As the scope gets larger, with the human population exploding, I sometimes wonder, of the space left for wildlife. Today we see how the need for "jobs", and the need for more of everything, justifies destroying just about everything that existed in this planet for centuries. With every passing generation, the attachment to nature is less, which makes this exploitation of resources easier by rulers and profiteers.
Until today we have seen, some land areas vacated, national parks and forest preserve parks "restored" to give some wild their own space. But can it really be their own, when the air they breathe and the water they drink cannot possibly avoid being mixed by polluted chemicals from industrial waste? How far can you take them, and us - not yet out of this world - to escape these effects. It's better than the alternative, of animals not having a home at all, very true! But we are lying to ourselves if we think this isn't where they are heading.
But then, do we realize that the pollution, the destruction of forest-land, has a cost that would be borne by the generations after us? The very human life to sustain which we justify this destruction. What is the very purpose of civilization? How is economic growth measured at the cost of natural resources? Who really gave us ownership of these resources, and especially the non-human life around us?
We humans have evolved to our current forms through millions of years of changes. Every "creature" around us, has contributed to this evolution. In that sense, we owe them this consciousness, our evolution to our present forms where we are aware of "self". This is, even if you don't want to deal with the metaphysical, spiritual sense that the every living being in this planet has the same soul as ours, and equally considers it home as we do. Who, then, wrested upon us the authority to do what we please with the natural resources belonging to this Earth. We, ourselves? How can that be fair? How do we pay back what is due to those who originally inherited the Earth, and continue to live along with us?
Make no mistake, I realize that in our natural habitat (the forests), we were exposed to most unpredictable means of survival. "I think, and therefore I am" is very much apt. It is incredible how far we have come. But take a step back to realize, that in the pursuit of a safe place to continue our existence, we have tried to redefine how the world should be, through cultivation and village-life first, and the urban/concrete mix now.
Have we stopped to think and check, if we have really gone farther than optimum, to give meaning to our life? If every step forward now, is at the price of our "home", this Earth? If not, what is the end point, before we all can agree that further use (I call exploitation) of nature is to the net-detriment of the future generations, of human and non-human life? And in this "home" divided by man-made nation-states, how can we come together to this agreement, and to go back and restore what is already damaged? And will we ever, our minds blurred and trust lost, in judging each other through the lens of race, religion, patriotism, greed. How many more generations have to pass, before we realize what really matters?
To be pragmatic, the baseline is the parameters by which we define economic growth. For everyone understands that language. A price needs to be tagged for each natural resource, with due ownership distributed on all life upon land, water and sky. An honest measure of the effect, of using that resource, is needed. A fair assessment as this, in my view, will make it not worth the price to loot forest and land, might build a few cars less for spending more to create a balance in nature. This is not against science, but a re-evaluation of purpose. For example, it would prioritize inhabiting the moon or Mars over pointless defense budgets.
For sure, change cannot come, but in small steps. But will we ever start, and how?
No comments:
Post a Comment