Self-Loathing: Tone is sometimes as important as the words.

Mr. Holmes,

I would like to say first of all that everyone is entitled to an opinion. I agree with the premise that if mankind disappeared the earth would make relatively short work of signs of human existence. I also agree that mankind has altered localized eco systems. What I don’t agree with is that the majority of the alterations have been bad. A key word in all this is alteration. The majority of changes to the eco system come in the form of dams, cities and farms. And while this changes the eco system of an area I do not attribute the word bad to any of it. As for man made disasters such as sea going chemical spills and melting down nuclear reactors you are correct, these are bad. They are not however the majority of human ecological interaction. They are in fact the exception not the rule. And even in these cases the effects are temporary.

Following are a number of points I would like to state my opinion on. And yes, I’m aware it’s just an opinion.

One, mankind is part of the eco system. What we do to survive is just as warranted as what any other animal does. The changes we make to the eco system are not bad simply because we made them. If a dam destroys the home of some forest dwelling animals it makes a new home for water bound animals. If a city, which is generally less than 40 miles in diameter, pushes some animals around, it makes a wonderful new home for others (Like people for one). The city is usually a gradual thing as well. If a farm intrudes on the edge of a forest then some animals will retreat into the remaining trees while others that were outside the forest will move in (And of course people will have food to eat.).

Two, as stated in my first post, natural disasters have a much longer lasting effect on eco systems than anything man has yet to come up with. The one exception is a massive nuclear strike somewhere (If you want to say that’s a bad thing for the environment then I’ll happily agree with you.). That’s not to say there will never be justification for its use but I for one hope it’s never needed.

Three, the overall environmental impact of mankind is not severe, long lasting or even bad. What other creature goes out of its way to create homes for other species, replant forests, clean up and save animals after an accident of some type, make at least some effort to prevent an animal from going extinct, actually preserves some areas simply due to natural beauty, etc. Yes, some activity has a negative effect. Once again, I believe this to be the exception not the rule. And the effects are usually fairly short term.

I will not try and speak to what your intention with the article is. Only you know that for sure. It came across as self-loathing regardless of your intention. If that was not your intention then perhaps some reworking of the tone it struck is in order. Just a suggestion, you probably still disagree and feel the article is fine the way it is. Either way, the tone of every paragraph was negative in regards to human activity. The comment that as soon as mankind is gone things start to look better comes across rather strongly as self-loathing. This may have been a quote by someone else but it appears you agree with it from the way it's used in the article. Anyway, that’s all I have to say on the matter for now.

Sincerely,
Churt of Elfkind (Although I do feel like a Dwarf from time to time)


Clicky to original post.