Year
100 million BC. A group of elderly diplodocuses are holding an
emergency meeting at a land mass not too far from the modern day Rio de
Janeiro. Though not called 'Rio Summit', the meeting's agenda was not
too dissimilar from the one that ended in Rio on June 22.
Some diplodocus (the largest dinosaurs to ever live on earth) had realised that they were feeding on future. The vegetation they ate was shrinking fast and if they didn't slowdown soon, their extinction was imminent. The 2-page declaration (shorter and clearer than the 52-page issued at Rio on June 22) called for all diplodocus settlements to monitor and ration their consumption and suggest ways of sustainable living.
They decided to meet once every year to review their pledge. Some 35 million years later, the last of dinosaurs had disappeared from the face of the earth-paving the way for many new species to develop, including the human being. Of course, dinosaurs never held such a meeting. Perhaps because they were unaware of their unsustainable ways of living, or perhaps because they knew of the inevitability of their extinction no matter how hard they tried to prevent it.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 165 million years, adopting different shapes, sizes and forms for survival and scripting what scientists believe to be the most unqualified success in the history of life on Earth. Humans have been on this planet only for a period between 2 lakh to 25,000 years (just 0.12% of the dinosaurs period).
Quite remarkably, in such a short period, humans have emerged as the most intelligent and evolved inhabitant of the planet. So much so that they equate their future with the earth's. 'Save earth' is the slogan, not 'save humanity'. The summits are called "earth summit" and not "humanity summit".
The difference isn't in semantics. For something as serious, concerted and expensive as environment protection not making a distinction between earth's future and humanity's future is missing the woods for the trees. Earth-a 4.5 billion years old planet-has been through periods when it was all but molten lava to times when everything on its surface was lifelessly cold.
It even survived collision with a Mars-sized body, which resulted in its only natural satellite, the moon. To think that mankind-the most intelligent of earth's all creatures-can 'protect' it, is preposterous. In fact, history of our planet is repeated proof of the fact that extinctions and destructions are essential part of its evolution.
 |
Sure, may be in substance, the 'save earth' campaigner do really mean 'save mankind'. And since humans are more intelligent and powerful than all other inhabitants, it also means that they should act more responsibly and take care of the earth more than any other species does right now. Certainly more than dinosaurs did millions of years ago. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this objective. Superiority should come bundled with maturity.
So where is the problem?
The problem is in being confused between what is natural behaviour and what is civilised behaviour. That mankind is most intelligent is a natural outcome of evolution. But maturity isn't a natural instinct. It's the demand of civilisation. And more often than not when there is a choice between acting on the natural instinct or behaving by the norms of civilisation, man opts for the former.
Whether it is over-exploiting natural resources or wildlife poaching, these are natural human instincts. Yes they are reprehensible, they smack of greed and they are mostly illegal. The laws prohibiting such acts should be made more stringent, not less.
Yet it cannot be forgotten that destroying environment or wild life is fundamental to human nature. Greed, be it of an insider trader on the Wall Street or a poacher in a wild life sanctuary, is not an artificially injected instinct, it is the most basic of human tendency. Even the most superior species of the nature is born with it-and will always be. Unless of course we bequeath our future to robots!
So there is a natural inevitability in what we call environment degradation. Yes we should continue to slow it. But we won't be able to stop it. Not only because we possibly can't, but also because stopping environment change is against the natural evolution of earth.
Mankind can't prolong its survival if it is in the instinct of human being to not preserve. And this instinct is as natural in mankind as it was in Dinosaurs. What makes us different from animals is that we have curbed and controlled our natural instincts. But we have not decimated it, and it will surface every now and then from its dormant state. Yet there is something mankind can-and perhaps will-do that no creature of earth has ever done. That is to find another earth.
Professor Stephen Hawkins said this while inaugurating YouTube's Spacelab project recently: "As long as we are confined to one planet, the survival of our species will always be in question. Humanity's future lies in moving beyond earth." So man's quest to evolve towards a perfect civilisational state of being should continue in as much earnest as the quest to find habitable zones in the universe. The former is utopian and will take eternity. The latter should be hastened and given more priority.
The problem is in being confused between what is natural behaviour and what is civilised behaviour. That mankind is most intelligent is a natural outcome of evolution. But maturity isn't a natural instinct. It's the demand of civilisation. And more often than not when there is a choice between acting on the natural instinct or behaving by the norms of civilisation, man opts for the former.
Whether it is over-exploiting natural resources or wildlife poaching, these are natural human instincts. Yes they are reprehensible, they smack of greed and they are mostly illegal. The laws prohibiting such acts should be made more stringent, not less.
Yet it cannot be forgotten that destroying environment or wild life is fundamental to human nature. Greed, be it of an insider trader on the Wall Street or a poacher in a wild life sanctuary, is not an artificially injected instinct, it is the most basic of human tendency. Even the most superior species of the nature is born with it-and will always be. Unless of course we bequeath our future to robots!
So there is a natural inevitability in what we call environment degradation. Yes we should continue to slow it. But we won't be able to stop it. Not only because we possibly can't, but also because stopping environment change is against the natural evolution of earth.
Mankind can't prolong its survival if it is in the instinct of human being to not preserve. And this instinct is as natural in mankind as it was in Dinosaurs. What makes us different from animals is that we have curbed and controlled our natural instincts. But we have not decimated it, and it will surface every now and then from its dormant state. Yet there is something mankind can-and perhaps will-do that no creature of earth has ever done. That is to find another earth.
Professor Stephen Hawkins said this while inaugurating YouTube's Spacelab project recently: "As long as we are confined to one planet, the survival of our species will always be in question. Humanity's future lies in moving beyond earth." So man's quest to evolve towards a perfect civilisational state of being should continue in as much earnest as the quest to find habitable zones in the universe. The former is utopian and will take eternity. The latter should be hastened and given more priority.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire