Man vs. Earth (A Fight to the Finish?)

It is a uniquely human quality to destroy that which we depend on. Whether from a lack of knowledge, a lack of foresight, or a lack of caring, human advancement has exacted a heavy toll on the resources and species of Earth. To any rational person, that fact is indisputable. From the extraction of minerals to the deforestation of wild lands to the over harvesting of various animals or plants, the growth of humanity has brought great changes to our planet and has affected its previous balance. The question is not how much we have damaged the Earth, or even if the damage can be reversed. The question is not even whether or not we have the “right” to cause these changes. The question is why are we doing it so callously?

Our planet is the lifeblood of us all. Its resources sustain our lives, both physically and mentally. Each and every part of our environment is an integral piece of the puzzle that is nature. Nature is the trees and the lakes and the mountains. Nature is the bugs and the fish and the birds. Nature is the water and the air and the dirt. And we are part of nature too. All things, from the rocks to the whales to the daisies and the wind, have their place in the natural order. The difference between most things on Earth and humans is our ability to change our environment quickly and drastically and to adapt relatively easily. Add to that ability the fantastic success we’ve had with procreation and dispersion and you can see that humans leave a large footprint when we pass through the glen. And for the most part, as a species, we don’t really seem to care. Yet, somehow, we still consider ourselves to be the most intelligent life form on the planet.

Before you start rolling your eyes into the back of your head, let me clarify that I am not a “whacko-environmental-extremist-tree hugging-spotted leopard newt saving-protect nature at all costs” kind of guy. I can’t deny the fact that I love being out in the forest or in the mountains, listening to the sounds of birds and creeks and crickets. I relish a clear night in the warm spring desert gazing at the stars. But I also have no problem extinguishing the lives of mosquito’s and ants and weeds in my yard or cutting down a Christmas tree or digging for gold. I like things made out of wood, I like to drive my car, and I like to drink clean water too. Unfortunately, instead of living in a world where all these things can be found and enjoyed and exist compatibly, we have created one that pins the longevity of our species to our own ability to destroy the conditions that make our lives possibly.

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, we must recognize that nature is a constantly evolving creature itself, as evidenced in the scientific records of historic climate changes, the extinction of species, and the geological malleability land itself. The forces of nature have altered thousands of times during the billions of years the Earth has been in existence. Humanity has only been around for a couple hundred thousand. Surely any “damage” that we cause is insignificant is the larger context, isn’t it? After all, humans are part of the natural order too, so the things we do are really just part of the natural progression of Earth, right?

But here’s the deal folks. Despite what most of us are taught, humans don’t own the Earth. We share it. Only by accepting this very basic concept can both sides of the environmental issue come down from their fences so that we can begin to have policies that make sense. Tree-huggers must accept the fact that man has as much right as any other creature on Earth to adapt his environment to his needs. Forest burners have to accept the fact that our ability to cause great and rapid change comes with great responsibility to all those with whom we share our planet. Both sides have to learn to use common sense and humanity as a whole must choose to extend the life of our species through ecological intelligence instead of shortening it for short-term gains.

The concept of man being ruler of the Earth is shared by both science and religion, one of the few areas that they agree upon. From the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection to the audacious belief that technology can control nature, science places man ahead of all other species and conveys upon him the right to rule the Earth. Religion gives man this same right through the words of gods, who offer the planet to man in exchange for his devotion. But religion and science are both constructs of mankind, so it’s only natural that we would give ourselves the rights of control. I wonder what the other species on Earth would say if they had a voice in the matter. Would the snails vote for us? How about the rivers? Of course they can’t talk though, and that makes it easy for us to forget that they are just as important as we are, from nature’s perspective.

Still, human civilization exists on a different plane than other animals and plants, and to a large degree, we are the dominant species on the planet. We are the only ones with the ability to significantly change the planet, aside from nature itself. And because of that, we have a duty to consider the consequences of our adaptations to other species and to mitigate the damaging effects through replenishment of renewable resources and good management of our industries and practices. We have this responsibility not only to the other inhabitants of Earth, but also to the future generation of our own species, the future children for whom we profess to make the world a better place for. And we owe it to ourselves.

Current environmental policy appears to be created in an effort to insulate governments and businesses from having to adopt practices that reduce or eliminate hazardous pollutants while over-regulating private individuals through impact analyses and other legal red tape. It is a sham effort to give the appearance of eco-responsibility while rewarding bad stewardship with financial profits and a blind eye. Rather than encourage and insist upon the development of cleaner technology with reduced pollutants, governments pass out waivers and suppress innovation to sustain old corporations with deep wallets. Rather than punish the largest spoilers of nature, governments nit-pick at the little guys dumping paint thinner in the dirt.

It is time to end the politics of pseudo-environmentalism that plagues our government. It is time to end the extremist attitude that would prevent all human development of the planet or its resources. It is time to start using our brains with regards to our construction and our consumption. We need a policy that recognizes that natural diversity is not only healthy; it is essential to life on Earth. We need a policy that reduces junk studies and red-tape but that insists upon extraordinary protection of things like water and soil and air. We need a policy with the teeth to go after those who pollute, whether they are big business or the local tire shop. We need a policy that rewards innovation and shares new found knowledge. We need a policy that encourages reuse of existing development before building something new. We need a policy that puts the rights of humans in line with the needs of the rest of the world’s creatures and features.

We have the capacity to both use what the planet has to offer and to ensure that we don’t abuse what others also may need. Nature makes life hard enough at times with her storms and droughts and earthquakes and temperature shifts. Why do we make things even harder? Just to put a few million bucks into the already stuffed pockets of our “leaders?” Our government must decide to be better than that. We must challenge ourselves to adopting real eco-reform measures that would make the world a cleaner and more useful place for all of us while preserving the ability to change our world when we must.

The Framework of Society

Order and prosperity in societies depend upon more than just national security and an effective legal system. While both of those are vital to the longevity of a society, they are not enough to stimulate the productivity and achievement of society alone. A vibrant, healthy society requires an infrastructure that facilitates movement of goods and ideas and resources necessary for a higher standard of living. It is an infrastructure that meets the needs of the citizenry in a cost-effective, safe, and forward thinking manner using the principals of common sense and public service. Infrastructure should, if constructed properly, be almost invisible in its ubiquity, for it encompasses all of the elements of modern culture that we use and take for granted every day. The roads we drive on, the power and water coming into our homes and businesses, the parks and schools and hospitals and communication networks are all a part of the infrastructure of our daily lives. But who is responsible for providing these necessities? Who is responsible for their maintenance? Is it the job of the government or the corporation or the citizen or a combination of the three? In our current system, the framework is getting a little shaky, and the question about who does what for whom and for how much gets murkier

One problem with infrastructure is that it is usually created to serve an immediate need without looking ahead towards future needs or improvements. Of course, no one can predict what future technologies will develop, but common sense should at least acknowledge that advancements will be forthcoming and to construct or administer infrastructure in such a way as to allow for inexpensive future conversions, additions, or replacements Unfortunately, our current system of corporate control and governmental “regulation” of most of our infrastructure tends toward increasing corporate profit through fraud during construction and delivery and shortsightedness from political leaders who craft the regulation. Indeed, the concept of citizen benefit falls a distant third when it comes to these matters.

Hand in hand with the development of infrastructure is the need for sane ecological regulations that encourage the smart use of resources and the well being of the earth itself. Politicians are constantly decrying the need to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren yet they continue to destroy the very world in which these kids will live. To be fair, it is not only the politicians and the corporations who embrace this inanity. We are each responsible, individually and collectively, for the continued erosion of our planet and its resources. If government policy subtly encourages this practice, it is we who allow it to thrive.

The resources of this country are supposed to be held in trust for the people by our government, to be developed at the peoples expense for the people’s profit or use. Sadly, only part of that statement is followed in actual practice. The people do pay for most of the infrastructure through their tax dollars, but the benefit to the citizens does not come in the form of cheap energy and water or less congested roadways or well maintained schools and parks or cleaner water, air and land. The benefit ends up in the pockets of the businesses contracted to deliver, process, or construct these things. From fraudulent billing to faulty construction to manipulation of the resources themselves, business has managed to wrest control of our resources and our funds, leaving the average citizen with higher costs and worse service.

We’ve all had to deal with the disintegration of our infrastructure in one way or another; agonizingly long commutes, overcrowded classrooms, energy blackouts, polluted beaches- the list could go on and on. I feel the same frustration that you do as we wonder how to break the cycle of paying taxes to governments that hand them over to corporate benefactors who then provide an inferior service or product for an exorbitant fee. And though I also grant that in some areas of the country, infrastructure meltdown is affected by problems of crime and illegal immigration, I’ve made some suggestions in previous essays, which could reduce or eliminate their impact by reducing or eliminating their prevalence. So how do we change the current system into one that benefits us all, private citizen and business alike? That is a question I will explore in the next several essays.

In contemplating infrastructure reform and policy, it becomes important not only to differentiate between resources (water, oil, minerals), delivery (roads, transmission routes, air and sea ways), and public works (clean-up, buildings, parks) but to also evaluate how each aspect conforms to the concept of preserving our planet and its economic feasibility over the long term. We must also consider how much power we want to give to the government to regulate these matters and insist upon accountability with our tax dollars.

The good news is that we have the power to end the cycle of nonsense. As citizens of a democracy, we control our government, and by proxy, its policies. If we don’t agree with the direction that our government is taking, we can change the people who guide those policies with a simple vote.