Apocalypse Soon? - The End Of The World & Media Misanthropy

With various theories about the end of the world gaining popularity, even in the mainstream press, is it about time we took a step back and really evaluated the facts?
Avatar:
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
4
With various theories about the end of the world gaining popularity, even in the mainstream press, is it about time we took a step back and really evaluated the facts?

404

Ah, the end of the world. There seems to be no end to the creativity of the ways that everyone on this planet will breathe their last. There is even a website called ‘exit mundi’ which catalogue them all in lurid detail.

There have been multiple doomsayers over the past few years who have continually protested over the state of affairs concerning the environment, some more extreme than others. One such person is Dr James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory. He believes that not only is climate change inevitable, but also that the vast majority of the earth’s population will be wiped out. As Gaia theory states that the Earth is a living organism like those that live upon its surface, he states that, in an article for The Independent, ‘We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years’.

It has become impossible to ignore the relentless reporting of the threat of climate change. Every news service covers it regularly, it’s reported often in every paper, it’s on the radio, and it’s even made its way onto the Internet. While there has been research into climate change, it would seem the vast majority of people, including those who should really know better, take it as a cast-iron fact that it will happen. They don’t realise that theories in science things constantly change based on new data. No theory is completely certain, and only the continual building up of evidence can add weight to theory. It has come to the point where to point out any shortcomings with the climate change model is to receive distain.

While there has been research into climate change, it would seem the vast majority of people, including those who should really know better, take it as a cast-iron fact that it will happen. They don’t realise that theories in science things constantly change based on new data

This would seem to chime with those who view human progress up to now as having being detrimental to humanity, the planet and nature in general. Known as ‘Primitivists’, they look upon all modern technology with distain. There are even more extreme members of their number who dislike anything which would separate us from rest of the animals. It is this undercurrent of suspicion of anything which would be considered ‘unnatural’ which I feel is highly damaging to humanity if we want to progress from the Australopithecus we evolved from, and which they would want us to return. They share a similar viewpoint to those concerned with the increasing human population, (in that increased population will lead to increased consumption and further damaging of the Earth’s natural habitats) who want to pin the blame on those who want to start a family, and a lot of them targeting developing countries. This echoes the ideas first conceived by Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834), who believed that the human population would continue expanding in the future while the resources required in maintaining such a population would remain fixed, leading to a doomsday scenario where the Earth’s resources are depleted and civilisation collapses.

If like me you ever come to the realisation that God is unlikely to have ever existed, then that leads you to question other things. Is there an afterlife? What would it be like if there was? I don’t see how it can be deemed selfish when humanity wants to improve its lot in life, and while granted there is a great deal of injustice and inequality in the world, the idea that we should bring to a halt all that has been achieved thus far so that we may protect both the planet and its inhabitants seems to me like a huge fallacy. Our evolution did not come about by mistake; we have the brains we do for a reason. To not be able to use them would be to waste the talents we have. As it is almost certain that this is the only life we have, to not take advantage of it to the fullest would be criminal. We may be animals, but to think we should live like them is a major mistake, it’s even to the point of insulting. Humans have a potential greater than any creature on this Earth, which the majority of people ignore or dismiss.

While there are definitely many ways in which we can improve the ability to be more environmentally friendly in the way that we harvest and manipulate the planets resources, we should not allow this to overtly impact our abilities to do that. It is imperative that we use our ability for ingenuity to its fullest extent to devise new ways in which we can lift people out of poverty and eliminate wan from people. In order to do that though, we are going to have to make certain decisions which not everyone is going to agree with. Like those who would want to blame such things as computers for all of society’s ills, they do not take into account that such a technology as a computer is completely inert, it is the person using it who decides what purpose they will use it for.

More stories that you might like...

How To Survive A Zombie Apocalypse

Daniel Pinchbeck On The End Of The World

How Beer Saved The World

Click here for more stories about Life

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook