You sure are a self-righteous know-it- all. Get off your high horse and join the rest of us down here on the ground.

I’m under no illusion that, when/if we go, we’re going to take (are in the process of taking) a lot of other species with us — which is deplorable; but the biosphere will in all probability endure, regenrate and recover regardless of the mess we leave behind. It might take a while, but ultimately it will.

I’ve always believed that humanity harbours an inflated perception of our own significance. We believe that if we cease to be, so does the planet, when in reality we’re merely a blip in geological time. Okay, we’re a blip that punches above its weight in terms of impact… but a blip nonetheless.

Through our plundering we’ve created an ecological imbalance in the earth’s systems, the planet’s natural buffers are all but exhausted, and one way or another Nature will redress the balance. The choice we’re making right now is whether we’ll work with nature to help her obtain that balance, or persist with our brief and ultimately unsustainable tenure on earth until we perish.

A simplistic summary, perhaps… but that’s pretty much what it boils down to. I’m for the first option, by the way :).

Of course if the phrase “killing the planet” or “saving the planet” helps as a persuasive argument to get the masses off their butts to engage with the issue, then I’m all for it… but based on current evidence I’m not convinced that it’s working.

Personally I think that switching the focus from survival of the planet to survival of humanity makes for a more compelling argument. We’re fundamentally selfish beings (which is why we’re in this mess to begin with)… and it brings the issue closer to home… don’t you think?

Right… enough. This is longer than I anticipated. Should have turned it into a blog post instead. Thanks for the opportunity to engage my brain in something other than writing about digital marketing for a while!

Oh well, fun’s over, back to work!

@Calvin, I get your point but I respectfully disagree! We are currently in the middle of a mass extinction known as the Holocene Extinction. From the wikipedia entry for same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event):

Most biologists believe that we are at this moment at the beginning of a tremendously accelerated anthropogenic mass extinction. E.O. Wilson of Harvard, in The Future of Life (2002), estimates that at current rates of human disruption of the biosphere, one-half of all species of life will be extinct in 100 years.

While I understand that the planet itself is not alive, per se and therefore can’t be killed. If we kill 50% of the species on the planet in the next 100 years I don’t think it is hyperbolic to use language like killing the planet.

Great post, and I agree with most of what you say. High oil prices are indeed fuelling (pardon the pun) the move towards more sustainable alternatives. It’s a shame things have to hit people in the pocket before they take any action… but there you go.

The one point I would like to make is this — whenever people debate climate change (I refuse to call it global warming, especially looking out of the window in West Cork today) and the impact we’re having on the earth they tend to talk about saving/killing the planet. That’s not what’s happening here… the planet will carry on regardless.

What we’re really talking about is saving/killing humanity. Long after we’re gone the planet will simply dust itself off and get on with things. It might seem like nit picking, but is, I believe, an important distinction.

OT: I’d be interested to see a post from GreenMonk on hybrids like the Prius vs. efficient diesel cars like the BMW Mini with Efficient Dynamics. Is mpg and emissions all there is to measure or is the hybrid better even with worse mpg? (BMW Mini diesels with ED apparently get 60mpg.)