I'm confused - isn't 'environmentalism' in and of itself anthropocentric? I'm no geologist, but correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't planet earth a toxic wasteland of poisonous gas and lava for almost all of its existence? Why would it suddenly care whether it was a hospitable environment for humans to live on?
The answer to that is actually pretty complicated. Long story short: The current shape of the earth is basically determined by life. Plate tectonics requires water to lubricate it, life keeps water around. The actual structure and behavior of the planet itself is, to a great extent, dominated by life. And it was only a toxic wasteland of poisonous gas and lava for a relatively short period of time- less than half a billion years before the surface cooled and oceans formed. So in a strict sense the Earth doesn't care- but in a more causal sense, it sorta does.
Also, you should post replies to the actual post, not to a random comment on it. :D
I'm confused - isn't 'environmentalism' in and of itself anthropocentric? I'm no geologist, but correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't planet earth a toxic wasteland of poisonous gas and lava for almost all of its existence? Why would it suddenly care whether it was a hospitable environment for humans to live on?
The answer to that is actually pretty complicated. Long story short: The current shape of the earth is basically determined by life. Plate tectonics requires water to lubricate it, life keeps water around. The actual structure and behavior of the planet itself is, to a great extent, dominated by life. And it was only a toxic wasteland of poisonous gas and lava for a relatively short period of time- less than half a billion years before the surface cooled and oceans formed. So in a strict sense the Earth doesn't care- but in a more causal sense, it sorta does.
Also, you should post replies to the actual post, not to a random comment on it. :D