Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:03 AM
"Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."
As for the "survival of the fittest" comment, let me broaden your horizon just a tiny stretch today, because repeating pseudo-truth cliches only indicates ignorance, surely not critical thinking. Fittest... for what? I'll put it more simply. We are creating a more competitive environment facilitating the survival of those that are the fittest forrr....... what kind of environment? Let me help there. Fittest in the ****ty f@cked-up environment we are creating by pollution of the atmosphere, poisoning of the rivers, cutting down rainforests, all of which are not natural states of BALANCE, only temporary man-made environments, which poisons us as well, and when we've cut down the last tree, we'll have to come up with an alternative replacement, as soon as we have that (becase we needed it so we found it or developed it) we won't need the trees, so they can grow back, the air can come clean again, etc. But by now all these species that are fittest in ****ty environment have survived, which aren't the fittest in the again-normal, natural environment, so the "old" species can come back in greater numbers again. Except that... we've sent them extinct. That's right, all we achieve by temporarily upsetting the natural balance of nature that has come to be as it is today throughout millions and billions of years, is killing a few species that could've lived just fine and evolved into stronger and fitter species. Creating a nuclear holocaust or poisoning the air to extreme extents and saying "let's see which few species will last longest" is hardly a virtue and hardly helps anything or anyone. If a diverse biosphere is what nature has evolved, then maybe that's what it needs, who are we to justify pollution by saying that we are creating a better "race" for these beasts? No, species don't need saving. Yes, they all die out eventually. But why kill them now instead of letting them be there for our grandchildren to see? Humans will be long gone before these "unfit for poisonous environment" species would normally die out. Our industrial infancy with all its harming effects are a blink of an eye in natural history, but the number of species lost in this blink is unproportionate an unnatural. Doesn't take much brains to see. When are we going to begin to take a bit of responsibility and consider more then our own selfish (monetary) interests and temporary comfort? Time for us to grow up.