09 May 2010

Eaarth



Once previously I have written at length here on the desecration of the planet as I knew it in my youth. And only once. There is no reason to rant on the subject. Nothing can be done. We are far beyond the “tipping point” already. Moreover, it is boring to read rants on the same subject over and over.

Notice that I have written nothing concerning the oil spill in the Gulf, a catastrophe of a magnitude beyond imagining. How can one project the effects of the destruction of 25%, perhaps more, of the entire wetlands of the United States of America? And wetlands are only one issue among many.

Excerpt from Eaarth

I only raise the subject again because of this new book. Bill McKibben eloquently portrays the current situation of the planet better than I can. He has devised a new name for the planet we inhabit now, "Eaarth," to distinguish it from the planet we formerly inhabited known at "Earth." We disagree on only one thing. He apparently believes that steps can still be taken to preserve the species. From my point of view, his proposals fly so flagrantly in the face of human nature as to be impossible. Still, as I said, he has a very perceptive grasp of the planet's current situation.

I would like to explain this to him. The central idea of The Enlightenment was the idea that man could gain control of nature through science, science being the application of pure reason. But The Enlightenment is over now. There is no way that we can reason ourselves out of this predicament.

Why do the people who have a realistic grip on the environmental situation as it exists right now all live in Vermont?

No comments: