Cav's Place

I wrote that putting a price tag on nature according to the monetary value of the services it provides to humans can be useful in persuading authorities and companies to care for it if all fair methods fail, at least until cheaper methods of providing the same services become available. It’s obviously wrong to look at nature in terms of the services it provides, but it is a means to an end.
However, if we don’t want this to blow up in our faces later, we need to make sure that those government officials and corporate managers will be people who care for nature for its intrinsic value before technology will be able to replace the services it provides. To that end, we need to make sure that the “average person” starts putting nature before the economy and their personal financial interests now! Or we could at least start by ensuring that those who don’t do that won’t have access to higher positions…

You just can’t take this speech about the monetary value of nature to the average person on the street. Those people must support environmentalists and pressure governments and corporations into doing the right thing, which won’t happen if they see nature just as a provider of services. They must be persuaded to help if possible, set aside if they’ll neither help nor hinder, or destroyed by any means necessary if they try to stop plans meant to protect the environment. Once again, such a noble end really does justify the means.
There are nearly seven billion humans today, but we only have one Earth. We can’t sacrifice Earth for humans, but we can and must sacrifice some humans for Earth. We can tell those in power what they want to hear in order to get things done now, before they can be replaced, but other approaches must be used on the rest. Thinking of nature in terms of the monetary value of the services it provides is simply too wrong to do unless absolutely necessary.

It’s probably obvious that this post is born more out of anger than anything else. What infuriated me and made me want to write it was the end of the article about Borneo from the November edition of National Geographic Magazine.
No, the way to protect forests and biodiversity is not to make sure that people can get the things they want for themselves and a good future for their children, preferably without more plantations and strip mines… The first thing needed in order to protect the environment is a drastic reduction of the number of humans, which means that people must first not have those children that they want a future for. That would take care of an important part of the problem. As for the other part, it should be the other way around. Yes, it would be preferable to be able to also give people what they need, but only when (and if) it will be possible to do so without harming the environment!

Humans think they’re more than they are and we need to look at things from another perspective. Humans are not the center of the Universe! They’re not even the most important thing on Earth, the Earth itself is! You don’t need to look for ways to convince them that doing the right thing is in their own best interest. If a person doesn’t understand that the right thing is the right thing regardless of any personal interests they might have and the cause doesn’t require that specific person’s aid at that specific moment, they must be kicked aside and left there as long as they don’t get in the way. If they decide to get in the way, they must be removed by any means necessary.
There was a phrase on the site of the Romanian Green Party which said that they don’t support “environmental terrorism”, but want to achieve the best possible level of environmental protection without sacrificing the well-being of the people who depend on it. I’m sick and tired of that! I want the best possible conditions for people without sacrificing the environment and see “environmental terrorism” as a way to deal with those who would want to sacrifice the environment for their own well-being, if they won’t listen to reason. Using questionable (or worse) methods against those who put themselves before the Earth is certainly better than telling them that it’s all right to do so!

Actually, this doesn’t apply just to the environment. It applies to every problem caused by humans. First ask them to help. If they won’t, ask them to at least step aside and not hinder you. If they won’t, make them!
Most humans aren’t nice to the planet, aren’t nice to the other species we share it with, aren’t nice to each other and many aren’t even nice to themselves. Why should the few who are fighting for a good, scientifically proven, cause be nice to those who aren’t nice to them or the world? Why should they tickle their egos, make them think they’re more important than they are? Why should the personal interests of those who care for nothing else prevail? Why should greed and selfishness be rewarded?

But to get back to the issue of the environment, the rewards should go towards those who do not worsen the overpopulation problem by having children, who agree to move out of areas where their very presence is harmful to the environment, who would be willing to use seasonal fruits and vegetables for food instead of demanding a constant choice of everything, who reduce their waste, who do not buy things they don’t need, who do not drive polluting vehicles unless it’s an emergency and would do a number of other things to show that they truly care. If the available resources would be focused towards them instead of being wasted on those who put themselves before the world, regardless of which end of the wealth spectrum they’re on, things might have a chance to start moving in the right direction at a reasonable pace before it’s too late… If it’s not too late already…