Earth’s Evolution
Peg on Aug 01 2008 at 7:09 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Environment, Peg's Page, science
Do you ever find yourself holding views that are mutually exclusive? If so, do not despair. My experience is that virtually all of us do this, even if very rarely. With the thousands of issues and millions of details pertaining to those issues, it would not be shocking to note that at times, some of what we hold to be so conflicts.
Still, if you are like me, you do your best to review your beliefs frequently. If you see that some positions are illogical, you analyze and reconsider.
Should a number of liberals do this vis a vis evolution and “saving the planet”? In my opinion, fer sure. Most liberals I know scream bloody murder if anyone offers a shred of a doubt that evolution isn’t settled fact. Yet, when it comes to practice with Our Earth - underlying notions of evolution seem to fly out the window.
Take Nancy Pelosi and Paul Krugman today. (I know; I know - please forgive me.) They want to “save the planet” - both hoping against hope that it is not “too late.”
It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic.
Does man have a major impact on the Earth’s temperature? Like all of us, I have seen data both confirming and disproving. My own extremely non-professional viewpoint is that the answer is: perhaps, but if so, not to a tremendous degree. Nevertheless, I am a proponent of conservation, searches for alternative energy sources, escaping the stranglehold of the middle-east on our energy needs and the like. These beliefs are related to other benefits, however; not to “saving the planet.”
Why do some among us imagine that Earth should remain forever as it is in 2008?
Long before man came on the scene, this planet changed cataclysmically. Glaciers formed and melted. Chunks of continents broke off and fell into the sea. Volcanoes erupted. Islands that existed disappeared - not to mention the scores of living creatures that sailed off into extinction due to climate changes. All this and much more happened prior to our firing up SUV’s, using incandescent light bulbs and keeping our homes above 63 degrees in the winter.
As mentioned previously, we have many good reasons to conserve and not waste our resources. And, it may be the case that a small portion of doing so can have a beneficial effect on Earth.
But, if these radical, enormous changes occurred in the planet long before Adam accepted that round red offering from Eve, then why should we assume that they cannot occur now, irrespective of what we all do?
If liberals believe in evolution and want it taught in the classroom - then why don’t they apply it to the nature of our planet? “Save the planet”? I say: “Save the notion of evolution.”
When you question experimentalist about this topic you learn that they view man as outside of nature and evolution. Natural processes should continue but anything we do to change that is evil. Wither this comes from self loathing as a species or a reaction from the destructiveness of human kind I can’t say.
There’s another dimension to that argument. You might find this interesting:
http://postpolitical.com/ppblog/2007/03/17/in-advocacy-of-co2-emissions/