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, 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 flourish, thrive even, you know, create a system conducive to function; a way of living that leads to the proliferation of life on Earth instead of its holocaust. Spin Doctor argues, hopes, forecasts.
And then there’s Nicolas D. Sampson, the name I was given at birth, the one by which I’m 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, are an impediment. They need to go.
Yes, need to go. 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 the space stations we launch, space colonies, whatever, time will tell.
6.5 billion people. How did I arrive at the 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, not an exact one, but good enough. The point is not accuracy, at least not for this article. The point is the principle: understand that right now, as things stand, our numbers are unsustainable. We’re eating ourselves thin, toxic, and dead. Like parasites that can’t gage the host and its viability levels, we chomp away, reproducing like mad, all without innovating, not substantially, unable to reduce our impact on our resource templates.
The longer we wait, the worse it gets. The numbers of humanity grow, and so does the damage.
Along with the 6.5 dearly to-be-dispatched, we must also say goodbye to most of our heavy industry, the toxic machines with which we perpetuate our lives. Out of this world they must go, to 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 far-flung celestial body, 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 existed.
Our toxic, heavy, Earth-raping industry.
It sounds cynical, but the facts speak for themselves. Our heavy industry and the way we consume resources, our entire way of life, all of it is a burden on this planet. We are incompatible with this garden-of-a-planet, taking a species-wide dump on it. Too harsh? I’m not the only one saying it. 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:
http://www.space.com/8924-stephen-hawking-humanity-won-survive-leaving-earth.html
Think Professor Hawking knows something we don’t? He insists 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. Think we can afford to ignore his advice for long?
Yes, I did say earlier that this is an op-ed piece with no scientific basis to it whatsoever.
I lied.
Part 2 to follow . . .