drew dellinger - planetize the movement

MAtt Henry says:
August 26, 2010 at 07:23 AM

Thanks, Drew. Well argued. I first heard the "Earth will be fine" argument from comedian George Carlin - and infused with his humor, it had a certain appeal... But as years have grown me, I realize how puny a vision that entails. As you say, as if Earth is lithosphere-only... Peace, brother. Thanks.

Laura-May says:
August 26, 2010 at 09:14 AM

Call me a dumbass, for I, too, I have said this phrase, many times, out of ignorance (lack of knowledge). Call me a dumbass. But don't leave me alone, please...don't give up on me. To a certain extent, I can't help my dumbassness... my stupidity is inherited, interwoven into all existing systems of power. The best way to help me is to teach me. We need to educate, liberate, empower and celebrate each other. As you have so eloquently taught me, Drew; generally, folks do not consciously know that they ARE the earth, so within their awareness, the disruption and assault of her and all her beings, is not happening to THEM. So they avoid involvement... Have you ever heard anyone say, in reference to an injustice, "oh, I don't want to get involved"? Do you know why most say that? Because they don't know the truth of their interconnectedness. And so they regurgitate facts that are false, or make them up just to get through. So, yes, call me a dumbass with the intent to educate, liberate, empower and celebrate the truth. When someone lovingly walks beside you and helps you to understand that the 'other' is YOU, it is really hard to stay a dumbass.

thanks Drew for this post! your commitment and dedication to the earth and all its inhabitants kicks my dumbass into ACTION!

Craig Chalquist says:
August 26, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Nicely stated, Drew. "Earth will be fine" is a form of self-numbing; sounds to my psychoanalytic ear like, "Mom can't be sick!" It also ranks with other platitudes, such as "If you have a problem with someone, it's really about you." (Maybe it's really about being healthy enough to know when someone's behavior is toxic.) Or the idea that meditation and good thoughts will magically fix the world. Time to wake up and grow up!

Morganic says:
August 26, 2010 at 02:23 PM

Word. I can't wait to start speaking on panels. We will reveal the proper perspective.

Ryan Eliason says:
August 26, 2010 at 03:54 PM

I'm a dumbass too. I confess.

I will stop saying this.

Thanks for the wake up call Drew.

zoe says:
August 26, 2010 at 05:50 PM

i hear and feel your soul scream load and clear bro.drew!Ashe!i feel the same way when very well intentioned folks spew the untra positivity cotton candy sickly sweet nausea of" Everything's Perfect" or" Everthings Going To Work Out Perfectly" .For me denial of any facet of our selves or our world in our vast ever perplexing complexity or lusciously flowing coherency is denial of who we are in our limitless possibilitymagic.My shadow and the Great Mother Trees whose name and essence i carry( as the etmomological structure(root) of my last name is my greatest teacher! What i don't feel think we understand,innerstand ina radical- truth- atonement kind of wake the f#@^ up kind of way is it's goes so much deeper then just our devastating and destroying our sacred earth as"our" finite resource or :bio sphere" This imensly precious land upon which we live IS OUR MOTHER and She "OWN US"!!! Sometimes it feels like an anomilly for us infintisimal, amnesiatic, irreverant, ass backwards humans to really allow this knowing to guide everything that we are and do- to land and take root at the very core of our soul soil!.We cannot enslave and desecrate our Mother Earth and expect to get away with it.Do we as "America" think we can sweep way all the unconcsinable acts of genocide against our Earth Mama and Our Brother and Sister Beings Of All Species and thus ourselves away ,trash it as just another meaningless worthless skeleton in our proverbial closet of perpetualy ferociously tangeled rotted undigested and unhealed megolithic karmas?Our EarthMama mother births and sustains us with such phemonally deep compassion but let us always remeber that in one millisecond of a blink of the eye she can also take us out. !t's time to love ourEarth Mama in as many ways as there exist beloved earth relatives as if our every sacred breath and the sacred breath of all our beloved relatives and all that we love most depends on it BECAUSE IT DOES!!!!

lizbeewitch says:
August 28, 2010 at 01:11 AM

Ah, blessings to you. I have found that this statement also has within it a deep misanthropic thread, blithely casting humanity out of the planetary equation. Thanks for nailing this one!

Angelica Galland says:
September 05, 2010 at 04:42 PM

I say this also and it is "dumbass speak", but I say it in the hopes that it will somehow penetrate the narcissism. Some get that the Earth is a whole, but still many live in the illusion of separation. Maybe if people hear that their butts are on the line there will be more fire under them to act and in the process perhaps an awakening will occur...

Tyler Meyer says:
September 23, 2010 at 05:19 PM

I don't want to go down as the species to most effectively decimate fellow life on this planet. With the great power we wield with our intelligence, we must also have the responsibility to see the repercussions of our actions, and attempt to better our methods. To just say, "the earth will regenerate", doesn't solve any problems, it even ignores self preservation from a persons perspective which is even more sensless. Someone who buys into such an oversimplified and callous concept, is truly a huge dumbass.

lance stemen says:
November 08, 2010 at 04:27 PM

i think it's important to see it from that "dumbass" perspective, it's honest about our self-interest, and could even convince the current large group of people who don't care about protecting the environment. i would argue that it's even more human to admit we are saving the planet for us, because we are. even for the good causes, we are working on the assumptions that our heirarchies and values are right, that maintaining the biosphere is somehow attached to morals, the right thing to do. there is no other being in this solar system concerned with biodiversity or conservation of resources or anything. if we become extinct, so does the unimaginable sense of loss that is supposed to accompany such a large scale of death and destruction.

you have a strange argument, you're basically saying that it's true to say the planet will be fine but it doesn't help the environmental movement. do you consider stewart brand someone who would say that to lull others into inaction? or do you give minimal credit to the self-thinking abilities to anyone that might hear him say it, like yourself for example? if you didn't "fall for it", what's the problem with him stating something he considers to be a scientific truth? except for the fact that it annoys you?

and come on, i know this is a blog, but you're a professor. using straw man arguments and saying things like pet peeve and dumbass? sounds like a facebook rant. nice logo though, it really encourages intelligent discourse.

i'll wait for you to tell me which insult to use on someone who disagrees with me on a different subject. i used to just ask them to explain their side, but that takes too long. maybe i'll call him a douchebag, or a retard, or a tool of capitalist society, or a tree hugger,

thanks for reading, if you got this far.

Drew Dellinger says:
November 08, 2010 at 11:52 PM

@lance:

Thanks for the comment, and for taking time to read my blog. I sincerely appreciate it!

I must say, however, I feel you could have taken a little more time to read the piece more carefully.

It seems to me that you misunderstand or misrepresent much of what I intended. (Probably I could have been more clear in places.)

You write, "you have a strange argument. you're basically saying that's that it's true to say the planet will be fine but it doesn't help the environmental movement."

No, that's not what I said at all. I'm not sure where you think you saw that. As I made clear, all the life systems of the planet are in a state of accelerating collapse. My problem with Stewart Brand saying the planet will fine is simply this: I think it's flat wrong.

I also think it's perhaps based on a way-too-narrow definition of the planet, if what's being said is that the lithosphere will be fine, therefore we shouldn't worry. Perhaps your were confused by the distinction I was trying to make between the lithosphere and the biosphere, etc. But the overarching point was that it's absurd to say 'the planet will be ok' when species and ecosystems are unraveling all around us.

Misrepresenting my position, and then critiquing a position I never took is exactly what is called "using straw man arguments." I'm not sure why you accuse me of this, or where you think I've done so. Feel free to cite specific examples.

You write, "and come on, i know this is a blog, but you're a professor. using straw man arguments and saying things like pet peeve and dumbass?"

I think you put it best: This is a blog. I'll be sure not to use "pet peeve" and "dumbass" when I write an academic article for a peer-reviewed journal.

As to your point about insulting "someone who disagrees with me": This is a valid point. The whole 'call-them-a-dumbass' thing in my post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. (I know it can sometimes be hard to gauge someone's tone on the internet.) The 'call-them-a-dumbass,' was meant to be taken with a grain of salt. You''ll notice that I acknowledged that I've said the same thing myself. I don't actually want you to call people "dumbass." And if you do, don't tell them I told you to :) It was meant to engage the reader and draw them in, but also to make a point.

Again, I truly appreciate your engagement and input. If I may be so bold as to put on my "professor" hat, here's some final feedback on your comment:

Willingness to engage: A Reading comprehension: C- Sarcasm detector: C Use of specific examples in your comment: D Ability to call "straw man arguments" while using them yourself: A+

I hope you don't mind my lengthy and spirited reply. I sometimes enjoy a good, respectful back-and-forth. And while I disagree with much of your comment, I feel it was put forth earnestly and in good faith, and is worthy of a response.

Thank you so much for visiting the blog! Do come back, read carefully, and share thoughtful, respectful comments and responses.

Sincere best wishes, Drew

lance stemen says:
November 09, 2010 at 09:18 AM

thanks drew,

sorry for the negative vibes before. you're right, sarcasm is a little sketchy in text.

i guess what i was calling the straw man argument was where you said "the second point is far more ridiculous", then you state an interpretation that you came up with on your own, then respond to it by saying "duh".

in my opinion, what he meant was that even if we think it's catastrophic for most species to die and maybe life will re-diversify over the next 500 million years, the universe, physics, basically, everything but humans, does not consider it good or bad or anything. the heirarchy of values is ours alone. my main point for the first response was this "if we become extinct, so does the unimaginable sense of loss that is supposed to accompany such a large scale of death and destruction. "

i wasn't confused by your definition of earth including the biosphere. i just don't think the statement is a result of a dangerously reduced view of what defines a planet. It's just defining the situation on a different value system. my point is that if a scientist says something like this, what he is really doing is trying to remove the manmade values of good/bad from the lens. it's a very scientific thing to do. not reduce, but be ice cold.

i also guess that the straw man argument i used came from your acknowledgment of the first point you thought stewart brand was making, combined with the idea that i dont think he was viewing anything too narrowly, as in, i don't think he was disregarding the existence of the biosphere when he made that statement.

do you know miroslav holub? he was a scientist in eastern europe who wrote poetry to balance out his soul. he used the tension between the two as a dynamic in many of his poems, and he once talked about how his writer friends were always suspicious of his occupation and his colleagues were suspicious of his obsession with poetry. i think this applies here. also it was oscar wilde i think who said "a great mind is one that can hold two opposing ideas at the same time" or something like that.

Lance

Drew Dellinger says:
December 03, 2010 at 03:54 PM

@lance:

Thanks so much for your clarifying comments. I get what you're saying.

I apologize for the late response.

In the post I stated clearly that in my opinion, Brand must be making the "first" claim, that the Earth is resilient. When I said, "The second point is far more ridiculous," that Earth will be fine as long as we don't break the lithosphere, I was no longer talking about Brand at that point. Rather, I was critiquing, as I did throughout the post, the many other people I've heard say this, some of whom were definitely making this second point. So that's why I don't think it's a straw man.

As for your other points, I like hearing your perspective. I don't know if I fully agree that the hierarchy of values is ours alone (though I know what you mean). Who's to say that universe doesn't "like" amazingly complexified planetary ecosystems? After all that's what the universe did on Earth. The universe started as one element--hydrogen, and spun itself into (among other things) millions and million of different species on Planet Earth. The universe tends to unfold toward diversity and complexity when possible. I don't think we have to project human emotions onto the cosmos. But I think it's appropriate to ask, might it be a kind of "cosmic party foul" for one dumbass species to ruin the way an entire planet is evolving, for no good reason?

Thanks again for your engagement! Come back and dialogue again!

Cheers,

Drew

Fiona O'Sullivan says:
December 21, 2010 at 07:08 PM

Hi Drew, I agree. Have always agreed and have never said it cause I don't like it. It hurts. I love your pointing out that "the earth is not just a piece of rock that we walk around on" that "the earth" is all life. It's all connected right? I'm thinking about that Monty Python sketch of the knight who wants to keep fighting - despite both his arms, then each of his legs being cut off. Come back I'll bite you to death!!! Live on Life you sacred, divine, crazy diamond....ME,US,YOU,WE....

Linda Star Wolf says:
December 21, 2010 at 07:22 PM

I too have said this over and over again. The first time I heard this statement was from Grandmother Twylah Nitsch, an amazing peace elder who was my adopted Wolf Clan Seneca Grandmother. She passed in August of 2007. When I asked her if the planet was going to make it or if it was too late, she replied "the chips aren't in yet and you will either see the beginning of the end or the beginning of the beginning in your life time" and then she followed up with humankind may become extinct but life on earth will not and Mother Earth will survive and be fine once humans are gone. So this was a rather shocking statement and concept at the time , probably 15 years ago or so but I took it to heart. It inspired me to realize that Mother Earth would continue with or without me or all of us, and at the same time it spurred me onward to do my part in helping to insure that the human experiment was not a complete failure. I will think twice when I use this phrase in the future and explain what it means to me. Shamanic Blessings, we are all connected, Star Wolf

angel Kyodo says:
December 21, 2010 at 09:19 PM

i have to agree with Lance and Star Wolf,

i'm one of those dumbasses that believes our perception of the Earth not being fine is rooted in ego and a human-centricity that is unhealthy. the perspective actually is the opposite of what you are suggesting about people that hold this view.

we should hold that the Earth is the whole thing, and that we are the Earth AND the Earth's evolution has included dinosaurs that are now extinct. it was the Earth then and it is the Earth now. Earth and her existence and viability is both inclusive of ours and all the current species, but it is also supra-all that.

it's time to recognize that there is something greater than us (not as in "better" rather as in transcendent) in the sense of we have a responsibility to find appropriate relationship as stewards both of and to the greater whole should we want to remain, as humans, in the very awesome, albeit short-lived experience as witness-bearers to this span of Earth's evolution.

for all our relations, throughout space and time, rev. angel

Craig Carter says:
December 22, 2010 at 10:02 AM

I wouldn't call you a dumb ass. Sanctimonious and narcissistic seem more appropriate. The briefest exposure to the data tells you that species have always come and gone and the planet is always warming and cooling. For any one of us to look around during our brief stay on this planet and say Stop! This is perfect, this is how it is always supposed to be! is an act of staggering presumptuousness.

I agree that the planet is more than the rock, but it is a lot more than our personal experience of it as well. That should humble us, not make us feel like prophets.

Drew Dellinger says:
December 22, 2010 at 02:29 PM

@craig:

the briefest exposure to my post should tell you that I'm not talking about the natural rate of extinction of species that "have always come and gone." As I make clear, I'm talking about a human-caused MASS extinction, and that's never happened before.

Ecosystems that have unfurled themselves for 65 million years have been destroyed in the blink of an Industrial Revolution. Half of all the species of life might be gone by the time our grandchildren are here. We are decimating the biosphere in our lifetimes (www.massextinction.net).

To point out that this is preventable, unnecessary, and short-sighted is a far cry from "saying Stop! This is perfect, this is how it is always supposed to be!" (You caricature my position.)

As I mentioned to an earlier commenter, @lance, my use of "dumbass" was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and taken with a grain of salt. It was also not directed at any specific person. Your use of "sanctimonious and narcissistic" feels harsh, but I probably brought it on myself with the "dumbass" language. But in general, ad hominem or disrespectful comments may be blocked in the future.

It also feels inaccurate. I don't think it's narcissistic to respect and revere the web of life.

Believe me, I GET THE POINT that the Earth process is far greater and mysterious that we can ever comprehend. But are you suggesting that therefore we should do nothing? Sorry elephants and tigers, it would be presumptuous to protect your habitat? It would be presumptuous to question anything about corporate greed or our wasteful lifestyles? It would be presumptuous to let the planet unfold in a more natural way, in a less 'pave-over-everything-and-consume-everything' kind of way? (And, yes, humans are natural too, but we've lost our natural respect for the balance and preservation of the web of life.)

I am humbled by the biosphere. And I'm not talking about my "personal experience of it." That's why we have science, so we can know things beyond our personal experience, like the history of life on Earth, the five previous mass extinctions and their likely causes, and what the biologists and naturalists tell us is happening now. I'm talking about the science that shows that half of all life could be gone in 100 years.

If that happens, will abundant life come back in, say, 5 million years? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it be anywhere near as diverse, complex and vibrant as it is now? Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to say, because the CONDITIONS for life may be different in the future than they are now, or than they were when life, and larger, complex organisms emerged. If we destroy half of all the complex life-forms in the next century, life might never come back like this. If we don't, then those life-forms might continue to evolve for millions of years into the future.

Which is more presumptuous, to preserve and protect, or to carelessly destroy?

And what do you have against prophets? I love the Prophetic Tradition: from Amos and Isaiah, to Jesus, Gandhi, King, Dorothy Day, and Fannie Lou Hamer. Where would we be without them?

Thanks for your engagement, and for taking the time to read the piece and share your thoughts. Please come back for more thoughtful, respectful dialogue.

Tina says:
March 19, 2011 at 01:46 AM

Wow, what a great conversation. I found this blog while searching the web for information to help my students understand why we need to "save the earth." While I hear your argument Drew, I have to think that Angelica's brief post nails this one. While the phrase "the earth will be fine" may feel warn out and minimalistic to someone that has spent their life trying to define what is going wrong here, keep in mind most of us mear mortals aren't getting the picture. How many generations of people did it take to realize the earth was round? Even after the idea took hold? I'm sure there were countless arguments about the definitions of "flat", "curved", "heavens", etc. None of the arguments changing any of the actual facts. My guess is that most of us who have spewed the words "the earth will be fine" lean far more toward your side of thinking than the general masses. Where we stop and start the definition of Earth doesn't change what we are doing, which is killing our chances of surviving as a species.

Joe Lanteigne says:
May 07, 2011 at 01:29 PM

I hesitate to contribute to such an eloquent philosophical discussion.but I'm quite convinced that the planet is in more serious peril than a couple of millennium will fix. The atmosphere in perspective is the thickness of cellophane covering a basketball. This cellophane has a sort of cancer (ozone holes), that are growing. This is what separates this planet from being just like mars or mercury or any other known rock in space.

Suddenly , even the comforting thoughts of reincarnation don't hold as much water. My hope is that scientists like you Drew will again unite and put on another concerted push to enlighten the world, beyond any doubt or reproach, of the realities we are facing.

dan says:
September 18, 2011 at 02:37 AM

So... you're arguing that Earth isn't fine after the last five major extinctions? Well, the five that have been measured. There could have been some real doozies before hard-bodied organisms evolved, but we can't tell.

I get that you're saying that human activity is a strong contender for #6, but... don't push too hard in that direction, because that's not entirely true, either.

I mean, saying "we could wipe out our species and most of the genera we evolved with" is true, and a pretty strong call to action. But... I dunno that we'll have the same effect as the Great Dying.

Extinction is an inevitable part of the biosphere, and it has been catastrophic. We--humans--are not somehow exempt from that reality.

Whether we judge it acceptable within human morality that we become agents of it does not make it any less natural that mass extinctions occur.

Jonathan says:
January 04, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Lifeforms managed to survive mass extinction events in the past and have repopulated the planet.

When another extinction event happens another form of life will rise up to inherit this planet. They may be other creatures like us or they may simply be single cell bacteria. Either way the planet will be fine.

Human existence is a mere blip on the timeline of our planet. To think they we have forever altered and ruined this planet is quite egotistical. Now mind you we may have altered and ruined the way we know it today, it will change and it will be ok.