Say hello to Guilty Planet

If we are the only inhabitable planet in the universe, it's a shame as we're doing a damn fine job of mucking it up. Her blog's name should be "Guilty People of an Innocent Planet" but I suppose, unless you're Margaret Mitchell, titles are best when kept short.

neat!

though, I don't know if I can handle any more blogs on my daily cycle through my bookmarks :-p

I'm not sure we are the only hospitable planet in the galaxy, but we seem to have been lucky in not have supernovas go off repeatedly in our near neighborhood.

RIght, #3, instead, our Sun will explode, and the Andromeda Galaxy will expunge us from existence upon collision with the Milky Way.

The ScienceBorg assimilate another one.

our Sun will explode, and the Andromeda Galaxy will expunge us from existence upon collision with the Milky Way.

Yah, I worry about that, too.

Celebrate Earth Day by heading over to this site to find people critical of BOTH environmentalism AND evolution. It's a daily double. You can comment freely.

Ooops, forgot the link.

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/earth-day-for-evolutionists.html

Another welcomed view point. Huzzah!

Although the guilty part puts me off a bit. Probably a bit of prejudice on my part.

Reading posts and comments there I was reminded of the notion that humans, and their pesky intelligence and artifice are just as natural as the planet and all its other attendant concerns.

Whenever I pick up a bit of windblown trash and stuff it in my back pocket I am reminded of our power to defile. Whenever I see an effort to replant prairie grasslands or restore a few acres of wetland (the redwing says thanks) I am reminded of what good stewards we can be.

The fate of the earth lays somewhere in between.

(just as long as we don't emulate Trantor, which we will if we don't stop breeding like rabbits humans)

^ #8:

The post was bad enough, but the comments were painfully stupid.

To whoever is even considering going to #8's link, don't even think about it. It's the same popular tripe we often get from the religious trying to play psychologist, informing us that because we're "naturalists" and "Darwinists" we ought to feel as if we should be able to rape and pillage our earth.

By that same logic, I'd encourage all Christians to go and stone their children. After all, the Bible calls for children who 'dishonor' their parents to be put to death.

Any one else here smell the non-sequitur? And in response, has Steve heard of the Selfish Gene? The reason we ought to care for the environment, if not for its own sake, would be so that, oh...I don't know...our CHILDREN can enjoy the planet?! And their children can enjoy the planet?

Sure, the Bible calls people to be good stewards, yet simultaneously, anti-environmentalism comes most strongly from the religious right. Steve, your caricature of evolution is so magnificently inane, it's barely worthy of comment. This is typical of creationists, who - like yourself - attach "survival of the fittest" to Darwin. Your shamelessly stupid article is so incredibly sloppy, so completely asinine, and it's frankly insulting to all intelligent life in the universe.

Why are you here?

Ummm, Mark, read post 7 again.

Omigosh, I apologise, Steve. I mistook you for someone advertising in favour of the article. That's the trouble with the Interweb...you can't always tell when someone's being sarcastic, or what their motivations are. Whew! I seem to have a bit of Dawkins in me.

Just to make this clear...you'd better believe that the original post and most of the comments at the site in question are moronic and idiotic. I posted the link for the purpose of entertainment, although I should have warned everyone that there is a significant risk of brain damage associated with viewing the post and comments.

No problem, Mark. Happens to me all of the time. Definitely a problem with the Interwebs. On the hand, there's no mistaking the stupidity of the post accessed by the link.

Hey, it's great to see the Seed stables expanding, and you can never get too much environmental science. Speaking of environmental science, has anybody here seen this? It's a film called "Not Evil Just Wrong" about environmentalism (as though, you know, there was a serious question as to whether environmentalists were evil or just skeery commies). I've seen a few small right wing blogs ejaculating over this, so maybe it's worth critiquing?

Here's an environmental joke.

True story.

The Province of Ontario in Canada has electricity surpluses and actually has paid other areas to take electricity. The power companies are short of funds from lack of demand.

Yet the government has ad campaigns urging people to conserve electricity.

Ontario has some of the greenest power in the world with much of it coming from Hydro Electric and Nuclear. There is only one surviving coal plant and that is only brought online during the highest peak demands during the summer. No doubt that will be torn down as soon as the 2 new nuclear reactors come on line.

So here in Ontario it's just a waste of money for the government to push conservation. (at this time) It serves neither the power companies, the taxpayer or the environment.

BCReason, how is that a problem with environmentalism, rather than misguided overproduction of energy? Ontario has too much electricity? splendid. shut down that coal plant now and don't bother building more reactors, and maybe even shut down electricity production when not needed.

This is a problem with the growth-economics idea that we must consume more of everything all the time just to keep our economies afloat.

The planet will probably recover just fine when we're gone. "Save the Earth" never made much sense to me. I think what they really mean is "Save the Human-Friendly Earth." It will keep spinning without us-- when cephalopods are running things.

@ 17

(and a h/t to Jadehawk's reply @ 18):

The surplus only exists during mild winters in Ontario (we usually have to import power in Ontario in peak summer; we often sell to Quebec or do a quid pro quo during winter when they need more power). As Jadehawk noted, even if it is a 'long term' surplus, it means retire the last coal plant, reconsider base-load focused nuclear, and look to more flexible renewables so production can be adjusted more easily. And, indeed, reject the whole cornucopian approach to resource use; Jadehawk has that spot on.

It wasn't that long ago that Northern States Power in Minnesota went on a conservation kick to encourage people to reduce consumption. They did such a good job of it that the next year they had to raise rates to remain profitable. Something intrinsically wrong with the system, I would think.

#19

I agree. The Earth has been through much, much more than our shortsightedness and reckless plundering of its useful resources. People wish to preserve the planet as it is right now, but the main reason I can see for that is because we will benefit from that.

@18

I guess the point I'm trying to make is politicians promote the feel good over common sense. The resources used to promote conservation of electricity could have been put to better use elsewhere. There are problems with water quality, waste disposal, etc. The politicians have just jumped on the conservation bandwagon because it's popular.

As for baseline electricity. It's partly the fault of the economic downturn that growth of demand did not follow predictions. Commitments have been made, money invested, work started it's too late to stop the reactors from coming on line.

"We are all parasites," a friend recently remarked as our train moved past the graffiti covered walls of Berlin. "Anyone who does not understand this--or thinks that somehow the good that they do in this world outweighs the bad--is delusional."

Oh, great! Another happy, bright champion of science to spread interest in it, and not at all another guilt ridden, self loathing human producing a whiny pityfest. Might as well rename this place GothBlogs and redo it with black backgrounds.

@ Cubic

Hey, now. That statement is clearly Emo, not Goth.

Anyway, how would a blog cut itself? Sheesh.

...

Then again, we could let some of the trolls back in. That'd be self-damaging enough.

I am, of course, being facetious on all subjects herein presented. Except about Emo kids. I hate them.

To #19 and #22 - well yes. CO2 isn't going to blow up the Earth. Still, call me biased, but as a human being, I'd quite like the Earth to remain habitable, and reasonably comfortable, for human beings to live on. At least until we manage to colonise space.

I'm also starting to feel that it's such an obvious statement it's becoming a bit clichéd, if not veering towards being a denialist talking point... although I guess you could turn that around to say that environmentalists shouldn't use the phrase 'save the planet' because it gives the deniers such an easy handle to sidetrack a debate with.

Hey, now. That statement is clearly Emo, not Goth.

Actually, emo was my first impression, but it felt more like the goth kids I actually grew up with. All the "oh woe is humanity the parasite and deathbringer and blah blah blah" histrionics would fit right in with their modus operandi. Emo is more confessional and introverted.

I think the following jokes will illustrate the difference:

Q: How many emo kids does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Three. One to replace it, and two to write a poem about how they miss the old one.

Q: How many goths does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Three. One to change it and two to talk about Lord Byron's Grand Tour and creative uses of laudinum in a metaphysical environment.

Well... better than the vampire kids. Oops! I mean vampyre.

Heh. I'll grant you the point. It's just an amusing argument all around.

Your examples lack references to holing up in a dank basement and listening to Disintegration on loop*, but that could really apply to either side.

*Nothing wrong with the excellent album; it's the misuse of it that I object to.

#26

I guess you could turn that around to say that environmentalists shouldn't use the phrase 'save the planet'

I think the message resonates, and more accurately refects their (our) desired outcome, when it is human-centered. I think it becomes even sadder when they (we) present a vision of a future world without us, and to pretend it's all about the planet is disingenuous anyway.

Something intrinsically wrong with the system, I would think.

yes, the part where a basic piece of infrastructure is supposed to be profitable :-p

bah, blockquote fail. first sentence is quoted, second sentence is me :-p

Pretty high woo and Gaiagargle factor for a science blog

I see little difference between the happy nihilist who is cheerfully awaiting destruction and the happy religionist who is cheerfully awaiting the second coming.

oh, and -- the sun won't actually blow up, it'll just expand to a size large enough to put the earth in a similar position to where mercury is now, if it doesn't actually consume the planet. But that's about 4.5 billion years away.
Or, for you creationists, the lake of fire will swallow us whole in about .. a time only The Lord knows.