Ok of course anthropomorphising the earth is not a good approach.
But the idea is that we are damaging or destroying life and life should be respected. The gaia idea is that the whole earth can be seen as one big organism. Surely we are harming this organism.
The gaia notion, whilst undoubtedly based on sound sense, is nevertheless exposed as inherently daft as soon as its followers and advocates try to encourage others to put certain activities into practice in the interests of "saving the planet" in the oh-so-moralising holier-than-thou manner in which so many of them are all too often prone to do.
In the thread about Global Warming I have made a number of comments on this kind of thing (albeit without specifically mentioning the gaia concept) so will not repeaet them here, except to say that these adherents almost invariably tend to base their ideas on the notion that all climate and other physical changes to our earth have been exclusively (a) bad) and (b) man-made. Not only are both these claims untrue, but they imply that nothing of any positive use has ever been done by humans to solve any problems thereby caused; that this latter in incorrect is demonstrable simply by examining progress on air pollution in UK where, whilst that caused by motor vehicles has indeed risen substantially, that generated by the corporate and individual use of coal and similar products has fallen even more, with the net effect that the so-called "pea-souper" smogs that once afflicted London and the health of Londoners (especially those with adverse respiratory predispositions) are now mercifully a thing of the past. Air pollution in urbanised parts of UK is still a problem, of course; only the substitution of fossil fuel use with suitable and viable alternative fuel use will likely solve that.
Since humanity possesses the highest intelligence of all creatures on earth, it does indeed behove humans to act responsibly as custodians of the planet; of this there can be no doubt. Accordingly, I am no supporter of some of those human activities (mainly during and since the industrial revolution) that have involved the relentless pursuit of "progress" without due consideration for the consequences - in other words, without due concern for the extent to which actual "progress" is achieved thereby.
That said, it is up to humans to exercise their ingenuity to create adequate supplies of energy and potable water for everyone and to find ways to dispose of waste sensibly; this does not have to - and in any case never will - involve successful attempts to turn back the clock to pre-industrialised times and accordingly dictate far lower general consumption and expectations that is the case today, for that clock simply cannot be turned back, as one cannot undo research and its outcome as though it had never occurred.
"Saving the planet" is, likewise, a daft notion in and of itself; it's abit like that of "saving money" in and of itself. One should ideally save money only for a particular reason and purpose and in as planned a way as possible (always assuming that it's possible to save any at all); likewise, we should be trying to maximise the earth's potential fully and in sustainable ways, in the interests and for the general benefit of humans and all other living creatures on it, rather than for the planet itself, which has no consciuosness. As mad_max2024 rightly wrote:
"The Earth doesn't care wether or not it has humans on it's surface. Nothing is good or bad for the earth.
It simply exists...
To say the Earth would be better off without humans is to see that event from a human perspective, which would be pointless since there would be no humans to have such perspective."
So - the idea of "saving the planet" makes no sense in and of itself, but acting responsibly to save - and to pave the way for further development of - the earth's living species not only makes good sense but is wholly vital to the future of humanity.
Best,
Alistair
Topic: The earth was so much better till...