Some Good News for Planet Earth



Two planets meet.

Oh hello, says one, long time no see. How are you?

Not doing so well, says the other. I think I have Homo Sapiens.

That’s terrible, responds the first planet, I had that too. But dont worry, it doesn’t last long.

(Popular climate change joke, courtesy Goran Fejic. Bottom line? The earth doesn’t need us, we need it.)

6 thoughts on “Some Good News for Planet Earth”

  1. My dear comrade let us inform other planets also.These greedy devils are senting their relatives there…
    The neoliberal conciousness is developing the exploitative conciousness faster than ever. Like Marx mentioned capitalist production not only exploit the labour but also the land. The fancy colors on development bubble is enfleshed in our society. No shopaholic world can realise the danger of human greed.

  2. Exactly Right. Humans (Homo Sapiams) are a virus on this planet Earth. If it wasn’t for us the planet would be doing fine and would not be in danger of losing its life as we know it.

  3. Planet Earth might still find use for homo sapiens if each of us decides to plant and nurture just one tree on its bosom in our lifetime.

  4. While writing a scientific name, you have to keep in mind that the whole thing should be written in italics and the second word i.e., the species name should not start with capitals.

  5. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring came out the year I was born and my formative years were spent in the wide-eyed expectation of Apocalypse. Given the number of cheerily titled studies that were published subsequently, like Famine – 1975! (Paddock, 1967), The Population Bomb (Ehrlich, 1968), the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (1972), The Revenge of Gaia (Lovelock, 2006) and The End of Growth (Heinberg, 2011), not to mention dystopian fiction like those of Burgess, Vonnegut and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is surprising – and somewhat disappointing – that the world is still around and ticking.

    Mass extinctions are not unheard of. The oxygen catastrophe, the Permian-Triassic extinction, the Cretaceous-Paleogene kerfuffle, the 2014 elections, have all ensured the disruption of life and only some 10% of organisms that ever lived on earth exist today. The world is on the brink of another great extinction of species, according to a recent Duke University study. Duke University biologists have been known to fuck up occasionally.

    But even if they are right, the world is four and a half billion years old and there’s been life on it, in some form or the other, for three and a half billion years. Life is very persistent. Modern man is barely 200,000 years old and it would be very surprising if we did not give way to some other intelligent – I use the word loosely – life form in the millennia to come. Predictions of the untimely demise of the human race, and of the earth itself, are surmised on the natural outrage of liberal arts professors that the world should continue to spin on its axis long after they are gone.

    1. That’s “feminist” liberal arts professors to you, Venniyoor! Please be specific in your vituperations :)
      However, as befits us, we lowly liberal arts types but take our cue from Real Men – the natural scientists. It was Paul Crutzen, Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist, who popularized the term Anthropocene for this era, referring to the influence of human behavior on the Earth’s atmosphere in recent centuries to be so significant as to constitute a new geological epoch. Although there are now attempts to take the term back to the very point of origin of humans, thus reducing the startling impact of what this new era means for the earth, it is generally understood to begin with the Industrial Revolution. From that point on, humans have altered the global water cycle through damming, agriculture and carbon emissions, and climate change is another significant consequence. Of course, climate change skeptics, boundless optimists about the wonders of Science and naive believers in human beings’ inevitable and never ending progress (which was all natural at the beginning of the 20th century, but somewhat anachronistic now, in an era of ecological disasters), counter the idea of the Anthropocene, try to normalize it, or engage in technical pyrotechnics to minimize its impact. Basically, any argument to enable the global corporate military-industrial-agribusiness (GCMIA) to carry on business as usual.
      So that’s your preferred ToA (Term of Abuse) – Liberal Arts Professor – versus mine – Spokesperson for the GCMIA Combine.
      I think I know who will win, alas!

We look forward to your comments. Comments are subject to moderation as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s