I'm down to the last five pages now of Charles Pellegrino book, UNEARTHING ATLANTIS…and Pellegrino is philosophizing with the underwater sea guy, Jacques Cousteau.
Cousteau says; “People have no respect for the Earth; its power, its majesty. We need it to survive, but it doesn’t need us. The planet existed 4½ billion years without us, and if we’re not careful, we may be as extinct as the brontosaurus one day.”
Well my question, is that really true, is Cousteau correct? Scientist-inventor James Lovelock, and his Gaia hypothesis, that the Earth is a living being…well what if the Earth ‘loves’ us, and if not exactly ‘needing’ us, still thrives better with our presence here?
I know for a fact the Earth can be stronger for our presence; some of the old-time loggers here in Washington State have shown me how a forest can be healthier, more vigorous and beautiful if we come in and log with thoughtfulness!
"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."
"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it." from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/030406massculling.htm
SOme people find it quite shocking that Jacques who was in many ways a hero, could hold these views and they certainly aren't popular.
Nah. She may have loved us in our infancy but now that we've grown sufficiently cause her grief I think she probably hopes we'll discover space travel and go somewhere else.
I love the Gaia concept, though I've never thought of it as anything more than fanciful. That doesn't make it any less real than some of the other fanciful things we think of as gospel. There's a division between what is physically real -- things we can measure or boil up in a test tube -- and things that are "real" only in our minds.
That's getting into woo-woo land, of course, but I've been thinking (a dangerous recreation) and strayed into areas that are more-or-less new to me. Sure, I've been familiar with such ideas most of my life, but the understanding is new. When I've sorted it out -- and it may take months -- I'll email you and see what you think.
Adaydreambeliever 