Skip to main content

Eco freaks





Sorry, couldn't think of a nicer thing to say. Give me a moment of personal opinion, reflection if you will. No links, because these are either matters no necessarily exposed to the public, or involve something seen on television.



So last night I'm watching the tail end of a show on, I believe, The Learning Channel (though it might have been The Discovery Channel, because they're right next to each other and I often just toggle back and forth; it's all a blur). The show was about the Grand Canyon, and the portion I caught was on the Glenn Canyon Dam. Much controversy (surprise!) and some danger, too, as illustrated by footage from the 1983 flood season along the Colorado River, which is the river the dam blocks up.During that year, water in the lake rose faster than the dam's flood gates and spillways could handle, threatening to destroy the dam itself. Apparently, a project is now in the works to tear the dam down, rather than risk its sudden, catastrophic collapse. Much lamenting that Glenn Canyon, the part underwater, will never be the same, even with the dam gone and the river "restored," boo hoo.



Bummer. I am not a dam fan, growing up thinking they were fascinating, getting older and discovering that they are seldom truly built for the publicized reasons. In California, the #1 reason for dams has nothing to do with flood control (the stated, public reason) and everything to do with shipping water south. Those greedy bastards (and I mean the Metro Water people) even had plans to tap rivers and streams in Canada. Well, to dark ugly places with them, eh!



No, what caught my ear last night was the eco-freak, and I'll call him that because I don't know his name and, well, he was a freak. I wish I had recorded his statement, but paraphrased it was, "Some day, the Grand Canyon will recover [presumably from all the shit we nasty, vermin-like humans have done]. It may take a hundred thousand years, and that's all right, because with luck there won't be any humans around any more to muck it up." (Emphasis added on "with luck" and those were his words.)



So to this dolt, humans are always the problem and if we'd just go away, all would be better in the world. Only...only, if we go away who would know? This might be a fascinating variation on the philosophical question, "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" Well, sure, but the more fundamental question is: Who cares? You can admire in the abstract a pure and pristine Grand Canyon, restored after a hundred millenia, but by then enormous portions of it will be gone, destroyed by the very forces that created it. And it can be as pure and pristine as you can imagine, but there won't be anyone around to admire it, make note of it, etc.



I lament the loss of Hetch Hetchy, which by all accounts (especially those of John Muir) was a valley even grander than Yosemite. It lies underwater, a reservoir that is the main water supply for San Francisco. But that's what it was, not what it is...or ever will be again. (If you're interested in attempting to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley, BTW, try here. This project dates back to the Reagan Era, when the Interior Department recommended the restoration.) As regards Glenn Canyon, the part underwater, one local environmentalist at least recognized this basic fact. Take away the dam, she said, and it won't matter; the canyon will never be the same. Never.



Why is man so evil, as surely he is to any eco-freak? We modify our environment, yup we do. So do all animals, to one extent or another. We do it on a vast scale because...well, because we can and it keeps people alive. Do existing ecologies get destroyed? Yes. Are other species endangered? Often. Do we count more, are we more important, than other lifeforms on Earth? Well, yes, 'fraid so. Does this mean we tromp around with supreme indifference all other life? Hell, no! Note my conversion from pro-dam to anti-dam; I am flexible and can be swayed by reasoned argument. Telling me how wonderful things would be if we (humans) would just go away is neither reasoned, nor an argument; it's a statement of irrational dogma.



But then, my opinion doesn't count. I'm one of those dreadful humans. Quick, let's ask the Pet Psychic!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home.Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes. In Batman Begins, I blamed Katie Holmes. Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film, at almost two and a half hours, might be a shade long. Having said t…

About that "Steven Spielberg ending" comment

All right, when I wrote about the film V for Vendetta, I said the "happy ending" was an ending Steven Spielberg would have been proud of. Is there someone out there who doesn't get it? I can think of precisely one film that Spielberg didn't slap some sort of "and they all lived happily ever after" ending onto, and that was Munich (which sucked in its own right and for other reasons).Most of his films righteously have happy endings. Kill the shark, absolutely. Hero wins the day, without a doubt. Some poor schmuck prevails over homicidal big rig, yea!But as I recall, his first theatrical film didn't have all that happy an ending. Indeed, I think the protaganist gets his ass shot off and dies. Which was proper, since that was based on a real story and that's really what happened.And does Close Encounters of the Third Kind really have a "happy" ending? Our hero goes off with the aliens, and the music swells to happiness, but he's just aban…

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I went and saw The Last Jedi shortly after it came out and at first I didn't really feel like writing a thing about it. Why? Because the film just left me apathetic; I just didn't care. But I've been seeing arguments and counter-arguments fly back and forth, especially the aggregate professional critic (very high) versus the aggregate viewer (pretty low) scores. So, what the heck, here's my two cents' worth. And because I want to work myself up to a proper, full venting, there will be spoilers a-plenty.

We join the action shortly after the events of The Force Awakens. The Resistance (with no clear idea of what they're actually resisting) is fleeing from the relentless pursuit of The First Order (with no clear idea of what their order actually is). Death is closing in on our less-than-plucky heroes. Much running ensues.

And that's it, the entire plot in a nutshell. Yes, Rey (Daisy Ridley) goes off to receive training from Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill). But it…