Sagan's Lot...
Saw this great statement of (dis)belief - well, it is isn't it? - yesterday, and though I can't say I agree with all of it, that's not because there are parts I can pick out and say "that's wrong or unreasonable because..." - I think it's more a case of I don't want to stand firmly on that white line that marks the middle of the road, with sheep on the left and goats on the right - I joke of course - but you get the picture: I don't want to commit to being non-committal, I have a foot on that white line, but the other is planted on, or at least pointed to, the side of belief. Would that be right or left? ;-) I liked this point from that article "Words to live by: I believe in goodness for goodness' sake, not because you're getting some reward in the afterlife. If you're being good for an award, then what sort of person are you anyway?" also "That's one of the things that really bugs me about religion. If you don't know the answer, just say, 'I don't know.' Don't make up stories and make people believe them, and then work backwards in everything in life from the dumb little story you made up, you know? We don't know. Be a good person just because it's the right thing to do. How 'bout that?"
I think something the late great Carl Sagan used to say has a bearing on such discussions, at least to those who concur with Maher's views (and to those who may go even further) when he said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I was reading from one of his books today, and read something that I'd only yesterday been thinking about at some length. Here's what I was thinking:
The train takes me past, every day, the industrial complex which is British Steel (now Corus), and some beautiful marshland also, just besides the "works". I was thinking, what if I was to take a glass and fill it with water from one of the pools in the marsh, or from one of the streams that flow into it, and drink? I would be ill. Surely (I know it's not defined as such by any court or commission) my rights as a human demand that I should be able to - think "out of the box" here - for the marshland is a nature reserve, it belongs to the "people"? Could I sue Corus if I was ill? What if any person in a "developed" country took a glass to their local river and drank therefrom - could they subsequently (for they would probably become ill) sue the corporations that polluted their water - for aren't the rivers OURS? We could proportionately sue the corporations according to what chemicals (in the water) could be linked to them...Will this happen? The thing is, this isn't being idealistic: the only reason we don't have these rights is because of the links between corporations and the economy and the governments: man is short sighted.
Here's what Sagan says in "Billions and Billions" in reference to our polluting of our "closed system" environment:
"Birds...know not to foul the nest...one celled microorganisms know it. It is time for us to know it too...we have become a danger to ourselves...maybe the products of science are too powerful, too dangerous for us. Maybe we're not grown up enough to be given them. Would it be wise to give a handgun as a present to an infant in the crib?...Now one further complication: imagine that when you pull the trigger on the handgun, it takes decades for any harm to be done...the analogy is imperfect, but something like this applies to the global environmental consequences of modern industrial technology".
I realize I wouldn't have a keyboard to type on (etc) if it weren't for that technology, but small price to pay if man suddenly decided to stop damaging the Earth until safer methods of production could be thought of. These damaging effects are only starting to become clear, we need to make a point now, to show on a small scale what the future holds on a large scale in our closed system environment! So, form an orderly queue behind me as, Gandhi-style, I bring my cup to the River Tees...we could start at the source, and have a "seven miles and pints a day" goal: would we get to the sea, or would we gradually be reduced in numbers as we passed the factories that start somewhere out of Stockton-on-Tees, maybe dwindling to zero before the end?
Anyway, this joking around reminds me of another point I wanted to make: you read these reports that say "yes, this waters OK, the mercury level is 0.0004572mcg" or whatever, per whatever, you know, just inside the "safe" limit: who decides these limits? I bet they've got some sort of government/corporation funding. I don't know about you, but ideally, I count a safe limit as being whatever was in it at the source - why isn't that the case? Pollution is pollution, don't talk to me about "safe levels" of it.
I think something the late great Carl Sagan used to say has a bearing on such discussions, at least to those who concur with Maher's views (and to those who may go even further) when he said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I was reading from one of his books today, and read something that I'd only yesterday been thinking about at some length. Here's what I was thinking:
The train takes me past, every day, the industrial complex which is British Steel (now Corus), and some beautiful marshland also, just besides the "works". I was thinking, what if I was to take a glass and fill it with water from one of the pools in the marsh, or from one of the streams that flow into it, and drink? I would be ill. Surely (I know it's not defined as such by any court or commission) my rights as a human demand that I should be able to - think "out of the box" here - for the marshland is a nature reserve, it belongs to the "people"? Could I sue Corus if I was ill? What if any person in a "developed" country took a glass to their local river and drank therefrom - could they subsequently (for they would probably become ill) sue the corporations that polluted their water - for aren't the rivers OURS? We could proportionately sue the corporations according to what chemicals (in the water) could be linked to them...Will this happen? The thing is, this isn't being idealistic: the only reason we don't have these rights is because of the links between corporations and the economy and the governments: man is short sighted.
Here's what Sagan says in "Billions and Billions" in reference to our polluting of our "closed system" environment:
"Birds...know not to foul the nest...one celled microorganisms know it. It is time for us to know it too...we have become a danger to ourselves...maybe the products of science are too powerful, too dangerous for us. Maybe we're not grown up enough to be given them. Would it be wise to give a handgun as a present to an infant in the crib?...Now one further complication: imagine that when you pull the trigger on the handgun, it takes decades for any harm to be done...the analogy is imperfect, but something like this applies to the global environmental consequences of modern industrial technology".
I realize I wouldn't have a keyboard to type on (etc) if it weren't for that technology, but small price to pay if man suddenly decided to stop damaging the Earth until safer methods of production could be thought of. These damaging effects are only starting to become clear, we need to make a point now, to show on a small scale what the future holds on a large scale in our closed system environment! So, form an orderly queue behind me as, Gandhi-style, I bring my cup to the River Tees...we could start at the source, and have a "seven miles and pints a day" goal: would we get to the sea, or would we gradually be reduced in numbers as we passed the factories that start somewhere out of Stockton-on-Tees, maybe dwindling to zero before the end?
Anyway, this joking around reminds me of another point I wanted to make: you read these reports that say "yes, this waters OK, the mercury level is 0.0004572mcg" or whatever, per whatever, you know, just inside the "safe" limit: who decides these limits? I bet they've got some sort of government/corporation funding. I don't know about you, but ideally, I count a safe limit as being whatever was in it at the source - why isn't that the case? Pollution is pollution, don't talk to me about "safe levels" of it.
posted by John Doran-Armstrong at 1:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home