Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

[coberst]

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

 

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature as we squander ours and all succeeding generations’ inheritance. How does a nation convince its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

 

How is it possible to convince a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

 

Would it be possible to convince the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of an unsophisticated people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based or the people must become more sophisticated quickly.

 

Perhaps a compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality appears to be insufficient for creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

 

Are you a good steward of this planet?

[Essay]

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

 

Perhaps a compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality appears to be insufficient for creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

Religion needs education to ground it in reality though. Without a better understanding of reality, these religions (at least the fundamentalist ones) get some crazy ideas.

 

Just look at these [albiet political] fundamentalist ideas:

George Stephanopoulos:

What is the Republican plan to deal with carbon emissions, which every major scientific organization has said is contributing to climate change.

 

John Boehner:

George, the idea that carbon dioxide, uh is--is a carcinogen--that is harmful to our environment, is almost comical.

Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world--uh, you know, when they do what they do--you've got more carbon dioxide. And so, I think that it's clear that we've had climate change over the last 100 years.

 

George: (slightly incredulously)

So you don't believe greenhouse gases are a problem in creating climate change?

 

John Boehner:

Listen, it's clear that we've had change in our climate. The question is: How much does man have to do with it--and what is the proper way to deal with this? We can't do it alone as one nation. If we've got India, China, and other industrialized countries--uh, not working with us--all we're going to do is ship millions of American jobs overseas.

 

George:

But is sounds like though, that from what you're saying, that you don't believe that the Republicans need to come up with a plan to control carbon emissions. You're suggesting that it's not that big of a problem, even though the scientific concensus is that....it has ...contributed to climate change.

 

John Boehner:

Well, I think it is big. I think it is an issue. The question is: What is the proper answer, and a responsible answer.

 

George:

And what is the answer? That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

John Boehner:

George, I think everyone in America is looking for the, uh proper answer.

We don't want to raise taxes 1.5-2 trillion dollars, like the administration is proposing, and we don't want to ship millions of American jobs overseas. And so, we've got to find ways to work towards this--the solution to this problem without risking the future of our kids and grandkids.

 

Yes, think about the future of our legacy--our kids and grandkids.

Then they went on to talk about Dick Army, leading teabagger protesting taxes to support the future.

 

...but I just had to share that great line:

George, the idea that carbon dioxide, uh is--is a carcinogen--that is harmful to our environment, is almost comical.

No, Mr. Boenher, it is--actually and totally--comical.

Maybe he just misspoke--about the carcinogenicity of CO2.

 

No wonder that they think low taxes, and third-world standards (to protect our jobs), are the solution to every problem.

...not that I'm seeing much, in the way of sensible alternatives, on any other side either.

 

Is this really the Republican level of understanding?

It certainly "is almost comical."

 

p.s. Two typos in one sentence!

Then they went on to talk about Dick Armey, leading teabaggers protesting taxes to support the future. ...and of course it's Boehner, not Boneher.

[maikeru]

George, the idea that carbon dioxide, uh is--is a carcinogen--that is harmful to our environment, is almost comical.

Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world--uh, you know, when they do what they do--you've got more carbon dioxide.

 

That reminds why I stopped being a Republican.

[Ganoderma]

i couldnt even use "caretaker" and "humans" in the same sentence when talking about earth. the world is far too complex....we have seen so little of it and understand so much less of it, and what we have discovered we have managed to damage quite a bit, many times leaving permanent scars.

 

So to the title, no. never mind responsible, we are not really in any place to be care giving. If anything we need to be controlling ourselves from further damage. Earth/nature is amazing at bouncing back, and it does so in many cases despite our best efforts to suppress it.

[jackson33]

Are We Responsible Caretakers of this Planet?

 

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature as we squander ours and all succeeding generations’ inheritance. How does a nation convince its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

 

Would it be possible to convince the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of an unsophisticated people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based or the people must become more sophisticated quickly.

 

Perhaps a compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality appears to be insufficient for creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

 

Are you a good steward of this planet?

 

Are you asking for a list of items, humanity has already accomplished though technology to enhance the quality of life, in turn to control adverse effects on themselves? Are you thinking that man should revert back to 'say' the fifth century or maybe before history was written and live as the real "caretakers?" lived? How do you think, this human society has grown to give some quality (certainly by comparison) to the 6.6 BILLION people now living on the planet and why on earth would your want to choose which parts of society should sacrifice life itself to establish some utopia which may not be possible, in the first place?

 

For YOUR information, probably half the people in industrialized nations today, over 60-70 yo could not live WITH OUT air conditioning and I am not sure how many more of all ages would die off for lack of modern hearting systems. Where is your limitation on "greed and selfishness"? If some stranger family with out a home, knocks on your door, will you let them in feed them, educate them or all the things most every modern society does daily in some manner? I doubt it....

 

Yes, by all means lets give religion the authority over humanity and it's arrogant authority over those that agree with each of the 2,765 different faiths. Go back to the Religious Renaissance of of the 14th-18th th Century where each wared over every little detail, forcing their beliefs and practices on any society they could defeat in war. Where mankind's only existence is framed on the idea of an inevitable end. Hundreds of such wars occured each century, people were born/raised to die for that admirable cause. Frankly to much of that nonsense still exist today.

 

Don't be quite so hateful of the generations that have not only given you the possibility of a long, productive life, but the right to feel and say openly what you wish or in fact those other 6,599,999.999 individuals, many of which don't have all you have.

 

As for direct stewardship, you have the right pitch a tent, live off your garden and NOT do all those destructive earthly things blamed on people you can't possibly know and their habits but from some reading or some others opinion have decided, must be correct.

[dannieyankee]

We are 100% responsible for what happens to our planet.

 

Because it isn't OUR planet, it does not belong to us. We are not the only species living on this planet, and so, although if we decide we want to die out, we should not decide the fates of every other species on this planet.

[sanctus]

Why? One could argue that all our actions are also only a natural process, since our brain comes out from natural evolution...which then can be seen as the usual law "survival of the fittest". :shrug:

 

I actually agree that we are 100% responsible, just because we are responsible of our actions. It is not important towards whom (future generations, other species,etc.) and why to decide whether we are respnsible.