Lately I wonder if being humanitarian will be enough to save our planet and ourselves. The whole world has been witnessing what President Barack Obama characterised as an ' environmental 9/11', as millions upon millions of barrels of oil have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, devastating the ecosystem. There have been no human fatalities, but shouldn't we also weep for the devastation to the creatures we share the planet with? Shouldn't we all be calling for the end of the pollution of the planet, the global warming, the destruction of species which disasters like the Gulf of Mexico spill bring about?
A comment made by one analyst was particularly shocking. He said that it would not be economically sound to plug the well unless the cost of the disaster reaches a trillion dollards. Is this how we value our planet? Is this how we value the role of our partners on this planet: the creatures we share it with? Surely, if we have the technology to plug the leak, there should be no further argument. But apparently our human feeling towards living beings is measured only in their economical value to our projects. We reduce God's magnificent creation to the yen, the dollar, the pound.
If our leaders and decision makers do not work with a deap seated, wide sense of duty, to protect all life, then we will only accelerate the rate of extinction of other species - and undoubtedly, ultimately our own.
If a human looks inside himself, he'll see billions of living bacteria living in his body. Such organisms are there to help man live a happy, healthy life; we can't survive without them, Hypocritically, the same man destroys species after species outside his body; in the greater organism that is earth, we so often upset the delicate balance, out of greed, ignorance or even for sport. How does it befit human beings to cause the extinction of other species which God has created to help, support and make our lives sustainable?
I suggest that the word 'humanitarianism' is out of date. If we want to ensure the planet's survival, and our own, we need a new dialogue and a new terminology to reflect it. We need a word which refers to the origin of our existence, the relationship to other creatures, and the support of our creator.
Instead of 'humanitarianism', which puts us at the top of the pyramid, why not 'creaturitarianism'? In creaturitarianism, man would not be the ruler or user of the planet, or else concerned exclusively with humans, but rather the custodian and guardian of all living creatures. Humans are a central player, but they are not the ultimate focus; they have partners who live with them and make life sustainable and reciprocal. Man is not the reference, we should instead defer ourselves to the Creator.
Unfortunately nowadays man is not only the custodian, but also the ultimate focal point and the reference as well: he's appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. That's why intentionally or otherwisewe're exterminating other species under the label of our own self interest. But a belief of creaturitatianism would ensure a wider world view.
I hope we can save our planet; and I hope we can save our partners: the other species on earth with whom we are intended to live in harmony.
No comments:
Post a Comment