‘Spaceship Earth’: A new brand of environmentalism?

Meet the new central planning; the same as the old central planning.

The Washington Post reports,

Spaceship Earth enters 2012 belching smoke, overheating and burning through fuel at a frightening rate. It’s feeling pretty crowded, and the crew is mutinous. No one’s at the helm.

Sure, it’s an antiquated metaphor. It’s also an increasingly apt way to discuss a planet with 7 billion people, a global economy, a World Wide Web, climate change, exotic organisms running amok and all sorts of resource shortages and ecological challenges.

More and more environmentalists and scientists talk about the planet as a complex system, one that human beings must aggressively monitor, manage and sometimes reengineer. Kind of like a spaceship.

This is a sharp departure from traditional “green” philosophy. The more orthodox way of viewing nature is as something that must be protected from human beings — not managed by them. And many environmentalists have reservations about possible unintended consequences of well-meaning efforts. No one wants a world that requires constant intervention to fix problems caused by previous interventions…

Read the Post report.

2 thoughts on “‘Spaceship Earth’: A new brand of environmentalism?”

  1. Agenda 21 lay definitions –
    “sustainable development” – the slowing of industrial progress down to the lowest possible rate so as to barely avoid revolt by the masses.

    “environmental justice” – the pitting of industry’s neighbors against industry with the ultimate goal of shutting industry down as much as possible.

    “social equity” – the taking of as much natural resources from the “haves” and distribute to the government (note: not to the “have nots”) so that everyone has the same amount of property, especially with regards to land ownership.

    “quality of life policies” – trumpeted health and welfare benefits that accompany draconian pollution control regulations that actually cannot be proven to improve actual health and welfare one whit; and which cannot be disproved as helpful.

    “eco friendly” – anything that hurts humans (e.g., mercury in CFLs).

    “new urbanization” – rounding up the sheeple masses into high rise condos each of the size of Japanese mass dwelling units (preferrably smaller), where you sleep on a futon the rest of your miserable life and take a train to work.

    “green” – the color of the outside of a watermelon, which hides the red inside.

  2. I have gone on to read the full report, and I believe Homo sapiens will eventually
    get control. We MUST.! Consider that we, here in the USA, have just eliminated
    Fed support for corn ethanol. That’s a big start. We seven billion cannot “take” the
    space of the seven million species for much more. But we’re in pretty good shape
    in North America, Europe, east Asia(at least a good start)’ but in deep trouble in
    Africa, where each woman still has too many children. So let Africa kill off half of
    their species – so what?
    Higher co2 will be very helpful to feed we humans, as will increasing ag tech. A higher
    atmospheric temperature will also help in places like Canada, with longer growing
    seasons, etc. The UN’s IPCC will be gone and Warmists and Deniers will merge.
    We’ll get the “take” under control by 2030-2040. And perhaps peak at no more than
    eight billion, before a declining total.

Comments are closed.