11 of 33

Write now Article Tools

Propaganda alert! This title is not about debating environmental standards. It's about assuming the premise "fragile ecosystems". Who says they're fragile?

Let's get some perspective on the premise that the ecosystem is fragile, in Peru, or anywhere. Crystal and china are fragile, not ecosystems. Second, exactly who stands to gain from casting humans as the bull in this presumably fragile eco-shop? Is the implication that were it not for us, loathsome humans, Peru's ecosystem would not be teetering on the precarious precipice of annihilation, at the mercy of our alleged brutality. Aside from attempting to goad me into self-contempt camp, there's no shortage of human hubris here, is there?

Sorry to burst our bubble, but only nature and God operate on scales such as "earth", not the human race. We're just not in the same league. Consequently, we are neither going to break nor fix mother earth. Brain to ego, come in ego, can you hear me ego... the fate of the universe is not in our tiny hands. Based on the miniscule physical powers we've acquired so far, in this universe, we're still mostly just along for the ride.

Look, before we accept blame for mismanaging billions-of-years old forces of nature, why don't we focus on first conquering backyard weeds, eliminating the common cold, work our way up to cancer remedies, and maybe in a long, long, long time we begin to grasp makes this planet and the universe tick. To save some time, I'll venture an arrogated glimpse into the future on behalf of humanity and guess that the earth does not need us to save it. Quite to the contrary, we need it to save us from starvation and freezing to death by consuming it.

Now, moving on to the non-issue, because although I find the premise of the title null and void, in addition to reeking with self-loathing, something I'm not into, I do believe in minimizing environmental damage to the extent that it would otherwise interfere with human well being. After all, the whole point of practicing good planetary stewardship by protecting, conserving, sustaining, and not contaminating our life resources is to benefit us in the end. Benefit us, in fact, to put it bluntly, to the extent that I would sacrifice every forest, lake, and animal on earth if it saves the life of even one human being. That's because in the game of survival on this planet, I am not going down before any species.

The false, stillborn premise of this title has failed to lure me into the role of its enabler by virtue of a response, for none is deigned. The proposition, unmasked for the pitiful, presumptuous lie it posits, obviates any reciprocal discourse moot, else foolish, and the sign of a weaker mind, or therein outright lack of any mind at all.

I am an expert neither in environmental science, nor industrialization, nor in their optimal interaction. However, what I do know is that their interaction needs to be optimized to serve me, and not the other way around.

Learn more about this author, Hugh Mann.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should US environmental standards apply when multinational companies develop the petroleum resources of fragile ecosystems such as Peru's Amazon??
We want to hear your view. Write now!