After skimming through Bill McKibben's book, The End of Nature, I've begun to wonder whether our propensity to use the old biblical admonition to "...fill the earth and subdue it" has led us to no longer consider ourselves "of the earth," as the word, "human" implies.

On Bill Moyers' show, Now, the founder of one of the world's largest mutual funds stated that capitalism has run amok, and now it's capitalism for the managers, not for the investors. Global corporations are now free to rape and pillage entire countries in order to make a fast buck. There is no sign of the admonition in the NT book of Revelation (Apocolypse), "God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth."

Thus do I suggest that we are now "Homo Hubris," not Homo Sapiens. Despite tremendous scientific evidence, we ignore global warming, we ignore economic exploitation, habitat loss for all species - including our own, and even social disintegration in our own communities. Have we not just ended nature as we once knew it, as McKibben says, but also ended the proper appelation of our species?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Thus do I suggest that we are now "Homo Hubris," not Homo Sapiens. Despite tremendous scientific evidence, we ignore global warming, we ignore economic exploitation, habitat loss for all species - including our own, and even social disintegration in our own communities. Have we not just ended nature as we once knew it, as McKibben says, but also ended the proper appelation of our species?

---

In The Science of Discworld (which in spite of its name is actually an intellegent philosphical and scientific book as well as an entertaining addition to the Discworld series) Terry Pretchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen suggest that rather than Homo Sapiens we should be called Pan Narrans, the story-telling ape, which would make us a kind of chimpanzee.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

quote:

---

we ignore global warming, we ignore economic exploitation, habitat loss for all species - including our own, and even social disintegration in our own communities.

---

Perhaps you are having a bad day, Asa? I agree that we have a long way to go, but most of us are reasonable & caring people. I think the good will win in the end; let's keep the Homo Sapiens name! (And, I assure you, I am no pollyanna!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Perhaps you are having a bad day, Asa? I agree that we have a long way to go, but most of us are reasonable & caring people. I think the good will win in the end; let's keep the Homo Sapiens name! (And, I assure you, I am no pollyanna!)

---

Sorry, Kalleh, but I have to agree with Asa. I think he's just suffering from a case of reality. Maybe that's the same as "having a bad day".

We're "reasonable and caring" people? When a product, such as DDT, is banned because it is unsafe, what do we do with it? We sell it to other countries. That's how "caring" we are. Ethics might require us to destroy such products; economics requires us to sell them to the highest bidder. We don't understand that the poisons we send overseas eventually return to us.

I've written previously about how "caring"we are.

Yes, we are "reasonable and caring" people. We are also ignorant people, or perhaps just stupid. We are either ignorant that things such as global warming and habitat destruction are real and have dire consequences, or we are just too stupid to understand it.

We are "reasonable and caring" people, as long as we're not asked to modify our actions. We bemoan our reliance on foreign oil, but refuse to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. We refuse to seriously consider alternative energy. We refuse to take global warming seriously, though the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

I think people are generally decent. But they all have their own self-interests at heart, sometimes to the exclusion of everyone else's interests. When your problems are so great as to seem insurmountable, you can't see other's problems. You develop tunnel vision, unable to see beyond your immediate needs. Once your needs are met, you feel safe and secure and you've attained a degree of comfort, you can think about others. But many people don’t. They just amass more expensive toys and more debt. They may donate a small amount to charity or perhaps do a little volunteer work to assuage their consciences. You don't need a large amount of money to do this. People with low to moderate incomes give a larger proportion of their income than richer people do.

No, I think Asa is right. The name Homo sapiens (which, don't laugh, means "wise man") is here to stay, but the organism, Homo sapiens, will one day become extinct. For years we have been slowly poisoning our planet, and we have picked up the pace. We have driven numerous species into extinction. Will we be next?

Tinman

Well, I will always respect your opinion, Tinman (as well as Asa's), but I don't agree.

Perhaps it is because I am in the health care field. Often I have seen nurses staying late and coming in early, just to comfort their patients. I remember once on the night shift of an oncology unit a patient who had been discharged called and was scared. It was 2:30 a.m. The nurse called her 19-year-old niece--who had nothing to do with nursing--and asked her to go over to her house and reassure her. Of course, the nurse couldn't leave her shift, but her niece went right over and stayed until morning. Now, if that isn't caring, I don't know what is. People often get the feeling that doctors are arrogant and only care about money. I can only tell you that of all the physicians I've worked with, that just isn't the case. They often give of their time when they know they won't get paid. They are dedicated and committed, always caring about the patient. Now, it doesn't always show because communication skills are sometimes limited. But, I see them in conferences or at the desk. I can tell you, a more caring bunch of people I have never seen.

My husband is a lawyer. Once again, I can tell you that lawyers are dedicated and committed as well, again often giving of their time and skills.

I could go on and on, but you get my point. We all donate our time and money in different ways. Remember, all is not money.

Having said all that, of course there are some really selfish, uncaring people, and that can be devastating in politics. That is one reason why it is so important for everyone to vote and to know the issues.

Slightly off topic but relevent in its way, I'd like to recommend Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything".

It doesn't discuss the moral and ethical issues that this thread is about but it certainly gives an insight into our insignificant place in the history of the world and the liklihood of it lasting.

For example

quote:

---

for the next five million years [australopithecines] would be the world's dominant hominid species. [They] came in several varieties some slender and graceful...others more sturdy and robust but all were capable of walking upright, Some of these species existed for well over a million years, others for a more modest few hundred thousand, but it is worth bearing in mind that even the least successful had histories many times longer than we have yet acheived.

---

It's a fascinating and clearly written book although there are places where his mathematics is a bit suspect.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Forgive my ignorance but I thought that DDT had been universally banned many years ago.

Indeed, I read an article some years ago than made a case for its reintroduction. As I understand it, the problem with DDT is its persistance - it does not easily break down and thus accumulates in the tissues of those species who live on insects (and of those who live on such predators). Thus some species of birds were being threatened because high accumulations of DDT were affecting the shells of the eggs (making them more brittle)

The writer of the article made the point that it was better to exchange the health of a few bird species for the benefits of the most effective insecticide ever invented (and which nearly eliminated the anopheles mosquito and thus Malaria - the world's biggest killer).

I may have some of my facts wrong since I write from memory but I feel fairly sure of the basics.

Certainly Malaria is now a far bigger problem than it was during the days of DDT since the anopheles mosquito never developed the immunity to DDT that it has to its successors.

Richard English

My father was a farmer. I am morally certain (as my dad used to say!) that DDT was banned many years ago. I agree, Richard.

DDT was mostly banned years ago, but there are still some legal uses, mostly for malaria control in third-world countries...

It's also still used illicitly in some situations. When I was a technical writer, I wrote abstracts of journal papers on all aspects of pest-control, including residue studies of nasties like DDT and toxaphene. DDT degrades to DDE and DDD, and the residue of (typically) DDT to DDE can be very damning evidence for recent application. DDT gets absolutely everywhere, and one can find residues even in the Arctic.

Ros

Obviously, it's easy to google up positions on both sides of the issue of whether DDT should be banned.

But as to whether it is banned: CNN reported as of January, 1999, DDT "has been banned in North America, but is still used to control mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects in many developing nations," and that "100 nations gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, to discuss whether to recommend a global ban."

The US ban took effect at the end of 1972. Since then it has been both praised and excoriated.

By the way, I gather that even outside the US, DDT is not being significantly used for agriculture. Rather, its use is as a mosquito killer in the battle against malaria.