I beg to differ. We pollute, and know it’s bad because we can see the effects, yet we continue to do it. We cut trees, whole forests, down selfishly, and most of us never think twice about recycling when throwing any form of paper or cardboard into the garbage. We litter our oceans with our waste, where the fish we eat are the same ones that eat our trash, mistaking it for food, which puts a whole new meaning to not s****** where you eat. We steal from, murder, and gamble with nature. We may have some sense of morality, but claiming the title “exceptional” would be lying to ourselves, and furthermore, immoral. I will not deny that there have been many exceptional thoughts and actions from the human species, but looking at the damage we’ve done and continue to do, I’d say that we’re not so exceptional after all. The blood on our hands is there as evidence, and although it can’t be washed clean, it can show us where we went wrong.
Immoral Exceptionalism
I beg to differ. We pollute, and know it’s bad because we can see the effects, yet we continue to do it. We cut trees, whole forests, down selfishly, and most of us never think twice about recycling when throwing any form of paper or cardboard into the garbage. We litter our oceans with our waste, where the fish we eat are the same ones that eat our trash, mistaking it for food, which puts a whole new meaning to not s****** where you eat. We steal from, murder, and gamble with nature. We may have some sense of morality, but claiming the title “exceptional” would be lying to ourselves, and furthermore, immoral. I will not deny that there have been many exceptional thoughts and actions from the human species, but looking at the damage we’ve done and continue to do, I’d say that we’re not so exceptional after all. The blood on our hands is there as evidence, and although it can’t be washed clean, it can show us where we went wrong.
There are more trees now than over 100 years ago. It is a renewable resource.
I have to say this whenever somebody brings up that we are depleting our supply of lumber.
Of course trees are a renewable resource; if our rate of consumption is greater than that of the rate of growth, there will be a horrific decline of trees.
Also, even thought I don't have the exact numbers, there is a significantly less amount of forests today then there was a hundred years ago. Where, exactly, are these trees you speak of? Are they very young and in greenhouses and nurseries, instead of in forests?
Of course there may be more trees now than in 1900, because in 1900, we had just finished the era of deforestation for timber. But no one knows exactly for sure how many trees there were before deforestation. Sure, we've replanted trees since then, but how do we know if there's been any net gain?
And as far as what I wrote in "Immoral Exceptionalism" dealing with deforestation, I'm not just talking about the U.S. Worldwide, we have less trees than we used to at any p... (more »)

dragonbiscuits

Join the Discussion
This article has 5 comments. Post your own!