Neat, apart from all the factual errors. Barn roofs being long gone after ten years? Garden vegetables "reverting to wild strains" after twenty years? Unlikely.
This sort of line that people take, "Humans are destroying the planet". Annoys me.
The thing is, the only damage we are doing to the planet is making it harder for ourselves to live on it, life will continue to thrive after us in some form or another.
Arrogance and greed will be the ruination of man, and the answer to your question is, "Yes, it would matter." I feel pity for someone who could be so out of touch from the world in which he or she came. There's much, much more to the world than humanity. Do yourself a favor: step away from your computer today and find some of it.
> I feel pity for someone who could be so out of touch from the world in which he or she came. There's much, much more to the world than humanity.
Right, but is there inherent value in the world outside of the subjective human standard? Like, is the world valuable beyond what people judge it to be valuable?
That's not such an easy question. Like, is turning a tree into some books a good thing? Trees are natural, books are not. Pumping oil out of the ground, burning it for electricity? This destroys the world, but enriches minds and saves human lives, and advances pursuits we deem valuable.
How about viruses - they're natural. Should we leave malaria and dysentery alone because they're natural? I say wipe them out, but you could carry that same logic into suggesting that we should chop down trees to build houses and print books, that we should burn fossil fuels for electricity and to create composites, that we should level areas of nature for the building of cities...
And mind you, I love nature. I spend a lot of time in it, and really love it. I consider myself a conservationist and hate wasting stuff. But that's because the world is good to us, and serves us. The parts of the world that are hostile to us - rabid animals, parasites, diseases - wipe all that stuff out. And the resources that can be converted into wonderful things we use - electricity, composites, circuits, computers, houses, transportation, and so on - well, convert it. I'll happily turn a gallon of oil into a few hours of electricity and some CO2.
Everything we judge "good" about the natural world is judged so because of our human standards, and because of how it relates and interacts with humanity. Without humanity, nature would not be good or bad by human standards. Trees and tapeworms and oil and rocks and water and ice are all of the exact same value to humanity if humanity doesn't exist, and if humanity does exist, those things are all of quite different values to us.
No matter what how much damage we do to this planet, we are still the only species who have a chance of making it off the planet before it smashes into the sun.
You can say what you want about us and how beautiful nature is, but in the end there are thousand of species that can fly but only one that can play the guitar, thousands of species that can walk, but only one that invented the car, a million species that breath but only one that build a ship to sail under the waters...
The point of all this is that the human species really is something special.
It will be much harder if it's not us. We've taken a lot of the easy resources, and many of them won't come back before the sun eats the Earth. (Some will, many won't.) Hard to build a technological civilization with no copper deposits left. It can (probably) be done, but it will be orders of magnitude slower.
No matter what how much damage we do to this planet, we are still the only species who have a chance of making it off the planet before it smashes into the sun.
What about animals used in farming, plants used in agriculture, pets, useful bacteria etc.? I'm quite sure they will not be left behind.
There's also a rather large amount of anti-nuclear hysteria in there.
All plants would have 'burned or melted down'? Sure, apart from the 100% of plants that weren't in the middle of a dangerous test with all the safety systems turned off at the exact moment that the operators disappeared.
The rest would just go cold and sit there (pretty safely, baring an earthquake) until erosion broke down the concrete containment building.
I know this is supposed to be beautiful and poetic, and I do see a bit of that. But then I also remember two things:
1) The thinking behind this is essentially religious in nature.
2) While growing up, many of us were bombarded with similar messages in school starting from a very young age. Very little, if any, attention was given to the idea that humans on Earth might be more than a corrupting influence on nature.
Who knows, maybe they could even be right. But the manner in which the message is disseminated makes me very suspicious.
On the surface, this is a sobering reflection on our impermanence. But, I think this evokes the more beautiful idea that, in all likelihood, the world will not be without us.
Humans will be able to carry on through whatever epic tragedies we organize or in whatever nightmarish environments we concoct.
Our defining characteristic is adaptability. We are like massively clever cockroaches.
The world may be too much with us, but it'll have to make do.
The sad thing is that I have seen this all in the past as a single image that shows up on reddit every once in a while. Turning into a flash pos just wastes my bandwidth.
