In class this week, we discussed a lot of big things. One thing we discussed made me think about whether or not are we bleeding out our environment. George Washington was an amazing battle leader, and didn't want a lavish life. He wanted to live a basic life. One of the methods of treatments back in Washington's time when someone was sick was to remove the "bad blood," by bleeding them out. The cause of George Washington's death was being bled out, due to a fever he had. Is the Doctor who bled Washington out at fault, or was the cause of his death really the fever?
This lead me to ask myself the question, Are we bleeding the environment out. Are we over using resources to the point that the environment will no longer have enough of an immune system to prevent sicknesses form destroying it? If a sickness managed to destroy the environment, whose fault is it, ours or the sickness?
I think I would answer that question by claiming that "us" and the "sickness" are synonymous with one another. In other words, we are the sickness that has caused the planet to begin to bleed out. In George Washington's case he just happened to fall ill with no real cause. In the planets case, it is not just random that it is sick, we are the cause of the original disease, and the bleeding out aspect is just us making it worse.
ReplyDeleteSeb might be onto something there. We definitely contributed to the problem, and now we're definitely not making it much better. We aren't giving the planet enough time to rejuvenate some of its natural resources that normally wouldn't cause any problems. We need to start seeking out different forms of energy simply so the others can start to replenish themselves. It takes an incredibly long time for fossil fuels to build up, so even if we stop now now one in our lifetime would reap the benefits, but it is still worth it in the long run.
ReplyDelete