A few weeks back I watched a program called Aftermath: World Without Humans. This is a link to a teaser clip, although I have not yet been able to find a full version online. I have always found this type of production to be quite fascinating, and indeed it was a very interesting watch, yet in reflecting on the substance, I have a few questions and/or issues with this one.
First off, this documentary presents a rather rosy planetary recovery from massive nuclear and chemical catastrophes. It suggests that nature would flush out radioactive and chemical fallout, with no long-term repercussions, in less than 250 years. Now, while I accept their assertion that rain would wash most radiation into the earth, I find it bothersome that there was NO suggestion whatsoever of long-term genetic ramifications due to radioactivity or chemicals. Not only that, I would think there would HAVE to be some sort of ramifications to that amount of radioactivity and chemicals in soil and water tables. The Chernobyl meltdown was referenced, yet no mention was made of the current and ongoing genetic effects being seen in that area. I found this to be a very curious omission.
Secondly, there is significant reason to believe we have already passed the tipping point in the march towards irreversible global climate change. Even in this production, where the suggestion is made that near-total ecological recovery could be made without the presence of humanity, there was no mention of polar ice cap or glacial regeneration, nor the receding of deserts. I KNOW many areas would recover, but it is exceedingly difficult to believe that recovery would be so complete or so rapid.
While it is possible that these specifics were simply omitted for time considerations, I am not sure this was the case. Given my understanding of the use of psychology in mass media, I think it is more likely that this production was yet another bastardization of ecological issues by controlling elites intent on clearing the planet of the masses, allowing natural areas to regenerate for the benefit of the remaining few. I think it more likely that it was preparation for the sleeping masses, an explanation of why we will need to be forced off the land into massive cities, of why we must accept eugenics and other fascist controls.
The issues of over-population, over-consumption, resource exploitation and dedication to the model of constant economic growth ARE issues that desperately need to be dealt with, but I just cannot accept that fascist control and eugenics are the best way to achieve change. What is desperately needed is real evolution in human consciousness, an acceptance that stewardship does not mean exploitation, a realization that all things are connected.
Be well and good to each other, Sisters and Brothers.
4 years ago
Posts
4 comments:
Quite a nice closing statement, SBT. You are right about those four issues as being key, but I particularly love that ending: "...a realization that all things are connected." Now we just have to figure how to get others to see that...
We can only continue to provide examples. They have to see it and understand it themselves.
And some, I think, are not wired so at to ever be able to understand.
I disagree with the over-population issue. I don't believe the planet is overpopulated, we've just decided to allow the use of certain resources at the exclusion of others and allowed agriculture to be managed by government instead of people.
For example. Take $800 billion and build hydroponic skyscrapers for growing fruits and veggies. Now, how much food would that be and how many hungry people do you think we'd have?
People don't do waht's in the best intrests of humanity. Self is very important, I am a rugged individualist - but I believe in thinking of others as well. If agriculture was not centralized in the hands of the state, and not considered something that profit should made from, there would be no hunger.
I know, i know - sounds communist.
My concern with over-population is not about food specifically, it is about resource consumption in general. I agree completely that humans should make much better choices but its pretty hard to preach about better choices when the vast majority of the (approximately) 6.5 Billion people on the planet live at a VERY low standard of living, and we few in the west have lived at such a very high standard of living. We have the ability to discuss (argue over) whether over-population is an issue or not.
Horatio, I don't understand your logic here I'm afraid. You say that people should govern agriculture and, I assume, resource management. But then you also say that people don't do what is in the best interests of humanity. Your second statement rather justifies the position of the elite which feel they have to MAKE the masses do what is best for humanity.
However, I don't think your statement was completely accurate. I think people in North America tend to do what feels best for them, right now. I think people who are starving do what it takes to survive day to day, with no concern whatsoever for the ramifications of that survival. I cannot really fault them for this.
And no, you don't sound communist Horatio. In communism the State is in control of everything, including agriculture.
I am a bit uncomfortable making these criticisms tho, because I know you want to do what is best for all, humans and non. I admire that, I just feel that some attempts to "help" only end up making things worse. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, it means we should very very carefully look at the present situations, the history leading to those situations, the ramifications of actions to correct the situations.
Now, to clarify MY thoughts on over-population...
I do not know what the tipping point is for human population. I DO know how fast this population is growing. I DO know that we might not be there yet, but we WILL reach a point where a decent standard of living could no longer be provided to every human. And we've still got no real way of determining what that decent standard of living should be. Even if we established this standard, as far as I can see, it would mean the relinquishing of ALL property, ALL ownership. But without those, who gets to determine who lives where? It would be absolutely impossible to divvy the whole planet up equally, and to keep re-doing so with each new birth.
But only in a dream world is the model of constant growth possible, and this includes human population.
And what about the non-humans?
Post a Comment