We destroy everything in sight

This is basically the same argument I have made.  Global warming or not, we still need clean air, water and food sources to survive.

We destroy everything in sight

Glenn Peters

Peters, of Roanoke, is retired from CSX Corp. in Richmond.

After 10 or more years of most everyone on Earth being involved in a screaming match about global warming, my patience has grown mighty thin. Most of the pieces that have been written on the subject have led us to believe that the whole argument is based on science versus public ignorance of the facts.

Then, a piece appeared in the July 4 paper, “Not blinded by science, but ideology,” that shows that the angry viewpoints are based on most everything except science or the lack of scientific understanding. It seems that scientists have now discovered that some of the better educated opponents of global warming are actually venting their political beliefs, and some who hold ultra-conservative views of religion, ecology and, yes, personal investments have much more to do with viewpoints than an understanding of science or lack of it.

This leads me to believe global warming is a red herring. I freely confess that I had to check with Webster for an accurate meaning of “red herring,” which is “something used to divert attention from the basic issue.”

The basic issue is that we are a bunch of greedy, careless and wasteful slobs. We have systematically polluted the world’s air, our food, the oceans, lakes, rivers and streams, and most of the land that is not covered by filthy water.

We have, and continue to, cut down every tree big enough to qualify as a tree, lop the top off our mountains and use the fill to destroy streams, and I could continue to write pages about our irresponsible “stewardship” of the wonders of the Earth. Oh, yes, let’s not forget that the Gulf of Mexico is being turned into a cesspool.

I have come to the conclusion that there is an unspoken agreement among screamers to collectively focus all our attention on global warming, rather than face the horror of what we have done to ourselves and each other.

The invisible fat cats pulling the strings from behind the scenes know that if we should face the real issues, it would cost us, and them, untold trillions of dollars just to begin cleaning up the mess the whole world is in. If we touch coal, lumber, oil and most any of the things that are a part of the mess, all we hear is jobs.

Any thinking, or unthinking, person knows that jobs are important, but some day, and the time may be now, we are all going to have to make some hard choices and self-sacrifice. Failure to start now might mean there will be no other chances.

If we begin the global cleanup job, starting with the air we breathe, global warming will take care of itself. We may slow it down a little, or not at all, but the real question is will we lose some worldwide coastal land, or are we going to lose it all?

One more thought about our “responsible” behavior as king of the world. The last issue of National Geographic pointed out that there are some 11,500 objects larger than 4 inches that are cataloged in low Earth orbit, with another 10,000 or so smaller objects in higher orbits. Most of us can remember when man started his conquest of the final frontier. We Earthlings seem to have a knack of destroying everything in sight.

You can take this warning seriously or not. When it’s all gone, the only thing left to destroy is each other, and we seem to have gotten pretty good at that.

I don’t have much time left on this Earth and, as you can tell, I don’t have any formal education, but I sure would like to think that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have somewhere to live and something clean to eat, drink and breathe.

We destroy everything in sight

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to We destroy everything in sight

  1. 2fewfactsaround says:

    Really good essay. Peters “gets it.” It doesn’t matter who’s right about global warming, because the undeniable fact is we are destroying our planet as rapidly and recklessly as we can.

    His comment about “our irresponsible ‘stewardship’ of the wonders of the Earth” reminded me of a statement once made by a very wise person that our destructive attitude may stem from a simple yet profound mis-translation of the Bible verses about Man having dominion over the Earth. The meaning closer to the original version is that Man has responsibility for the things of the earth. ‘Responsibility for’ means something very different from ‘dominion over,’ doesn’t it?

    skyagunsta Reply:

    @2fewfactsaround, It sure does mean something different … and, it sounds so much gentler … “responsibility for the things of the earth” … Any chance our world stewards will ever get the message?

    2fewfactsaround Reply:

    @skyagunsta, Isn’t it interesting (and sad) that so many world leaders get caught up in turf wars over their specific interpretations of their religions and miss the universal tenets of all the world’s great religions? If they could see, hear, think, and believe beyond their egos and closed minds they would act from a much more loving, humane, compassionate place, which would include reverence for the Earth.

    Sorry to sound preachy, but the farther I’ve been able to distance myself from any brand of organized religion, the more I’ve been able to absorb truly spiritual ideas. (Not that I’ve gotten beyond self-serving and self-righteous rants on a disgustingly long list of subjects o :).)

    skyagunsta Reply:

    @2fewfactsaround, Thank you for your truly spiritual ideas because they are always refreshing. And, thank you for your “self-serving and self-righteous rants on a disgustingly long list of subjects” … they bring about the birthing of your truly spiritual ideas… O:-) so… God Bless U for both.

Comments are closed.