Based
on my research, there have always been two groups of people: those
who respect other species enough to let them share the world, and
those who see them as resources to be consumed and competitors for
dominance of the world. These groups each have two subgroups: those
who want maximum happiness for themselves; and those who want to have
the most descendants.
Most
people have always been in the second group, consuming and competing
with the rest of the Nature, and in the subgroup adding more people.
Until the beginning of the oil age, one in six people were in the
first group, respecting other species; after that, those who were
leaving more descendants moved to the second group rather than die.
All that was left of the first group was the few hundred who were
maximizing their happiness while sharing parts of the world that
could still support them and other species, and even that small
population began to dwindle.
The
number and populations of other species have continued to fall under
the onslaught of those who don't respect them, and now more rapidly
as we pass the point where there are not enough of them to support
their lives or ours. Arguably this places us in a dying world, as
opposed to a heathy world like that which existed when a substantial
part of our population was still in the respectful group. If even a
tiny fraction of us are to survive the great extinction we have
unleashed, we must try to make parts of the world healthier and
ensure that they stay that way.
Changing
even part of the world begins with changing what causes us to
continue doing damage. One way to start is to all agree that the
respectful group was right and the majority group was wrong.
This
is unlikely since the majority seems to be under the impression that
the same approach which enabled them to conquer the world can somehow
help them escape the consequences of it, perhaps to the point of
moving to another world that can be conquered. This is encouraged by
the prospect of super-intelligent quantum computers, lifesaving
biotechnology, and cheap energy from fusion. Timing is the biggest
problem, since global warming is threatening to reduce our ability to
survive before any of these technologies could make a significant
difference (assuming they wouldn't cause more problems than they
fix).
Agreement
about the cause might reawaken respect for other species in more of
us, enabling us to explore how we could still meet our basic needs
while empowering other species (who employ Nature's own
biotechnology) to improve their own chances of survival by repairing
some of the damage we have done. Transitioning to a respectful
approach toward those other species would also prepare the survivors
of our efforts with the basic values they need to continue surviving.
