<$BlogMetaData$

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

The Eject Button

I've just edited a fascinating but utterly horrifying documentary about climate change in the northern hemisphere and its global implications - one of those pieces that makes you want to run out into the street screaming and gnashing your teeth. (Yes, if you're talented enough to be able to gnash your teeth with your mouth open, that is. Shut up!) Apart from the obvious environmental considerations, it brought two things to mind.

Firstly, that this planet isn't going to take any crap from us. If we generate too many people living too much in a mode that is incompatible with it (i.e. burning gross amounts of coal and oil), something will happen to kill us off until the levels are sustainable again. I remember someone - probably Mart, who knows about these things - telling me that if a naturally occurring population of animals grows beyond sustainable levels, an anxiety kicks in that leads to them fighting and killing each other. A bit like road rage taken to its ultimate conclusion. On, then, a massive scale, too much carbon monoxide etc in the air and the planet is going to reboot, killing us off in the process and removing the irritant from its system. We can't destroy the planet - it won't let us. We can only destroy ourselves.

Secondly, I appreciate the value of the media in kicking my environmental consience into gear, but I'd rather I didn't have the crap scared out of me by stuff I can do NOTHING about. I read somewhere that the problem with news now is that it alerts us to problems we are utterly helpless to rectify and so it just increases our anxiety. (I don't need any more anxiety, thank you very much.) Once upon a time, when news was only local, we would only hear about things that were within reach, and so could help with. (I'm not saying international news is bad, by the way - only that in some cases it may not serve the purpose it sets out to.) I consider myself a reasonably environmentally conscious gal - my latest panic is about how much bloody packaging I consume. Why can't I take reusable containers to the supermarket and just have them refilled with crushed tomatoes, face cream, cheese blah blah rather than throw out a packet every time I've made a bolognaise / hydrated myself / eaten 10 slices? Would anyone like to start a supermarket with me along these lines? But I'm not a climatic scientist. I can (and try) myself do the right things, but I'm not in a position to lead others or lobby for anything in particular. It could be there's nothing we can do, by the way. I need the guidance of those in the know and I DON'T need a BBC documentary to freak me out with scary music and grim predictions, interesting though they were.

4 Comments:

At 28/9/05 9:22 am, Blogger Anika : Stage Walker said...

me thinks that if we were even able to get a supermarket like that off the ground, that the cost for public liability would be huge, (re-usable containers - lead to uncleanliness, etc ie lead to being sued) - the government don't want us to spend a bit more money on things that will in the long run (aye there's the rub {long term!!!}) be better. I know I've waffled, but I know what I mean and that's the main thing.

 
At 28/9/05 5:45 pm, Blogger Magnificent Trout said...

Arggh! We're going to drown in our own plastic!

 
At 1/10/05 7:32 am, Blogger M said...

couldn't help myself: you consume packaging??? i suppose it is full of fibre.

:-p

anyhow, here is a little take on the above: in some countries, parents sell their children's future labour to be able to pay for their current food/water/shelter. essentially, they sell their children into slavery. now in the educated and civilised west, we don't believe in slavery, nooo noo. we only pollute the environment because it is *currently* the most effective way we have of growing food and making houses comfortable.... one of our descendants will eventually invent a way to do it better.... maybe they'll also clean up our mess?

Read the book "better than life" by the guys from Red Dwarf (or it could be some other one, I can't remember now). it has a bit where the planet develops an allergic reaction to humans... not so funny now, is it?

anyway, the bottom line is this: if we intend on having 6 billion people on this planet, we all need to cut back on our l;iving standards - that includes things like media and entertainment. ALternately, we could pay $$$ to ensure that the things we do are sustainable - eg zero-net CO2 from power stations through emission scrubbing and forest management, or sustainable use of water (one of my pet topics). what this would mean is that EVERYTHING that we use, eg food, water, power, fuel would AT LEAST double in price, with NO increase in wages. basically, everything is still too cheap (or we wouldn't be so wasteful). now if everything that we need to live suddenly costs more than what we earn, we find: people will die, and the remaining ones will not watch TV or go to the theatre, or play computer games, or blog, because they will be working 80+ hours a week in jobs where you need to do stuff other than sit behind a desk...

on the other hand, I heard a rumor that NASA is being funded more to promote space exlploration so that we (the western world) can run away from this planet once it becomes uninhabitable. so relax, it's all been taken care of....

reassured?

 
At 3/10/05 1:01 pm, Blogger Magnificent Trout said...

Oh, yes, definitely... (Panics)
But it reminded me of that other great idea of Lister's... "Can't it be that human beings are a kind of disease? That's why all the other planets give us such a wide berth. 'Earth? Don't go near Earth, it's got human beings on it!'"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home