No Risk too Great?

Australian bigamist exposed
when his first wife sees his
wedding photo in newspaper.

The magnitude of the disaster in the Gulf raises, for me at least, the question: Is there no risk too great to inhibit action? Obviously there has always been risk associated with human inventions and discoveries. There must have been considerable risk involved when humans first invented the making of fire. And again, when someone invented the first bow and arrow, the machete, firearms, dynamite, and aircraft, there was risk involved. It appears that the amount of risk involved rises in tandem with the rise of technology. But risk has always been limited in one way or another. For example, if one group had the bow and arrow and another did not, there was no chance that the entire world would suffer, even if their neighbors might have. Similarly, with the invention of firearms there was never a risk that the entire human race might disappear, although certainly many people did. The same has been true up until the present time. Our technology has now reached the point where the entire planet and the human race can be seen at risk. It is yet to be determined just how bad this oil disaster is going to be. Some say it could conceivably spread throughout the oceans, killing the fisheries for a long time if not forever. If it should reach the Atlantic and get picked up by the Gulf Stream there is no telling where it could end or how much irreparable damage it will have done. BP was allowed to drill in the deep ocean without adequate preparation and without any plan for the disaster that ensued when the oil platform exploded, sunk, and allowed 200,000 barrels a day to pour into the unprotected ocean. And remember, this occurred not merely because someone invented a new weapon like the bow and arrow, it occurred in the absolutely mad quest for profit at any cost. And so I must ask, is there no risk too great for the human species in their quest for profits? Was the risk involved in drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean by a private company in search of profits, even with what was supposed to be the most advanced technology, worth it in terms of the risk to the oceans, wildlife, ecology, and life in general? Personally, I don’t think it was. It should never have been allowed. The risk was too great. Of course the oil companies lied about the risk. Those seeking profits at any cost always lie. The pharmaceutical companies have lied repeatedly about the safety of certain drugs, the tobacco companies lied for years about the dangerous of their product, the meat industry lies about the safety of their product, Monsanto and others lie about genetically modified crops, and so on. But even these lies do not put the entire planet in jeopardy (except maybe genetically modified crops). This oil disaster, if it proves to be as awful as it appears it might be, it quite a different thing, too risky by far. And even this is probably not as risky as nuclear energy, which could easily cause so much damage the earth could potentially become uninhabitable. I believe the risks associated with some of our current activities, oil drilling and nuclear energy in particular, are too great to be allowed.

Although the question of who will pay for these disasters pales into insignificance compared with the ecological and human damage, it is a question of considerable importance. If you believe that BP is going to pay for all the damage they have wrought you are living in dreamland. The CEO of BP has already said they were not responsible, it was the drilling company’s fault. And although he vowed BP would pay, you know they won’t without tying the whole thing up in lawsuits forever, just like the Exxon Valdez case. Not only that, after the Exxon Valdez case the oil companies bribed Congress into setting a limit on oil company responsibility of 75 million dollars, not even a drop in the bucket, but don’t bet they won’t try to hold us to it. And BP has already sent out representatives trying to bribe potentially affected fishermen and others with $5000 if they will sign a pledge not to sue. Apparently they believe that $5000 will enable these people to put food on the table and not starve (at least for a few months) after they have completely destroyed their livelihood.

In spite of this horrible disaster, that will probably be the single greatest human disaster in history, President Obama and others are still talking about the necessity to drill offshore, and even promoting nuclear energy. This strikes me as the epitome of human stupidity, the very apex of idiocy, the crest of irresponsibility, the height of madness. But don’t forget, profit is the name of the game, profit, that is directly in conflict with basic human needs and welfare, profit, the quest for which is quite likely to destroy both the planet and the human species. But no doubt those who are benefitting the most directly from this greedy and immoral system will manage to live out their lives in luxury and comfort, believing fervently they have done God’s work.

LKBIQ:
We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism. Land can be healthy or sick, fertile or barren, rich or poor, lovingly nurtured or bled white. Our present attitudes and laws governing the ownership and use of land represent an abuse of the concept of private property.... Today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see and nobody calls the cops.
Paul Brooks

TILT:
Orangutans may live up to 50 years in the wild.