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
