The glorification of biological nature continues, and rightly so, with the astounding Planet Earth II.
EON finds the endeavor cute — how humanity is trying to glorify nature, and somehow, by being the chronicler of such splendor, also reserve a place for itself in the pantheon of surviving life. Humanity is. Trying. Very hard. So cute. It won’t work, not like that.
Only the enduring survive, EON says, end of story.
Spin Doctor, on the other hand, being of human disposition and persuasion, sees the circles and spirals of life in this production, the miracles of life on Earth, noting the lessons humanity can learn from such investigations so that it may, in due course, minimize the damage it inflicts on its surrounding environment. Perhaps even thrive, you know, create a system that is conducive to function; a way of living that leads to the proliferation of life on Earth instead of its holocaust.
And then there’s Nicolas D. Sampson, the name I was given at birth, the one by which I am legally recognized in this world.
I, Nicolas D. Sampson, am somewhere between the two POVs.
My perspective is simple: for matters to be truly solved in a way that sees humanity endure for a considerable amount of time, no more than one billion people must remain on Earth. The rest, 6.5 billion people, as things stand, need to be removed from Earth.
Yes, removed from Earth. 6.5 billion people. Plain and simple. Be that via plain old croaking or via the mass migration of humanity from this planet, to the moon or Mars, or Asgardia, or any space station we come up with, any space colony, time will tell.
How did I arrive at this number? Is there any specific scientific basis for it? No. This is an op-ed. A hunch-piece based on good old ratios, rough estimates, and range. If seven-plus billion people are eating away the planet at an unprecedented rate, then we need a lower number. If forty million people is the average population size of a country, we obviously need a bunch of countries to keep humanity going on a technological and commercial and cultural level equal to our capacities and potential. One billion is a healthy, round number, but not an exact one. The point is not accuracy, not for this article. The point is the principle: understand that right now, as things stand, our numbers are unsustainable. We are eating ourselves thin, toxic, and dead. Like parasites that can’t gage the host and its viability levels, we are chomping away, reproducing like mad, all without innovating, not substantially, unable to reduce our impact on our resource templates.
The longer we wait, of course, the worse the situation gets. The numbers of humanity grow. Goes without saying.
Along with the 6.5 dearly to-be-dispatched, and not a moment too soon, must depart, the quicker the better, most of our heavy industry, the toxic machines with which we perpetuate our lives. Out of this garden of a planet they must go, far away, onto the moon perhaps, or some gigantic space station/colony/reef where they won’t be able to poison their surroundings with their toxic discharges, their fumes and refuse. Preferably somewhere inorganic and non-Earth like; onto a celestial body far away, a location able to handle both humanmade pollution and solar radiation.
Or, if need be, into oblivion. That’s where our current technological paradigm will end up. Eradicated, like it never even existed.
Our toxic, heavy, Earth-raping industry.
Have a good time digesting this last part, my own personal favorite — and most realistic — POV on what needs to be done, starting with the 6.5 billion and ending with our heavy industry and how incompatible it is with our Garden of Eden, and remember,
I’m not the only one insisting that with business as usual, and humanity permanently stuck on the globe, there’s no future worth talking about, at least none that includes the incredible biodiversity of Planet Earth. A certain Dr. Hawking makes the same point, has been for years, insisting we change our game right away or face the consequences of our actions:
Think Professor Hawking knows something we don’t, this incredible mind we are so blessed to count among us? Think we can afford to ignore his advice for long?
Yes, I did say earlier this is an op-ed piece with no scientific basis to it whatsoever.
Part 2 to follow . . .