Are Humans the "Most Important" Species

Humans may be at the top of the food chain, but are we the most important species; the species that will endure through whatever happens on this planet?  Today is Earth Day and as a  transmogrified conversationalist into quasi-eco-terrorist environmental activist (I write acerbic rhetoric); it is incumbent of me to write something.  But why?  After 60 years of ecologists preaching that one cannot shit in the same kitchen where they cook and eat without dying of sepsis, no one is listening, not even many of the "activists"  who hang with (and get digits from) other activists and pule about how "someone" should "do something".   However, that "someone" is never them.

So?  What's the point?

Normally, I would start preaching statistics to prove my point, but then I end up preaching to the choir of those who already know the lyrics of statistics -- and everyone else's eyes glaze over and they go to Yahoo News to see how Lindsay Lohan is doing in rehab.

Just because we can consume more other species, doesn't make us the most important, only the most invasive.  For those of you who may have heard of The Gaia Hypothesis, which contends that "the earth is a single self-regulating system" realizes that this may mean that the planet may react to human invasiveness the same way as our bodies react to an invasive infection.

End of the human race?

 Though a bit hard to ignore the drastic climate changes in just the last few years, many people will and even deny that things have changed much.    Now I am not predicting decimation of the whole human race, as Mayan Doomsayers would.  (Though I do think there is a certain irony to the fact that it might end this year.)  However, give the increase in deadly disasters over the last few years and the loss of land mass due to rising oceans, I do believe that starting soon large numbers of the population will no longer exist and the planet's over all population will quickly dwindle to being much smaller.   I believe James Lovelock when he predicted that "in less than 100 years, what exists of the human race will have to live north of the Arctic Circle"   That clock started ticking over 60 years ago and Lovelock did specify that it might not take the full 100 years to reach the point of human consolidation above the 66th Parallel.   

Life in the Arctic in the near future.

The Arctic seems to be preparing a way for humans.   You can no longer "stand" at the North Pole.   You can float about it in a boat, but where ice existed less than 15 years ago is now a new ocean; the Northwest Passage; that very passage that explorers sought over 300 years ago.  

Earth Day: What's in Your Trash?

The irony of Earth Day observance is that many people will go off and "clean up" a beach or a meadow or a forest, taking with them boxes of plastic trash bags which are one of the worse contributors to the carbon footprint.   This process is a chain of emissions, from getting the materials to the factory, the actual manufacturing and then further emissions while transporting said bags to the "ecologically minded" folks who are really simply assuaging their guilt for the lifestyle they live which contributes to global warming and the overall over use of the planet's resources beyond its capability to replenish those resources.  What was required would have been drastic changes in lifestyle and a choice to care for the planet at the cost of some conveniences 

Wait?  Did I say was, past tense?   Yep.   Fundamentally, it's too late.  Tons of ice are melting off of the Polar Tundra, exposing moss and releasing carbon emissions at an unstoppable rate without the help of human emissions.  So, it's already a done deal, only a matter of time.  Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quit publishing reports on human contribution to global warming and is now publishing reports on "disaster mitigation."

Mitigate What?

The loss of human life, that's what.  Since prevention of global warming is out of human hands the IPCC is studying the ramifications of the Earth's continued core warming.   Without going into details, the ramification is deadly disasters from atmospheric (tornadoes, hurricanes, typhoons,...) to geological (Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions).   They are studying ways to mitigate the impact on human beings, which is to say, decreasing the deadliness, destructiveness, potential for creating an unbalance which will allow terrorism and war to proliferate as resources become harder to obtain.

You can read the IPCC's report: "Managing the Risks of Extreme Events And Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation"  (rolls right off the tongue)   Note the word adaptation which is a way of saying the shit is going to hit the fan, prepare for it.  Gaia is about to shrug and humans may not fare as well as their arrogance would assume.

Now what?

Of course it's not like there isn't something that can be done.  It's just that the shift has to be from an ecological paradigm, to a humanist paradigm.   Fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves: "what can I do to help my fellow humans when catastophy befalls them?'

There is a lot and since there is a program designed to explain and train people in how to help their fellow humans in dire need, I will refer to NIMS, a free training program designed to teach lay persons how to help in a disaster.  Or, you can become part of a CERT (Citizen Emergency Response Team).  Or you can figure all this is too inconvenient to consider.  You'd be in...not good, but mass company to think that way.