Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature as we squander ours and all succeeding generations' inheritance. How does a nation convince its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to convince a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to convince the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of an unsophisticated people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based or the people must become more sophisticated quickly.

Perhaps a compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality appears to be insufficient for creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

Are you a good steward of this planet?

@coberst phil,

Am I a good steward of the planet? Heck no. When I go for walks every day, I burn the customary barrel of oil in my back yard, tape twenty air fresheners to my back and let loose the CO2, and litter continually. I even manage to kick small puppies into the street while salting the soil in the many wonderful parks here in Philadelphia, which are incidentally treeless due in part to my cutting them down, dowsing them with oil (from my daily stock of oil in the backyard) and setting them alight.

Just kidding. I live the way I am accustomed to living both as an American and as a human being, which is as a consumer. In many respects, so do you. We all do. If you are sitting at a computer, typing a message on the internet, you are consuming natural materials (energy, etc.) which in no way benefit the environment on a fundamental level. They benefit us in particular. Is this being a good steward of the environment?

I kind of chuckle at the idea of a "steward" of the environment though. Who made us the bosses? Do we assume some level of imperial authority over the realm of earth because we have cities and airplanes and Double cheeseburgers? The earth can be wrathful herself (or himself). And on that note, doesn't the fact that we assume stewardship of the environment entail some notion of selfishness and greed on our part as the human race to preserve it? The Earth persists regardless of whether or not we exist or not (assuming we do not blow the world up or something? but you get the point). To be honest, I think what you want is for people to feel guilty about the way in which they survive.

But forget air conditioning. I find it hilarious that the green movement constantly avoids the elephant in the kitchen but instead focuses on the cat under the table. I speak of your standard, garden variety cow. "In all, the world's 1.5 billion head of cattle produce more greenhouse gases than all its cars, planes and other forms of transport put together." ( Are cows killing the planet? | Mail Online ) So if I understand that article correctly, I would suggest that any good caretaker of the planet rally for the genocide of the bovine species if they were really serious about saving the environment from the clutches of human pollution. But seriously, don't hurt cows? they make the T-bone steaks and I luvs them.

Is this really the face of the enemy? I dare you to look at that picture and tell me T-bone steaks aren't both incredibly delicious but cute as well. Also, props to anybody that figured out that that is a cows head on a cats body. I dub thee moo-cat. Would I buy one if they existed? Yes... because I am a consumer and yes... I luvs the T-Bones.

@coberst phil,

Since we have more ability to change the environment that any species previous to us, I would say the we are stewards. We can either help out the natural environment, or make it worse. Unfortunately for future generations, we tend to favor the later. Its not that anyone or anything decided we were the bosses, its that we made ourselves the bosses.

@coberst phil,

Our consciousness, our meaning creation and the resulting technology makes us the replacement of natural selection. We can kill and pollute at will and with great power.

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

Our consciousness, our meaning creation and the resulting technology makes us the replacement of natural selection.

No. They make us a factor of natural selection. Other factors still work alongside our technology, and some of them are far more influential.

Quote:

We can kill and pollute at will and with great power.[/COLOR]

For a little while...

@coberst phil,

coberst wrote:

Our consciousness, our meaning creation and the resulting technology makes us the replacement of natural selection. We can kill and pollute at will and with great power.

Natural selection is the layman's notion of saying "things happen for a reason, but I don't know that reason." Natural selection shouldn't really be a factor in this issue.

But Look at cows. What if by some happenstance cows and not humans became the predominant species on earth. If there are (by official estimates) 6,677 billion people on earth right now and translated to cows, that means that cows everyday would put 1.5 TRILLION tons of Co2 in the air. Does a cow will itself to create spent gasses? No, it is a byproduct of its existence. No involvement of consciousness and "meaning (sic. of) creation and the resulting technology" would cause a cow to produce 4000 grams of Co2 a day. If 1.5 billion cows reproduce the equivalent of all the forms of transportation the world can muster, what would happen to the environment if 6677 billion cows roamed the earth feasting on the flesh of the innocent (supposing these cows were in fact zombie cows)? In that sense, cows could kill and pollute "with great power."

Again, people shouldn't feel guilty about the way they survive. And I also don't think people pollute the way they do in excess becuase I don't feel the benefit of an excess amount of any resource on the planet, nor would I think the majority of the population.

@coberst phil,

computers are very good environmentally,

* firstly they allow threads like this one to be communicated millions of times more efficiently than ever before
* secondly they require very little paperwork (trees) to do so compared to letter writing
* thirdly they allow people to telecommute instead of burning barrels of oil getting to work
* fourthly the more time we spend on a computer, then less time we spend on environmentally dangerous pursuits like motor racing or war which happens mostly because people are uneducated

the point of environmentalism is not to never touch the environment - but to effect it less and less where ever possible

the more internet connections there are - the better it is for the environment - an an extreme level

@Poseidon,

Are we meant to be caretakers of the Earth?

In what way?

What does care taking mean?

How would caretaking be enforced?

etc...?

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Natural selection is the layman's notion of saying "things happen for a reason, but I don't know that reason." Natural selection shouldn't really be a factor in this issue.

But Look at cows. What if by some happenstance cows and not humans became the predominant species on earth. If there are (by official estimates) 6,677 billion people on earth right now and translated to cows, that means that cows everyday would put 1.5 TRILLION tons of Co2 in the air. Does a cow will itself to create spent gasses? No, it is a byproduct of its existence. No involvement of consciousness and "meaning (sic. of) creation and the resulting technology" would cause a cow to produce 4000 grams of Co2 a day. If 1.5 billion cows reproduce the equivalent of all the forms of transportation the world can muster, what would happen to the environment if 6677 billion cows roamed the earth feasting on the flesh of the innocent (supposing these cows were in fact zombie cows)? In that sense, cows could kill and pollute "with great power."

Again, people shouldn't feel guilty about the way they survive. And I also don't think people pollute the way they do in excess becuase I don't feel the benefit of an excess amount of any resource on the planet, nor would I think the majority of the population.

I think we should find ways to convert these gases into energy. Never a shortage of bs. Surely if we can send a rocket to the moon, we could find ways to use bs as a source of energy.

@Elmud,

Make no mistake Elmud, it might well be the case that these gases can be converted into a good form of energy. I propose we fasten 1.5 billion gas catchers to the backsides of cows in an effort to power the world and break our dependence on crude oil, Pesi Cola, the man, and Pringles Potato chips?. Pringles? once you pop the fun don't stop. Yeah that will do it? that's a change I can believe in.

But actually, don't we BS as a form of energy. We have wind turbine power generators after all. The cost per unit of maintaining a wind turbine and the amount of power it generates is far from economical? and yet people build them under the battle cry of "green." Think of solar energy. The cost per unit compared to how much it would cost to produce the same amount of energy from primary energy sources is staggering? not to mention the cost of replacement every twenty years to Silicon based cells. Think about that. That would be like saying, let's build a thousand nuclear reactors, but also keep in mind that we have to rebuild our entire infrastructure every decade or so. And then what about batteries? I know for a fact there is not a single viable mass-storage device for energy that is even remotely efficient to maintain at least half of excess energy produced.

Also? who said we sent a rocket to the moon? Dude, seriously, that looks dangerous. What if the production team were wearing flip-flops and glass from the falling light strip got in their feet? It's all fun and in the name of science until someone gets hurt.
YouTube - fake moon landing

@coberst phil,

I believe we are (or should be, at least) caretakers of this planet. We are Earth's only hope for survival, yet we have yet to prove ourselves trustworthy of the task. Not only are we as a species arrogantly indifferent to the "suffering" of the worlds ecosystems, but we are actually leaning towards the negative side. I am not saying I live a 100% green life and help the planet as much as possible, but I am determined to make an impact on society one way or another. We simply cannot go on living the way we have in the past century. If we don't clean up our act (no pun intended Razz

) we will surely face extinction of much more than just our own race, but our planet as a whole.

@Brandon Boyd,

We aren't earth's last hope, it'll get along just fine without us.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

We aren't earth's last hope, it'll get along just fine without us.

The world would probably get along better without us. At least then it would no longer need to deal with all the waste and pollution humans create.

The only way that we would be the world's last hope would be if a huge asteroid that would destroy the planet was headed straight for earth, and it was inevitable that it would smash into the planet.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

We aren't earth's last hope, it'll get along just fine without us.

Now that I think about it, yes you are right. Sorry for my previous statement saying we are Earth's only hope. Let me rephrase that to better fit my message. At the moment, we are the only beings capable of impacting the future of this planet, therefore it is up to us to make sure we don't desecrate and vandalize the Earth.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The world would probably get along better without us. At least then it would no longer need to deal with all the waste and pollution humans create.

The only way that we would be the world's last hope would be if a huge asteroid that would destroy the planet was headed straight for earth, and it was inevitable that it would smash into the planet.

change it..........

@Brandon Boyd,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Also? who said we sent a rocket to the moon? Dude, seriously, that looks dangerous. What if the production team were wearing flip-flops and glass from the falling light strip got in their feet? It's all fun and in the name of science until someone gets hurt.
YouTube - fake moon landing

It is possible to detect the stuff the astronauts left on the moon from earth because it reflects light differently from the moon's soil, and people have already done that, proving that the moon landing wasnt actually fake.

Brandon_Boyd wrote:

I believe we are (or should be, at least) caretakers of this planet. We are Earth's only hope for survival, yet we have yet to prove ourselves trustworthy of the task. Not only are we as a species arrogantly indifferent to the "suffering" of the worlds ecosystems, but we are actually leaning towards the negative side. I am not saying I live a 100% green life and help the planet as much as possible, but I am determined to make an impact on society one way or another. We simply cannot go on living the way we have in the past century. If we don't clean up our act (no pun intended ) we will surely face extinction of much more than just our own race, but our planet as a whole.

We arent indiferent to the suffering of ecosystems due to arrogance, but simply we have no good reason to care, other than that we may be screwing up ourselves.

I think that the human race is far too spread about and adaptable to be extincted by anything it can do on this planet, except blowing it up. Off course we may still take heavy hits on our population levels and have to radically change the way we live, but we wont all die.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Make no mistake Elmud, it might well be the case that these gases can be converted into a good form of energy. I propose we fasten 1.5 billion gas catchers to the backsides of cows in an effort to power the world and break our dependence on crude oil, Pesi Cola, the man, and Pringles Potato chips?. Pringles? once you pop the fun don't stop. Yeah that will do it? that's a change I can believe in.

Hey, it worked well in the movie Mad max beyond Thunderdome. I believe they used pig droppings in that community. The slave labor would be hard to come by though.

@Brandon Boyd,

All seriousness aside, I mean , joking, I saw on the tele today that there is a company which produces things like shampoo and detergent and the like, that operates on methane power. Somehow they transfer these garbage dump gases into energy.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Does a cow will itself to create spent gasses? No, it is a byproduct of its existence.

In very much the same way the human species involuntarily wreaks havoc on it's environment. We can only soften this blow marginally, given the willingness of our populus. For all the advances we've made as a species only recently have we given any consideration to our planet and future generations. As mentioned above, and I'm paraphrasing, our stint on this planet is extremely temporal and Earth's reactions to our detrimental effect on the enviroment are escalating rapidly. In time we will likely be extinct and the planet will live on. If, by some miracle, the human race manages to survive until Earth's surmise, I doubt very much we will flourish as we have the past 3,000 years. But it's possible.

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know