Rand Sindberg explores Flint, Michigan “Without Us”:
It is returning to nature. A nice little photo essay.
There’s a quote from a New Yorker review of the book, The World Without Us
:
After thousands of years, the Chunnel, rubber tires, and more than a billion tons of plastic might remain, but eventually a polymer-eating microbe could evolve, and, with the spectacular return of fish and bird populations, the earth might revert to Eden.
Why do I think that the reviewer would look forward to that? Except, of course, he or she wants an Eden without either Adam, or Eve.
Because this sort of maximum nihilism seems to be a recurring theme amongst some elements of the Rousseauvian left. Forget transhumanism — this is sans-humanism.










There are lots of planets out there that do not have any human beings on them at all. Perhaps the New York Review of Books writers would like to move to one of them.
Well, Iowahawk revealed that members of the Obama Administration lobbied on behalf of the Coalition for a Human-Free Planet and Friends of Ebola…
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/02/dead-hobo-glitch-claims-another-obama-cabinet-appointee-.html
I’ve read the book and the post. Neither one posits that an earth without humans would be a good or desirable thing. Where are you guys coming up with this angle? Do you really think it’s far fetched to observe that humans have caused some environmental damage? If that’s considered radical thought on your part, you need to do a little more research. Are you really arguing that anyone who believes we need to at least pay a little attention to how we treat the environment is advocating a world without humans? Forgive me if I’m misinterpreting something here.
3evaY2 wdjzwpwysbob, [url=http://ewovexxilpuf.com/]ewovexxilpuf[/url], [link=http://hbtvuttjotbf.com/]hbtvuttjotbf[/link], http://hhehuethiesi.com/
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.