This past week or two on NPR, I twice heard mention of this book, The World Without Us by Alan Weisman. I'm not sure what the first one was (perhaps Marketplace or Weekend Edition), but the second was on a short program called Earth and Sky (broadcast the week of Sept. 13th).
The premise of the book is actually interesting, to a point. What if the entire human race suddenly disappeared? What would happen to the Earth? I haven't read the book, but it's interesting to consider how all that we have built would start to crumble pretty quickly. The NYC subways would flood, buildings collapse and cities would be overrun by plant and animal life.
Of course, there's more to the book than just the intellectual exercise of what the Earth would become without us. There's the implication that the Earth would be better off without us. More than that, Weisman seems almost giddy when talking about it in the Earth and Sky interview:
it turns out our planet would do really, really well. It would really flourish without us around.
Referring to visiting a remote jungle area to experience it, he says:
It didn't feel exotic to me. It somehow felt complete, when I went in there my body just sort of responded and said, yes! We have a memory within us of what this world was when it was fresh and new, and it was extraordinarily exciting to feel what it's like to be in something that pristine.
Mmmm-kay.
I find the notion that man is somehow a curse on this pristine planet rather condescending. That we do nothing but harm to an otherwise 'complete' ecosystem is rather presumptuous, even a bit arrogant. There's something ironic in a scholarly sentiment, which taken to it's logical conclusion, means the death of the human race, including the scholars.
What's really missing here, of course, is the truth that man is not simply a part of creation, but the focus of it. Read the Genesis creation account and you see man at the focus of the work of God. Man is the last thing created, the climax of God's creation energies. God pronounces each act of creation as 'good', but man makes it 'very good'. It is man that is created in God's image. Most importantly, it is man that is given dominion over the planet, and the only creature given a charge by God:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
God created the Earth and gave it to us. We were charged with making it ours, to rule it, to subdue it. I do not think that gives us license to pollute and destroy, nor to I believe that we have taken that responsibility seriously. We've been careless and selfish with what God has given us. Much as we do on an individual level with our own possessions, we have done with the Earth. Nonetheless, this planet is ours, given to us by a loving God who set it in just the right place in space for us to thrive.
So, yes, perhaps the Earth in some ways would be better without us. But it would be devoid of it's purpose. It was made for man to inhabit. That's why it is here, to remove us would be to remove its meaning. Imagine a home with no family to occupy it. It's meaning is gone, it's reason for existence removed. It's a sad, soulless shell, merely a collection wood, bricks and paint, nothing more. An Earth without man might be less polluted and greener, but it would be empty and soulless. Just another ball of dirt and gas floating through space, missing it's reason for being.
I think you truly nailed this - very well said!
Nice post.
As a loner introvert I think though it would be nicer with less people! LOL
Hello Doug, long time no comments from me. I've been uber-busy setting up my research lab, but needed an intellectual gear shift tonight and visited your site to catch up.
As you might imagine, I have a different viewpoint from you on this one. Scriptural issues aside (and there are numerous there: suppose the Genesis account is more influenced by man than by God, and the whole idea of us being the crowning touch of creation came more from, er, US than Him), I have problems with the concept that the focus of the universe is humanity. For one thing, there's an awful lot of the universe that doesn't seem to contain any humans, or life at all for that matter. The cosmos is unthinkably large, and I find it difficult to imagine the Creator went to all that trouble just for us.
Then there's the earth's history: it's been here far longer than we have, and for the vast majority of its time there was nothing but single-celled algae and bacteria to populate it. Humans have been around for a few million out of several billion years, a mere fraction of the earth's lifespan. Again, it seems like we were not the primary focus.
Like you, I don't imagine the earth would be an inherently "better" place without humans. I like humans, especially myself and my family. And I think we have a place on this globe. But I don't believe for an instant that this globe was custom tailored solely for our benefit. I think God was quite pleased with the algae and the bacteria and the ferns and the dinosaurs--perhaps more so because they never turned against their own internal understanding of what their purpose was. Humans are (I believe) unique among the animals in that we can choose to act contrary to what we know is right. So if we are the crowning touch of creation, we were also the straw that broke its back. And in that respect, the world would be a bit more like the Garden on (metaphorical) day 5 if we were gone. If I remember my Bible, God declared that day "good" even without our presence.
'doc - Very good to hear from you again. I hope your life calms down soon so you might make more regular visits.
A couple of comments on your comment.
I understand your point on the Genesis account perhaps being man influenced. That's not an invalid observation. I'm willing to take it as Gods because I believe that God is able to influence the writings as He'd want them. I don't know how that happens, but that's my faith. I know it sounds, perhaps, a little blind, but I'm not sure a God who cannot get His Hole Book right is worth following. So I take it at face value and choose to believe it says what He wants it to say.
Also, I didn't say that the universe was created for us, only that the Earth was. Wow, it would be neat if it were, and there doesn't seem to be anyone else out there to enjoy it, but there's no reason for me to believe that the universe is ours, only Earth. I think, assuming you take Genesis as inspired, there is ample evidence that is true. It doesn't come out and say that God created all of this for man, but circumstantially it's evident from Genesis.
On your time line, I'm not a literal 7 days, thousands of years believer. Millions or billions doesn't offend me. Nor does the notion that we are at the tail end of that long time frame. My perception of God is that time doesn't mean much to Him (a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day and whatnot) so the fact that he may have spent millions of years preparing Earth for us doesn't seem out of the question. While the notion of evolution on some scale doesn't bother me, I do not subscribe to the idea that man evolved up from the amoeba (which, re-reading your comment, you didn't actually say). That I cannot reconcile with Genesis. If it's true, well, I'll be surprised when I meet God one day. :-P
It's interesting, isn't it, how you and I look at the physical world and the scriptural account differently? We both see apparent discrepancies. You tend to side with the physical evidence, finding reasons the scriptural account may not be reliable. I however, see those same differences and find reasons that perhaps the physical evidence isn't what it seems to be. I like to think of us standing with God one day and God saying, "Now Doug, 'doc was right on when he talked about ... but you didn't listen. And 'doc, when Doug spoke of ... you needed to let go of your trust in science a bit more and just have faith."
Maybe not. :-D
(BTW - We got a new hire at our office with an '07 Mazda3 5 door in that dark grey just like yours. Are you enjoying it? Has your mileage improved? The memories of flawed body work are fading and I'm really enjoying mine.)