Written by Johanes Narasetu
Cover image Moonlight by Bung Carol
Despite how often it is repeated among modern people today, the slogan “Save the planet” contains some logical misconception which potentially results in a counter-existence behaviour. This article will briefly talk about the logical misconception as well as the implied action to which this slogan potentially leads. Should we save the planet?
Irrationality of Saving the Planet
Talking about saving the planet directly assumes that the planet, i.e. Earth needs saving. Among the green peacekeepers, the slogan reverberates an assumption that our Earth is somewhat alive. While the idea that the Earth is alive is somewhat true, a planet’s life is not as evident as we may assume at first glance.
The assumption that the earth is alive easily arises since Earth is the only known planet which currently harbours life. Opposed to this observable fact is the existence of another planet, Mars, whose life has faded and on which we can only trace what is left of its “life”. However, this assumption is utterly mistaken since we easily confuse between a living planet and a planet that harbours life. There is life on Earth since it exists at the right distance and hence renders life possible. Life cannot happen in other planets – or in the case of Mars, used to exist – since its distance from the nearest star renders it impossible for any form of life to thrive.
A planet is not alive. Rather, it harbours life forms.
Here is where saving the planet is an irrational act. The planet, Earth included, is not alive. It simply harbours it. Thus, it is not the planet that needs saving, but we do. Realising that the Earth only harbours life means realising that no matter what, it can and will be able to outlive us. A planet is a dead object floating in space which may contain life should it be situated in the right distance from its star and sufficiently sheltered by other planets and moons from other life-threatening space objects. The ones which need saving are the lives inside it, not the gigantic spherical object on which lives continue their cycles.
We do not and will never save the planet. We blatantly deny the truth that we are desperately trying to survive by hiding behind the rhetoric of saving the planet.
Implicit Counter-existence Measures of Saving the Planet
Our desperate effort to save ourselves while hiding behind “saving the planet” grand rhetoric may lead to some explicit measures against ourselves. Furthermore, it is rather more on point to regard these measures as some sort of counter-existence measures against the real ones alive, namely, human beings and other species. Two things are worth mentioning here, namely, a denial of technological innovation and an anti-human attitude.
Denial of technological innovations is implied by the notion of saving the planet. We call a technological product ‘innovation’ when there is some sort of progress in the way we do things or in the effectiveness of its problem solving. In this regard, framing technological innovations inside the act of saving the planet is counterproductive for innovations given the vagueness of both the notions ‘saving the planet’ and the suggestion that the Earth is alive. When something as vague as saving the planet is used to measure a strictly technical domain such as technological innovations, the latter risk being sacrificed given the uncertainty of the first.
For instance, complicated-but-essential problems such as carbon emission from coal-based power plants are easily labelled ‘must shut-down’ without regarding the benefit it brings for the poor. The blind faith that the planet is alive in the same way that humans do elude us from a harder-but-essential question such as cleaning the emission from the coal plant while keeping the electricity price affordable for the have-nots.
There is no clear measure on how a planet is saved, nor on how its basic assumption is justified, namely, that the planet is alive.
The second logical consequence is an anti-human attitude. Assuming that the planet is alive brings about a vis-à-vis comparison between the living place which is the Earth and the lives inside it, one of which are human beings. Following up on this head-to-head comparison between human beings and the planet is a light assumption that us, human beings, are the cancer for the planet.
For example, daily side effects of human lives, such as domestic and industrial waste, various pollution, are directly interpreted as the proof of planetary cancer named human beings instead of some concrete problems that we need to solve in our attempt to live a better life through more effective and efficient waste processing.
We whine that we exist instead of coldly but deeply reflect on how we could better coexist with the Earth and life forms which it harbours. By believing that the planet needs saving, we doom ourselves.
A Better Alternative
That being said, there is a better idea about the moral connection between us and our planet while supporting all efforts to render our planet far more habitable. Instead of pompously pretending that the Earth needs saving, it is more rational to say that ‘we coexist with and within the planet’.
We live on Earth and will never outlive it, that much is true. Furthermore, there are other life forms on this planet, from simple microorganisms to complex mammals. On top of that, human beings are the only life forms on the planet whose actions can greatly shift the interactions between life-forms and the planet. The better alternative to think would then be the idea of ‘coexistence’ between all lives on this planet.
By thinking of coexistence, we do not deny the connection which we share with the Earth as the place where we live on the one hand. On the other hand, such a notion would also not reduce the significance of our existence to that of cancer or plague. The morality of coexistence with and within the planet is the truth that no matter how great our action can affect other lives and the planet, we are ultimately the ones who have all interests to keep it habitable.
With this kind of awareness, exploitation becomes responsible. Our action towards the planet translates directly into responsible innovations while our attitude towards other life forms would be that of learning.
For instance, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of renewable energies would never stop the improvement of the dirtier coal-based power plant. Fishing for our consumption would go side-by-side cleaning the ocean pollution, and so on. Coexistence with and within the Planet rationally implies such morality.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this article simply intends to search for a better and more true alternative for the more popular notion ‘save the planet’. The planet does not need our saving, instead, we need it to be habitable for us to live a good life. Not only more on-point, the idea of coexistence with and within the planet is a humbler, more true, and more ethical notion to depict our existence as human beings on Earth.
Do not save the Planet.
