in personal

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear…

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” 

I believe, if you’re a friend of mine, you’ll pretty instantly say yes. If you’re not, you might, or might not. But I don’t care about the question. I strongly hold the answer to be yes. But what I care about, is the existence of this question at all.

People who support the face that a sound shall not be produced, argue as such: 

The possibility of unperceived existence?

Can something exist without being perceived?

Main article: George Berkeley – Wikipedia

Another interesting post, which said that the answer should be no, was here. It “appealed to the sense of humanity”. Or that’s why I got of it.

So, getting back to the point, what really concerns me, and is correctly symbolized in the just above-mentioned person’s entry, is the intense “ego – or anthropo-centrism”, that is so instinctive in humans (at least, as far as I know), is very appalling. Especially when you get to know of it.

I hope you got my point so far – we perceive, even after all this so-called-“development” we have undergone, our soul mentality, is still very much the same. We still think, the entire universe revolves around us. We might deride the stupidity of the Catholic Church from Galileo’s times. But how much have we changed? I don’t think a lot.

And I stretch this observation to something of my “pet” topic – something, thanks to Michael Crichton‘s State of Fear, I can hold a pretty strong argument against – and that is about “environmental damage”. 

All around, we must have heard about nature being “destroyed”. Environment being  “slaughtered” at the hands of the abusive humans. Humans destroying nature. For most of you, such statements must not only be obvious, you must have often used them.

“Nature”, as we know it – has existed for over four and a half billion years. The trivial way we are taught about numbers and such values, you’d think that yeah, so what? Well, as Douglas Adams nicely describes the quantity of the length of the universe as :

“Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space.”

You could really say the same thing about time. Or for that matter most of the stuff we learn about. The universe exists at such dimensions (read: scales), that we can’t even imagine them. We can only think we can imagine. And such hope is where humanity lives. 

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known.”


We think that the nature around us is getting destroyed -due to global warming, “pollution”, deforestation, etc. So let’s pull one thing out. Global Warming kills, eh? Whom? We all know its gonna lead to a greater variety of mosquitoes, “cooler” insects, and the sort. Of course, all that might lead to a decline in our population. But just us and a few around us. That is destruction of nature? End of the World? Of course it is. At least for s. And that is why we must take care of it. Because the world will end if we go on crapping on the planet like we are. And who really is going to get killed? Just us. And that is all we care for. We might conceal our sympathy under the guise of caring for other animals, and species. But all we care about, really is ourselves. How can a world exist if we can’t sense it? No, it can’t. =)

Really? You might think I’m an anti-environmentalist; I’m all out against those poor fools who are into “saving nature” (which, as we have now deduced is = saving our own poor helpless asses). But no, I’m not. Once again, I quote one of my favourite analogies from the State of Fear:

Ted Bradley [the poor, forsaken brainless soul, who goes about thinking like just-another-lame-human]: So, what exactly is your point? [having given up, after being proved of the futility of arguing on the basis of the existence of Global Warming and etcetera]. You’re saying we  don’t need to pay any attention tot he environment, that we can just leave it alone and let industry pollute and everything will be hunky-dory?

Kenner [my hero – please don’t misunderstand anything… ;)]: If you oppose the death penalty, does it also mean you are in favour of doing nothing at all about crime?

TB: No.

Kenner: You can oppose the penalty, but still favour environmental controls.

TB: Yes, of course.

Kenner: Then I can say that global warming is not a threat but still favour environmental controls, can’t I?

TB: But it doesn’t sound like you’re saying that.

Kenner: *sigh* =(

Hence, I too say that we need to act even better for change, with more ferocity, and determination. But we need to do it, with a more absolute mentality. Something that is not so fixated around humanity. Even if that is the only point you can see as a motive for acting yourself. And what is really more necessary than anything else, is more knowledge. Try to know better stuff, people. I’m not saying I do. Or anybody does; but strive to. I think that’s most essential. 🙂

  • Wow. Slick new theme again. 🙂 And you got IntenseDebate too. It’s good, both Disqus and IntenseDebate making commenting such a PITA.

    State of Fear is one of my favorite books too. It raises some really valid questions. In case you need to explain anyone the gist of the novel, send them a link to this speech by Michael Crichton “Aliens Cause Global Warming” –

  • I think I removed IntenseDebate quite some time ago… It’s submit button happened to freeze, and remained so despite re-installation. But as long as it was there, it was pretty cool. 🙂
    I haven’t actually put the aliens’ link but I put in the Why politicized science is dangerous one. 🙂 Actually I myself hadn’t read The Aliens cause global warming speech myself, yet. It is rather cool (expectedly, nevertheless.) Thanks. 🙂

  • Pingback: Happy Environment Day! | The Mystic Ranger()