What are we saving, really?

Here is a great example of an interesting perspective that really looks at how we define our reality.

My quote of the day today had this:

"Myth: we have to save the earth. Frankly, the earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment -- making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so." -Robert M. Lilienfeld, management consultant and author (b. 1953) and William L. Rathje, archaeologist and author (b. 1945)

And this is what it got me thinking. 

I hadn’t thought along these lines before, but the idea resonates quite strongly now that I have read it.  If modern society doesn’t change its practices with regard to climate change, there is a good chance we will put ourselves into extinction and take many species along with us.  But in fact the earth is more resilient than we are.  Over the following hundred or maybe thousand years, the surviving forms of life will spread and evolve without us.  And new forms will spring up.  The earth will be perfectly able to get by without us, and perhaps happier as a result.

So we are not engaging in eco-friendly behavioral change to save the earth.  We are doing it to save humanity