Perhaps We Should Be More Specific

 We were on the bus this afternoon and the radio was on. News had just broken about the significant increases in the price of electricity and natural gas starting next month. This is on top of steep price increases in the price of petrol (€2 per litre, which works out at today's exchange rate to US$8.28 per gallon). People are understandably upset and many are struggling. They are angry at the situation and in what appears to be a cultural universal, they direct their ire at the government. The easy targets are the measures put in place to lower our carbon footprint. People called in to demand that these be done away with, at least for now. The host replied that they're there 'to save the planet.' Now it was my turn to be annoyed as I always am when this kind of language is used. It's not about saving the planet. It's about saving the habitat of the species called homo sapiens sapiens, also known as human beings. Yes, in the process we would save the habitat of many other species as well, which is as it should be. But whether we destroy our habitat or not, the planet will go on. It was here before humans and it'll be here after humans. Other species would thrive in a world without humans as well. I think this talk about 'saving the planet' is both arrogant and lacking in urgency. It deflects attention to some vague concept instead of focusing it on the fact that we are destroying the only habitat we have. The planet doesn't need us to save it, but we sure do need it to be hospitable to human life.

Share