutfishing at 7:55 AM on March 20, 2004
So what? - Well, let me extend that line of reasoning a little further. "Why should we legislate against murder, theft, rape, and child molestation? After all, humans have been doing these things since the dawn of time, so it must be in our instinctual nature. And genocides too - those must be in out nature. Why bother trying to stop such things? They will always exist as long as does humanity."
The point is that humans have the capacity for self reflection and even moral self reflection.
I hate to say this, but I find this "...so what?" sentiment concerning the destruction of countless species, many of which have existed for tens or even hundreds of millions of years and even persisted through some of previous known mass extinctions (there are five previous big ones), to be rather grotesque.
Or, to put it a bit more personally - "Oh, gee. I guess I did run over your (wife/husband/child - insert family member here). I was in a bit of a rush. Shame about that. But so what? These things are inevitable."
Or, put that logic into the mouth of a psychopath who's just unleashed a genetically modified virus designed to wipe out 99.999% of humanity in a few weeks time. "Well, species extinction is inevitable. Humans were going to die off eventually. So they did it a little quicker. So what?"
And, how about this substitution - "All those Jews, they were going to die eventually anyway. So they died a little sooner than they would otherwise have. So what?"
Sorry, DevilsAdvocate. I couldn't let that one stand. "So what?" doesn't cut it, in my book.
posted by troutfishing at 7:55 AM on March 20, 2004
« Older I can smell your brain | For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mcgraw at 9:11 AM on March 19, 2004