 Originally Posted by tommo
I was just thinking before.
Since the beginning of human kind it has been our base drive, to destroy nature. Technically every animal does whether through just eating animals or plants or trampling bush etc. But we do it on a whole other level with our machines and whatnot. The thing is, in doing so we destroy ourselves, ala global warming, extinction of species etc.
Since it is man's nature to destroy nature; we must also destroy ourselves.
I wouldn't put it as it being our base drive to destroy nature, but instead to be safe. According to what historians are saying, we originally dropped the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and took up the agricultural one because it yielded a higher chance for a surplus of food, which reduced danger. We started to form civilizations because living in a group offered safety(even though we may not have thought that directly).
We chopped down trees in mass numbers for wood, which reduces the danger of dying of hypothermia. We developed machines to carry out tasks faster and more efficiently, which increased the productivity of what we were doing.
A machine that cuts down trees and saws them into pieces for sale as firewood does it faster than a human, which means more wood in a given time, which means supply can outweigh demand, which means lower prices, which means more people are able to buy firewood, which means fewer people die from lack of a heat source. Sorry for the run-on there.
I think our destruction of nature in general is just us losing track of what we need as protection. Leaded gas was not necessary. No one was dying from lack of cheap gasoline, but indeed spending less on fuel allowed you to spend it elsewhere, such as recreational activities for stress relief. We all know the negatives of stress, so this was definitely removing a danger.
But we didn't initially pay attention to the fact that lead is a neurotoxin responsible for the decline of the health of millions. When we noticed, the companies producing leaded gas kept selling it for money. It's possible that they wanted the money because they perceived the loss of income as a direct threat to themselves, which they placed higher than the environment. It wasn't much of a threat, you can live on less income than what the executives were making.
If you look closely, a lot of the problems we have with nature today are caused by us losing sight of what we need to clear for our own good... and what we need to keep for our own good.
|
|
Bookmarks