Exactly what i was thinking (after pondering the same thing in a convo with Susan :satisfy: ). This is actually something i used to believe in like 4th grade when i actually believed in god (out of fear mostly heh ) Anyway:
Since the earth indirectly created us we have an unspoken responsibility to maintain it as the highest evolved of all of life on this planet. You don't have to be created by a creator for that to be realized. In order for there to exist a pre-defined purpose of life there has to be an omniscient entity/cause/force that is "expecting" that from us. Since there is none (from my point of view) we have to infuse our own world with whatever meaning we see sensible.
However, this does seem very utopian in comparison with today's ideals. We are too busy prolonging the lives of humans and insuring the lives of new humans. We are on the verge of overpopulation (moreso than now). I have more ideals on this in the debate forum under "Animal rights and the future." basically saying how there will be no room for animals in the future and they will literally be gone except for the comforts and necessities of those which we will "grow." Anyway, back on subject we are too selfishly concerned with ourselves rather than that which created and sustained us. We have grown to such a large level that coexisting with the earth is nothing short of absurd in the future. We will have to colonize elsewhere due to our ignorance of purpose and with that sacrifice all other life earth has granted indirectly. Going back to gaia theory, earth will probably (as a living organism/entity) create disease or some other controlling factor to attempt to limit the amount of humans on earth though i doubt it will be succesful (disease has been spreading and created in present day but in the future there will be a plethora more than now because of all the people here). Wow, i've gotten kind of off-topic hm hm, anyway i'll sum it up:
in 4th grade when i believed in god, i thought humans were put on this earth as the "internal moderators" to maintain and take care of the earth. Being the most intelligent of all life, it was a logical assumption. Humans were meant to coexist with the animals but instead chose to move towards their comforts in life and civilization which enervated all chances thus far of man being just "part of earth" but man (i use this term because it's used in history books for ancient people, it's not sexist, sorry) has begun to take over it. And with that we have defied all earth and god (when i believed it) by not looking after earth but succumbing to greed.
We really don't even try to maintain our planet, our only hope really is that technology progress to be able to rectify all empiric nature harms. I'm thinking Nano-Ecology technology should be able to help i suppose, though it seems rather far from getting to that level. This is a race, how long can we sustain the comforts and continuing killing the earth while our technology races to rectify the problems and at the same time killing earth as well. Technology vs. Earth's ability to sustain us, which one will be the victor?
Man, i should write a column
Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 04-17-2002 at 04:17 PM
|