The elephant, the beach and the clean air

Not the usual snideness about Earth Day today, just a point that the Us vs. the Earth mantra got old a long time ago. This guy, who thinks it's time to dump Earth Day, captures my sentiments pretty well:

I don't worry about the earth. I'm pretty certain the earth will survive the worst we can do to it. I'm very certain the earth doesn't worry about us.

I don't have much to add to a column I wrote on the subject 10 years ago. Our archives can't be linked to, so I'll just cut and paste the whole thing. Here it is:

Some company or other - or maybe it's a public-interest group - has been running an ad on TV lately asking what are obviously intended to be provocative questions.
    If you had to, would you choose:
* A flower or an elephant?
* A 100-year-old tree or a 1,000-year-old beach?
* Clean air or clean water?
    That is what logicians call bifurcation, presenting a proposition as an either/or argument, as if those were the only two choices available. But there are always other choices. Instead of grappling only with the choices in ``America - love it or leave it,'' we can decide to try to change America, or try to understand it better. Life isn't just Stop and Go. There are a lot of yield signs and four-way stops out there.
    This particular bifurcation is being used to sell the myth of Pristine Mother Earth vs. Evil Human Consumption. By being greedy and selfish, you see, we are using up the world. But if we could just slow down a little, be more responsible, we could have it all: a sane, orderly existence, and a healthier planet. Then we wouldn't have to make all those awful choices: Set fire to the pansy or put a bullet in Dumbo's head, and it's all our fault.
    But nobody - not a single person in the history of the world - has ever been able to have it all. And the way we deal with that unfortunate reality is to make choices.
    Do I spend Saturday afternoon watching TV or mowing the lawn? Do I visit my mom or go shopping? Do we punish China for human rights violations or try to improve conditions there with increased trade? Should Superman keep saving the world over and over, or should he marry Lois Lane and just be happy? Should I pay ahead on my home mortgage or buy the digital camera?
    (So, OK, call me an Evil Human Consumer, I bought the digital camera. But I've been watching and waiting for five years, and this is the year the quality went up enough and the prices came down enough. And that happy circumstance coincided nicely with the IRS sending me a sizable refund check.)
    And, please, the Earth is not a sacred, noble deity that has to be preserved for its own sake. ``Nature'' is everything, which means humankind is a part of it, too. The planet is the house we live in. And we should take reasonable care of it simply because it will be here after we're gone, and other people will have to live in it then. But a house that's lived in will always show a little wear and tear. Things that have to be used are - well, used.
    (And raw, untouched nature isn't benign, either. It's downright cruel in its indifference. In human civilization, if you have a momentary lapse of attention, there are organizations and networks and institutions ensuring that you will escape major consequences more often than not. In nature, if you stop paying attention, you die.)
    So we do the best we can with our house, not purposefully wasting anything, leaving it in the best shape we can for the next tenants.
    And when we have to, we make choices.
    Let's see, a flower or an elephant? Do I choose to save the pretty but simple piece of flora or the complex, self-aware organism? Gee, that's a tough one.
    The 100-year-old tree or the 1,000-year-old beach? The beach. Trees are a renewable resource.
    Clean air or clean water? The clean air. I can boil the bad water.
    Any more questions? If not, think I'll go play with my digital camera now.
    Maybe take some nature shots.