George Will: The Earth Doesn’t Care About What is Done To or For It
 

George Will - Newsweek

The dark side of George Will. The guy can be too smart for his own good sometimes, like here, when he grabs onto a bit of info in a faulty manner. His last paragraph contains some nonsense:

Six million years ago the Mediterranean dried up. Ninety million years ago there were alligators in the Arctic. Three hundred million years ago Northern Europe was a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. "One thing we know for sure," Laughlin says about these convulsions, "is that people weren't involved."

Coal formed in Antarctica, alligators were in the arctic, etc. when that bit of the earths crust was at a dramatically different point on the continental drift scale. I mean, none of this is known with absolute certainty, maybe tropical temps existed at the poles at some point, then again, good chance they didn't, at least during the period of the earth's history during which living critters roamed the earth. Just because a fossil is found at some location, doesn't mean that spot was anywhere near its current latitude when the fossil was a living thing.

The remarks about CO2 dissolving into the oceans so what's the worry was more nonsense. The oceans are nearing saturation point and the higher levels of carbolic acid that CO2 causes are melting the shells of shellfish and making it harder for new shellfish to form sufficient shells for protection. Who cares? The earth doesn't care what we do to it! Wait, what percentage of the earth's population sustains itself on seafood? And how does the chain of life work there? Silly me, it will all be OK . . . in geologic time.

Will is a tad over-confident, as in this bit:

Today extinctions result mostly from human population pressures-habitat destruction, pesticides, etc.-but "slowing man-made extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world's human population." Which will not happen.

Which will not happen? Not voluntarily, I'd agree with that. The aquifers that we are rapidly depleting will recharge . . . in geologic time. Most of the groundwater we use found its way there during the melting of this or that ice age. The soil that we are salinating (not a word, salting up at any rate) from foolish farming methods and covering with asphalt and concrete will once again thrive . . . in geologic time.

Yes, the earth will heal itself in geologic time. But uh, we don't live in geologic time. The rabbits on an island with no predators don't live in geologic time - the fact that that island will once again produce sufficient food to feed rabbits and that rabbits will once again live there has little effect on the 98% + of the rabbit population that dies from starvation. And that cycle will happen in a relatively short time span, not in the sort of span referred to by "geologic time."

Will's conclusions here are shockingly irresponsible. What need to husband our resources? The earth will still be here. No one will know or care in 100,000 years.

I could just see myself showing up at Will's house and pelting it with huge globs of axle grease. Will runs out, protesting, and cmac shouts: "We're all going to die! The sky is falling! Don't worry Mr. Will, the earth doesn't care what we do to it, this will all be healed over . . . in geologic time."

He's right that the earth doesn't care what we do to it. In fact we have a lot of nerve assuming that we can "hurt" the earth. We can definitely make it uninhabitable for every current species of multicellular organism...but hurt it? I rather think not.

This planet is on the way to four or five animal species -man, cats, dogs, cows and chickens. Maybe a few horses.

I don't argue with that part. But he uses this to imply there is no reason to be concerned about human inflicted damage. So why don't I just burn his house down, forget the grease part. The earth doesn't care.

Pigs, don't forget pigs.

That depends on who wins.

Man-bear-pigs!

Does anyone know what George's position on human colonization of other planets in the future might be?

Sounds like some here are losing sleep thinking about George Will's views on the earth. The magic bullet here is Unisom folks.

George Carlin's take on it. Maybe Will just watched this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948Nm34arfA

Or as Stephen Wright once noted . . . "Smoking cures weight problems . . . eventually . . ."

Get real, oh man of sneering. It's called discussion. Am I to make the some lame accustation towards you next time you bring up some point?

Good Lord.

I respect Will's views semi-regularly but he goes around the bend on vahrnmental issues. He misquoted the U of Illinois Arctic Research dept. (not the exact name, I forget exactly) a year or so ago, saying they had said there'd been no change in Arctic ice since the late 70s - they came out and said "WRONG - never published that" - Will did not retract or apologize AFAIK.

If you can find that he did, please post.

I'm wondering why this man's views on if the earth "cares" is important to anyone. Seriously. I'm sorry I did not think this was so important that my bit of fun on what I thought is a lightweight topic would strike a cord. Sorry Cmac. Carry on, I'll bow out.

I think this point should be discussed, but perhaps in a different way:

1. The earth does not care good or bad about anything that any creature on it does. That's like mothers telling children, 'Oh don't throw the stone, you'll hurt the window, it will break and cry!" That type of claptrap is silly.

2. We should realize that it's a bad idea to $h!t where you sleep. Consciously avoiding pollution, deforestation etc is probably a good idea.

3. Respect for others' property is a good idea. In my case at least, if you don't respect it, or try to change it (from mine to yours) without my permission, you won't like what will happen.

I'm not sure I'd call the climate change debate a lightweight topic. That's what Will is on about - doesn't matter if we conserve or not, the result will be the same; AGW, carbon emissions, it's all inconsequential.

Well, yeah, we'll all be dead at some point. Since that's the case, I guess Will wouldn't mind donating all his money to a charity of my choosing and wander the earth as a beggar until that time comes.

It's seems to me to be a version of an old argument. If things don't ultimately matter, then nothing matters at all. It's Dostoyevsky's argument that if God is dead, everything is permitted.
A fair number of people appear to live with this kind of psychology, particularly people committed to the 'big ideas'. If the big idea isn't true, then no little ideas are worth acting on.

Do some research on how many NEW species are found each year. Usually more than disappear. Get a grip on reality and understand both sides of the equation.

The pro warming fanatics are lightweight in the brain department.

Key word - found. These new species, you believe they just came into being, or we just noticed them? Big difference between there.

Can you possibly explain both sides of the equation? Or even just enlighten us as to what "the equation" is?

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/...1&d=1284529582



Sorry, Cmac. I couldn't resist.

I think you are right though. He 'knows' the natural cycle well enough to be beyond it. And he is at peace with that. "Too smart for his own good"

Personally, I can relate. Nature will continue, and I really do not blame mankind completely for what is going on. Whether we are the root cause or not is irrelevant, for the most part.

Supposing it was entirely our fault, we are no more than an extension of nature into time-space. What we do is natural, we are not above nature or its forces- despite our delusions in the sciences.

But, more likely, it is mixture of the natural cycle and man's influence on the environment (one and the same, from this viewpoint).

Oh boy. The man has spoken. You assume that anyone is "pro warming." I mean, maybe some are very devoted to their POV but I'm more pro-science, where, if practiced correctly, one does not cling to a desired conclusion. Will and plenty of conservatives are so devoted to commerce and resource consumption in line with how we've been doing it for the last 50-100 years that they bend over backward to rationalize and justify more of the same.

Ironic that the often brainy Will has stumbled badly here and drifted perilously close to the territory of the lightweight brain department.

I notice you went with the smart ass dig rather than try to rebut anything I said that thoroughly pantsed Will in the OP.

It's ironic to me that many conservatives treat the natural world the way they complain leftists treat the world of commerce, that is, tax, tax, tax in order to fund social programs. Whereas conservatives carry on as though natural wealth is a bottomless pit just a waitin' to be exploited and exploited cuzzin we need growth, gawd-dammit. (spits terbaccy juice)

I'll agree that we are a part of nature but lately we behave like an heir or heiress who inherited so much money that we think it will never run out. So we par-tay, WOO-HOO!

Native Americans in the state Euros found them lived a rough and primitive life in many ways, of course. It was however, a way of life that was in balance with available resources much more than modern man, one that could have continued in that fashion for thousands and thousands of years. There is a brick wall rapidly approaching human kind, and it's not AGW or fossil fuel depletion. When the Ogallala aquifer and others around the world start to hiccup hard onna account of near functional depletion, survival of the species is going to enter new territory. I sorta doubt it'll happen in a big way in my lifetime but it's coming.

Part of why this stuff vexes me is I hear, regularly, from my conservative for life brethren that Paul Ehrlich was a lying charlatan, that no way do we need to be concerned about uncontrolled population growth.

Hearkening back to Kerry's post:

The issue is existential. And, ultimately, will determine our success on this planet. I do not mean that Will's thoughts are 'reasonable' or 'justified'... but that they require an understanding of natural patterns and our place within. If we die... we die. And some other gelatinous goo takes over. (this is too lackadaisical for the morally stimulated)

I could not make the case for either mindset to be more guilty of your suspicions. It is the collective conscious that condones, forgives, justifies and allows those things until some trauma shocks it.


Will we take the reigns and commit to a modality that incorporates these things which we are learning the hard way?
- that untethered growth can not be sustained with limited resources?
-that we may be our most vulnerable casualties?

The Native 'merican never experienced the incredible populations of the modern day. That should be considered in your comparison.

From my limited reading on the subject I would have to agree that their practices were much more efficient than ours. Strange how 'survival of the fittest' acts like a boomerang.

And with that lifestyle do you really believe they would ever reach the mass populations we are experiencing today? Whether by deliberate action or inability.


The energy is not the problem. We could find ways and we could reduce usage. So much of that energy just goes to luxuries like HVAC and nocturnal lighting. America is the offender here currently.

Population is the issue. If people decide that population is what they want... sacrifices must follow.

I don't think people consider what the population will be. A lot of people want a big family - can lead to wealth and power or at least someone to take care of you when your elderly, and, people want to make whoopy.

Population growth did indeed spike in a big way beginning with the industrial revolution. In a horrible way, the difficulty of survival before that kept human numbers at a sustainable level. I'm not sure people could replicate that voluntarily.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...hAD1to2000.jpg

Well put. For millennia, men and women have jumped up and fought and scraped to keep themselves and their progeny alive. The challenges are different now than in any past era we know of. There's something about Will's POV here that is way defeatist, IMO.

I can't help but think the Earth has tried to keep the total population in check over time via natural disasters, thus limiting our effects pro or con. But we meddling humans keep getting in the way with our humanitarian efforts.

Quit talking like that. I'm sure inanimate objects have feelings and one day in the not so distant future you may find that you have been reborn as a rock, then you'll sing a different tune!

Cmac- yes over population sucks. We as humans are clogging and killing our planets species. I agree. I'm doing something about it in a way I think I can make a concrete improvement. I think the planet is warming- not sure if it's natural or man made. Asking and talking as if the rock we all live on "cares" is idiotic, moronic and borderline retarded however, plain and simple, and even worse because you are worried that people believe that rocks don't have feelings.

Shark depletion is a little worrisome. I've heard that shark fin soup is nothing to write home about. OTOH, I've read stories of fishermen back when who were often hard pressed to get their catch up on deck w/o it being largely eaten by sharks in the process. Were I one of those guys, I have to admit I'd have been real tempted to shoot the buggers.

I never said that the rock cares about us. Not sure where you're getting that. I run into this a lot. People frequently have some elaborate idea about who and what vahrnmentalists are and they hear things to support that which were not said. My point is that our activity can make a huge difference on the continued viability of this planet in the 'home for humans' category. I mocked Will's words in the "earth doesn't care about us" category not because I believe it does but because that notion is a weak, and I mean weak rationale for carrying on as though it doesn't matter what we do.

The GAIA notion is often sneered at - the long lost Botnst used to love to deride the notion. My position is "who knows?" The biggest area of mystery for me in the notion that evolution brought us to this point after some amino acids happened to react in a certain way is: where in hell did the urge to procreate come from? The will to live and create progeny that even an ant displays?

The earth, galaxy, and universe is a large mystery in many ways. Ascribing life to a rock is a stretch but we do sorta know that even bacteria are alive and it's a real trip to me that we wouldn't even live w/o bacteria in our gut.

We as humans must take better care of the planet, period. It's only gonna get worse with more people. However, I could care less what George Will views about the planet, the environment and "caring". In the long term he's just one of several billion humans and his view deserves the appropriate fraction of one billionth of attention.

excellent point.

I think Cmac's intention, inadvertently, was that there are too many people who have been unable to assimilate this idea into their working agenda or 'care zone'.

hence, the issues grow more severe each day.

It keeps it all in perspective.He and I have different ways of communicating the same idea sometimes I believe. We do have to change the way humans consume and live, and the issues do grow more severe each day indeed.

Will is one of the conservative thinkers most often referenced in political discussion. He has a much larger soapbox that the general public.

A large part of the debate on this topic is framed by his remarks in that piece. Your implying that I'm merely adressing the thoughts of one person is borderline nonsense.

I was not informed and have no desire to be informed as to GW's soapbox status. Frankly I doubt his views on the environment have much pull on anyone, but IDK and IDC. He obviously struck a cord with you, however. Run with it then, but to me and the majority of folks on the planet he's one of 5 billion and that's the amount of attention I'll give him.

It's true that man's effect on the earth is minuscule compared to what the earth can do to itself, all on its own.

Wouldn't it be ironic if we spent trillions trying to slow "climate change", only to have a bunch of volcanoes go off and blot out the sun for a few years.