Home | About | Donate

Bad News to a Sick and Miserable-looking Earth: "I'm Afraid You Have Humans."

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/09/19/bad-news-sick-and-miserable-looking-earth-im-afraid-you-have-humans

It’s not all humans, just a twisted group who swallowed the philosophy that they were chosen by some god to rape, pillage, and otherwise destroy the place until said god swooped down, killed off the non-chosen people, and remade the place for their use only. That’s been going on for over seven thousands years, and has gotten much much worse. I’m glad to see the children realize they’re part of a much larger whole, and want to take part in healing Gaia. May they succeed.

1 Like

taking the outcome from colonization, capitalization, the industrial revolution and blaming it on everyone shows you are not intelligent enough to be taken seriously.

“I’m Afraid You Have Humans.”

And they have metastasized.


Nice writing. Well done.

There’s enough truth to the humor here to answer the joke seriously. Since that is so, it is worth mentioning that the good Dr. Saturn’s diagnosis could be refined as follows: “Your humans are malfunctioning.”

The improvement does not cater to a lot of potentially damaging ideas that come from the assumptions that one’s fellow persons cannot behave differently and therefore that human populations must be purged, sterilized, or eliminated. These sorts of ideas are expressed quite frequently in otherwise fairly informed discussion. These are accompanied by various partially derived misconceptions.

First, though, let me clarify that I do not believe that humans can increase population indefinitely. There are limits, but they are not where we have imagined them. We can support the population currently on the planet and even a good few more, but only with one very problematic stipulation: the humans must behave more or less properly. Probably some of you do not believe this possible for the species. Let us set that aside for a paragraph or two, until I can double back around to answer the objection. As to whether we can accomplish it in the act, starting from where we are now and with time and resources being what they are, I will accept as an open question.

However, the life-bearing planet is one system of many systems. And for by far most of the time of its existence, the genus Homo and even the problematic current H sapiens sapiens were keystone species in various ecosystems. In the case of H sapiens, the evidence remains extant particularly in the remaining documentation of precolonial systems of California and of Australia (see Kat Anderson’s Tending the Wild and Bruce Pascoe’s Black Emu particularly). Humans lived well, though with many of our usual follies, shaped the landscape and biomes around us, and participated in the creation of lush landscapes.

So humans have at times behaved well, at least within the limits to be accepted by an ecosystem that may not particularly care about violence or prejudice between humans in any particularly direct way.

Moreover, historically, humans who have been well supplied, including with education for both men and women, do not continue to increase population indefinitely. So population control is a function of population care, and far more usefully so than the reverse, at least for the population in question (compare WHO population studies for various years and countries).

So it is possible to do this. Moreover, it is possible to do this with far denser populations than were present before because amongst the folly there have evolved viable systems of managing regenerative ecologies with fairly high human density (Masanobu Fukuoka’s The One-Straw Revolution, the work of Ernst Gotsch on Syntropic Agriculture, and by far the most extensive and painstaking work Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual, by Bill Mollison). There is, at least in the very great majority of environments, no need for the controlled burns that were used by small populations to work large areas of land. Controlled and limited rotational grazing and browsing can reduce fuel loads in fire areas, and human work can create coppice for fuel (regarding grazing, the most interesting is probably Alan Savory, who calls his version holistic management).

So it is possible to do this with many people, provided that they behave well. And it is possible for humans to behave moderately well, more or less at the standards that we might set for other animals within an ecosystem.

A major misconception allied to the above errors is that only those within the imperial capitols enjoy a worthwhile life, or that their lives are at least somehow richer and more valuable. This is self-congratulatory bunk has been foisted onto Western wage slaves, middle management, and self-styled “entrepreneurs” for a bit over 150 years now, too long for individuals who have not lived among other populations in other sorts of economy to have any very direct appreciation of the layers of fraud involved in its perpetration.

One effect of this is the notion that “Life is cheap” in other places, almost as though mothers did not mourn for lost children or that imperial violence abroad were somehow lessened by such assertions. Another is that it would be a grand sacrifice to forgo the running of empire. It is quite possible to lose an empire and wind up in very bad shape, of course. But losing an empire and experiencing blowback is part and parcel of having one–something that the empire charges its citizens in the end, after all the pains of maintaining it.

No, there are lives richer than the standard American or European life, and with less empire and less subjugation, they may become more common. The case is admittedly far starker within the US than out. Americans can buy trinkets, but cannot buy houses, cannot pay for health care, cannot get decent care on retirement, cannot receive an education commensurate to the requirements of the society without crippling debt, cannot compete with corporate money in the election of representatives (such as that is), and so forth.

But sure, there can be watermelons from Chile in December, T-shirts from Asia, and all that. Things could be worse for most people. But they sure could be better. And it would not take nearly so much hydrocarbon energy, nor nuclear energy, nor so much electricity as we use today. It’s a bit of a study. But you know, not shooting oneself in the foot is a project worth looking into.

1 Like

I’ve long maintained that humans are not a good species. They are like bacteria; there are the good kind but the bad sort really wreck havoc on poor Mother Earth, who, it now seems, is in her death throes.

1 Like

I encourage watching the documentary “Chasing Ice; Extreme Ice Survey.” The ice is melting so rapidly the earth’s tree, plants, birds, bees, insect, etc. can not adapt. The danger is in the escalation of the ice melting. When the ice melts to a certain point there will be no stopping the escalation. We will be cooked and the earth will live on in a different form.
I believe we are in the middle of a mass suicide as a result of childhood trauma in United States of America. Try this: If there are 10 people in a room 5 are the victims of childhood sexual abuse, just ask. We will be unable to stop the melting of ice until we stop slaying a child’s soul and address the trauma.


We are a primitive race, the toddlers of the universe if you will .
Please read the book Conversation With God Book 4 Awaken The Species.
It will make sense out of the nonsense.

1 Like

Hello Robert Koheler and Everyone. We have passed the point of no return with the planet getting the last laugh as humanity has only an unknown limited number of days before extinction arrives. Anything we do to mitigate the problem will not reverse the problem so it will continue marching onward until much of the life of the planet is gone. Millions of years will probably go by and then life will start over. Will that life be more intelligent that us? I hope so!

Hello August, In the movie, The Matrix, Agent Smith has an observation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aezikcoCr4o

Hello smitty70, You are describing the 6th mass extinction. which will come to us sometime in the future, sooner rather than later.