Are humans part of nature?
- What is the difference between a volcano emitting CO2 and a human-made factory emitting CO2? None, as long as the factories are required for the survival and progress of our civilization.
- Why should people care about not harming other species while a lion can kill a human in order to eat and have noone blaim it for "non-ecological" consciousness? They should not, as long as they need to do that in order to feed their selfs and their children.
- Why should humans care about sustaining the ecology balance while bacteria or insects do not?
- How can a species be the "dominant" one on a planet without exchibiting un-ecological behaviour? It cannot.
- Would we be the dominant species on Earth if we respected the ecological balance of the planet when we were only one million humans in total? No.
- Could we become the dominant species if dinosaurs were not extinct? No.
- Would we be here know talking if the ecologic balance was not distrurbed and dinausaurs did not disappear from the face of the Earth? No.
Should we be ecologists?
The wrong reasons for being an ecologist
Being an ecologist because "we should not pollute" is wrong.
Being an ecologist because "humans should respect nature" is wrong.
Being an ecologist because a specific political party told you so is wrong.
All the above reasons are based on the wrong assumption that "humans are not a part of nature". We consider ourselves as something "outside" the nature's system and, thus, we tend to blame everything we do as un-natural and (for that reason) wrong. However there is absolutely no reason for believing that. We are members of the ecosystem and no data can prove that we are un-natural. What we do is an integral part of nature and there is no reason to think that building a factory is inherently different from a termite building a nest. As other species use materials to build, we use materials also found in nature to build. As other species use their abilities to fight other species, we use our abilities to kill other species.
But this is not even the whole story. The truth is that every species is trying to do exactly the same! All insects, bacteria or crocodiles, are trying to dominate the environment. Each species is trying to be the dominant one and does not care about the "balance". Why is it "natural" for insects to multiply by millions and devour everything they see, but it is not "natural" for humans to eat other species? The answer is simple: there is no reason at all! What we do is as natural as a plant growing at the expense of another plant.
And additionally to the above, being an ecologist should not be related to politics. I don't believe any sane man would argue against protecting the environment or against recycling or against behaving as a balanced person in a balanced ecosystem in general. The problem is with the multi-billion dollar industry of "ecology" which during the last years imposes itself upon everyone while serving specific political agendas. And no, these politicians have not suddenly started 'caring' (LOL). Modern political motivated ecology is not about educating people to have balance with their ecosystem. It is all about acquitting polluting companies and states just because they... fund Greenpeace. It is about passing the responsibility from these companies and states to the... people who are do bad and who do not... recycle. (I do, but not because I believe the planet will be 'saved' if I recycle while the companies which pollute continue polluting) It is about passing new regulations which will force you to change car and refrigerator every 5 years in order to be... ecological. All in all ecology is today more like fashion and a tool to boost the economy. Want to care for the climate? Stop buying new cell phones and new big cars. I doubt any ecological organization will ever support such a goal... And yes, I do not care if the climate change is human-made or not (for me based on the evidence it is somewhat funny to believe that we are so powerful to destroy the planet, the only ones we can destroy are ourselves). I just want ecology for the right reasons. Not for Al Gore to sell more books...
What we do is natural and there a great variety of good reasons for being an ecologist today...
The right reasons for being an ecologist
The difference between these reasons and the reasons stated in the previous chapter is sublte but important: The basis for true ecology must be humans and not nature. We are part of nature and everything we do is natural. The higher values we have like humans are the ones on which we should base our ecological consciousness. One should know why he/she believes something, otherwise he is just a non-thinking being drifted around by fashion and politics...
However if there is no reason to disrupt it, then it is illogical to do so, the same way as it is illogical to do anything else without a valid reason! As simple as that.
If we pollute the planet, the planet will not suffer anything. We will suffer. If we fill the planet with radiation, that would no different than so many planets in the galaxy with no atmosphere and high levels of radiation. It would be as natural as volcanoes errupting and filling the air with CO2 thus making it inhabitable...
Exploitation of ecology by the states and the companies
Surely recycling is something good. Surely recycling helps.
But if you talk about recycling anf fail to see the main issue, then you are simply out of subject: you say something correct, but you do not see the point.
There is a very good reason why the profit-oriented companies talk so much about recycling...
The Hypocrisy of Ecological organizations
|That one little burp by Mt. Etna has already put more than 10,000 times the CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind has in our ENTIRE time on earth but don't worry, a scam is in the works to tax you for your minuscule footprint....|
Against ecology coercionWhat does ecology teach us today? It says that we should not pollute. That we should save the planet! But ecology is all about balance. It's all about living while accepting other creatures should live (and this touches some deeper philosophical materialistic and atheistic dogmas of our time which I will not analyze in this article) However the things upon which we base ecology are very important. And many inconsistencies occur if we base our ecology on the wrong foundation. Today's ecology is imposed by politics and politics have agendas. Agendas which do not care about the people or the planet abut about the... agendas. Ecological balance is something which is difficult enough to deal with even if you are a philosophy professor, let alone a politician 'caring' for the plant.
Answers regarding ecological issues are sometimes not so straightforward as we would like them to be. Two small paradigms are mentioned below even though many more can be found. The point I am attempting to make is simple: don't be hypocritical when it comes to ecology.
- For example, does being ecologists mean that we should not go to Mars or other planets out of fear not to disturb the ecosystem there? According to the wrong definition of ecology above, we should not. (and the funny thing here is that we all do not care about that since even 'ecologists' like the idea of colonizing Mars) However we humans are curious by nature (and I emphasize "nature") and WILL go to other planets and WILL alter the ecosystem there.
- Should we "kill" the flu virus that can kill us by the millions? According to the wrong definition of ecology mentioned above, we should not because that would be an interference of human to nature. Killing another species is not "ecological". On the other hand, nobody argues in favour of the flu virus. So what is the solution?
Bibliography - Links
2. The Ecology Global Network [http://www.ecology.com/index.php].
3. Ecological Society of America - Journals [http://www.esajournals.org/].
> Main articles / Κύρια άρθρα > Limits of Science > Όρια της Επιστήμης
> Religion & Science Unification > Φιλοσοφία Επιστήμης & Θρησκείας