On March 29, 2013, Michael McCarthy, the environmental editor of the Independent (UK), resigned that position. His swan song was entitled Man is fallen and will destroy the Earth — but at least we greens made him wait. Several readers noticed the article and pointed it out to me.
Are people good? Is humankind basically benign?
In our current belief system, which we might term liberal secular humanism, which has held sway in the West since the Second World War, and which promotes human progress and well-being, only one response is permitted: Yes, of course! Any suggestion that there might be something wrong with people as a whole, with Man as a species, is absolute anathema. But today, two circumstances come together to prompt me to pose the question once more...
Regular readers of DOTE are familiar with McCarthy's lead-off questions and already know the answers.
... For if, over the past decade and a half, you have closely observed what is happening to the Earth, week in, week out, you may take a dark view of the future; and I do.
The reason is that the Earth is under threat, as it has never been before, from the ever more oppressive scale of the human enterprise: from the activities of a world population which doubled from three to six billion in four short decades, between 1960 and 2000, and which, in the four decades to come, will probably increase by three billion more.
These activities are now wiping out ecosystems and species, across the world, at an ever increasing rate: the forests are chainsawed; the oceans are stripmined of their fish; the rivers, especially in the developing world, are ever more polluted; the farmland is rendered sterile of all but the monoculture crop by demented dosing with pesticides; the farmland insects and wild flowers and many of the birds have gone.
The vanishing species come from all locations and in all shapes and sizes: in South Africa last year, 668 rhinos were illegally killed for their horn, which has a soaring value in Asia because of the myth of its medicinal qualities, while in Britain in the next 10 years, the turtle dove, beloved bird, will go extinct. The trashing of the natural world is now a global phenomenon and, as the century progresses, it will combine and interact with another great human-caused threat, climate change, until the very viability of the biosphere, the thin envelope of life surrounding the Earth which supports us all, is put at risk...
After listing only a few of humankind's crimes against Nature, McCarthy rubs in his main point.
People are doing this. Let’s be clear about it. It’s not some natural phenomenon, like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. It’s the actions of Homo sapiens. What we are witnessing is a fundamental clash between the species, and the planet on which he lives, which is going to worsen steadily, and the more closely you observe it — or at least, the more closely I have observed it, over the past 15 years — the more I have thought that there is something fundamentally wrong with Homo sapiens himself.
Man seems to be Earth’s problem child. We humans have always thought ourselves different in kind from other creatures, principally for our use of language and our possession of consciousness, but there is another reason for our uniqueness, which is becoming ever clearer: we are the only species capable of destroying our own home. And it looks like we will.
There's more to the article, but that's the gist of it.
Now I would like to turn to the 78 comments on McCarthy's farewell essay. Some of them were fine, and might have been made by DOTE readers. And then there are many of the rest. Here are a few examples, which I numbered for convenience.
#1 "...virus like humans." Wow, a masterpiece of misanthropy. I hope you don't have children and look down upon them as viruses. Humans are much more than just coatings of protein wrapped around lumps of DNA.
#2 Man cannot "destroy the Earth", Michael. What a misanthropic idea. To do that you would need to set off a trillion nuclear bombs in the Earth's core and blast the mantle into smithereens. I think you mean "harm life on Earth", perhaps? Personally, I'm a big believer in humanity, and I think mankind and womenkind are forces for great good in general. However, I agree that the Earth's ecosystems and habitats do need to be treated with more care (especially the Amazon rainforest) without harming humankind's need for technological expansion.
#3 'Destroy the earth'. Or just alter it? I accept man-made climate change is a fact and we need to do things like wean ourselves off fossil fuels (because they'll run out) and stop chopping down the rainforest. But these things will NOT 'destroy the earth'. Ten years ago when 'climate change' was called 'global warming' we were told that in Britain winter would almost cease to exist, we'd having drought, deserts and soon the rich would leave and live in Antarctica which would be the only habitable place on earth. In other words they didn't have a clue and their predictive computer models where as accurate as those used by the banking and finance industry a few years later. Climate change is very much a secondary problem facing humanity and will be helped if we can do something about resource depletion caused by over-population.
#4 "I still think Man will destroy the Earth." Man WILL destroy HUMANITY and most oxygen related species...FACT. Man WILL NOT destroy the Earth, Planet OR WHATEVER media term you choose. We are NOT the Earth, The Planet OR THE BE ALL AND END ALL. We are simply a single species of greedy, inept, selfish, specimens that put the lust for cash above our ability to keep look after basic essentials required to keep us alive. Earth will continue......
#5 What a sad sad world you live in, now that you will have plenty of time away from press releases from wwf/greenpeace and all those other organisations whose existence is dependent on keeping the doom and gloom scenario alive, have look a Matt Ridley's observations at what is happening in the real world. For instance - it appears that in spite of increasing populations whose growth is dramatically slowing even now we need to use less land to sustain ourselves, or that the (inevitably man made, isn't everything n MCarthys world) climate change "disaster" is actually "greening the planet and providing us with more resources.
#6 I read his article expecting that the headline was an exageration of what would be a reasonable text. Oh no, the actual article is a humdinger of nuttines. Everyone should read this article, because it reminds you of the core truth to most environmentalism; self-loathing. And it is through this prism of pathological self loathing that all facts are viewed. Malthus grandly declared over 200 years ago that we would run out of resources, leading to mass famine. Instead the planet now supports a vastly bigger human population in relative comfort. It is possible to love the environment without hating manking. I hope the Independent considers this before appointing another lunatic Cassandra.
In DOTE terms, McCarthy's statements are not controversial, but he must be attacked ferociously because he's basically said that human being are a bunch of fuck-ups. He must punished for saying such a thing. I have often pointed out the risks and difficulties of pointing out to a human audience that humans are a bunch of fuck-ups.
In carrying out their attack, the weaker minds focused on McCarthy's sloppy statement that humans will destroy the Earth (comments #2, #3 and #4). Of course humans will do no such thing. I am usually careful in my language precisely to avoid such human horseshit — I'll write that "humans are destroying the biosphere" or "are destroying large animal life on Earth" and so on.
Always bear in mind that what makes Earth special is the life on it. Otherwise, it's just another ball of metal and rock in a vast, inhospitable Universe.
In comments #1 and #2, we get the term "misanthropy," which is defined as
hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind.
Those comments accused McCarthy of being a misanthrope as if that's a crime. Are people good? In the general case, No. Is humankind basically benign? No, it is not. My views are misanthropic for all the reasons I've enumerated over these last 3-plus years. You can either get through life with all the insight of a garden vegetable, or you can take the more difficult path. Most people do the former for obvious reasons. The road less traveled is less traveled because it is difficult and full of pitfalls.
Comments #5 and #6 are the responses of blind optimists, the dyed-in-the-wool humanists who McCarthy mentions in his 2nd paragraph. One quotes another blind optimist (Matt Ridley) to make his point. Those concerned with the environment are accused of pathological self-loathing. I believe the point is that those selves are human selves, and if those selves have a dim view of humans, those selves must therefore be self-loathing. Speaking for myself, there is no self-loathing. However, I take a contemptuous view of people (like this commenter) who have the consciousness of a garden vegetable. I included comment #6 because it contains a pure ad hominem attack directed at McCarthy. As I said, he must be punished for saying humans are a bunch of fuck-ups.
Now, why would I focus on these inane comments? If you think about it, the reason is obvious and bears repeating—when we consider the Human Condition, we must also acknowledge that these comments are a direct reflection of it. In short, these comments reflect what any thoughtful person is up against in trying to tell Homo sapiens the truth about itself. These comments (and many others like them all over the web) sum up the inherent problems of human existence in the 21st century.
The problems inherent in human existence in the 21st century are not solvable. Realists are very rare indeed.
I will finish up with Dave's Plea For Mercy, which I first published in Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?
To Whom it may concern,
Please don't pull the plug!
Thank You!
But may I suggest a few small modifications to the current simulation program? I humbly submit that You might consider these changes, including but not limited to the following, regarding Your Homo sapiens subroutine—
- make it such that they don't kill or physically harm each other anymore
- make it such that they no longer want to fuck each other over all the time
- give them a low threshold of gratification
- make it such that they don't kill off other species and destroy their natural habitat, including the oceans, the climate, wetlands, tropical forests and so on
- make it such that they're not so damned crazy and confused all the time
- give them the gifts of Reason and Self-Knowledge, tempered with Compassion
- make them humble, such that they always take a realistic view of themselves
- get rid of those irksome Animal Instincts that cause them to grow like bacteria in a Petri dish
If You would consider these small but not insignificant changes, and some others I might submit in the future, I would be eternally grateful.
Yours in simulation software,
Dave Cohen
According to a recent article on global warming in the UK newspaper The Independent partially authored by Michael McCarthy, scientific evidence is emerging that human activity is indeed imperiling the very biosphere itself.
Posted by: Mr. Roboto | 04/15/2013 at 11:33 AM