Nothing Protects Our Planet

Comments

Funny, I have the feeling that I disagree with this, probably just on instinct because it's science related and written by you Charles. However, I have not a fucking clue what you're getting on about. Your quote appears to have no relation to your complaint. WTF?

Lynx on September 21, 2011 at 8:24 AM

We need to get out of the habit of reading nonsense like this...

bpinsea on September 21, 2011 at 8:28 AM

I think he's taking offense at the usage of "our," but I'm really not sure, but if he is he needs to work harder at explaining his point. If it is his point, it's a stupid one at that; to defer that the usage of our indicates possession. It's no different than when I talk about "my" street or "my" city.

npage148 on September 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM

I THINK he's saying that the atmosphere doesn't protect "our planet", it protects "us" on "the planet" insofar as the planet would exist without the atmosphere, but we wouldn't. Still a stupid post.

Banna on September 21, 2011 at 8:43 AM

@3, if he's is taking offense to the usage of "our" it is ridiculous. Though I can't think of what else he could be objecting to in that passage. The Earth is OUR planet. Not because it was made for us, or because we "own" it but because because we exist here. And only here.

Language is an awesome thing. Many a word can be used to mean many a thing. "Our" does not have a static meaning and it does not imply any sort of morality or righteousness or divinity. Charles must be really looking for things to be offended/affronted by if this is what he's worried over.

moosefan on September 21, 2011 at 8:43 AM

"Earth was not made for humans, not made for the Freudian problems of fathers and sons." Yes, let's just not have those problems then.

Like the man said, Charles: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

gloomy gus on September 21, 2011 at 8:44 AM

YOU simply need to get out of the habit of writing nonsense.

Or get out of the habit of writing.

Whichever gets you out of the stranger faster.

sonder on September 21, 2011 at 8:47 AM

I've found the increasing evidence of life on other planets deeply comforting, as I feel it takes some of the pressure off me to excel at being alive.

Fistique on September 21, 2011 at 8:50 AM

More mindless gobbledygook from the biggest asshole on the payroll. Yawn.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on September 21, 2011 at 8:52 AM

I don't get it... what're you whining about? We live here, it's sorta OUR planet. We're the only thing with a sense of ownership that isn't instinct to control territory on this planet. Also, you share your home with countless insects... it's still YOUR home.

Really? Just... stop trying to hard to make people into the bad guy.

lionwar922 on September 21, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Well, humanity is without any inherent value. The earth wasn't meant for us, or anything else. Meaning is illusory. Everything just is.

throxus on September 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM

The conditions on Earth were not created especially for us. Life on this planet evolved and adapted to the conditions that happened to be here.

Rob in Baltimore on September 21, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Huh?

Joe Szilagyi on September 21, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Charles reminds me of how politicians answer a question by saying, "the real question is..." and then answer the question they want to answer even if the answer has nothing to do with the original question.
Never mind the BBC report is a statment of fact, not oppinion. Here Charles does not seem to understand the distinction.

mwb on September 21, 2011 at 9:17 AM

@10 - "Instinct" is a poorly defined term that people use to distance themselves from animals. We are territorial in pretty much the same way as animals, except that we rarely pee on our property to mark it.

@everybody - My goodness, the frenzy Charles can work you guys up into just by posting. I can't wait for the shitstorm that will follow the day Charles simply posts "Herp a-derp. Herp-derp. Derp herp. Derp?"

MacCrocodile on September 21, 2011 at 9:18 AM

@9 -- you sum it up perfectly. there is NO ONE who give a fuck what this man has to say.

Kirby on September 21, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I'm trying not to hate you, Charles, but your combination of arrogance, self-absorption, and stupidity make it very difficult.

seandr on September 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Lots of hate here... What Charles is saying isn't that far out. He's calling out how embedded anthropocentrism is in our media.

nickster on September 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM

@ 18, well, way to stand up against anthropocentrism! (Hey, spellcheck doesn't like that word. Did you or some college busybody make that up?)

Matt from Denver on September 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Oxygen on this planet was and is exclusively generated by life.

Vince on September 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM

really? yes, lets continue to detach "our"selves from the planet, that's the leading cause of "our" continued pollution habits. Moron.

thypresident@gmail.com on September 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM

@18, well, when another species starts publishing a newspaper, they can call it "their" planet and I promise not to have a problem with it.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on September 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM

And Vince (@20), no, that's not true. Now, if you had said "Most of the free oxygen on this planet was and is generated by life," I'd agree with you. But you didn't.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on September 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM

You make Vogons seem eloquent, Charles.

OuterCow on September 21, 2011 at 10:43 AM

@19 & 22. It's more of a frame of reference issue. The embedded assumption in that language is that humans are uniquely special and the universe was made for us. And all Charles is saying is, "no, it's not and it bugs me when those assumptions are embedded in the language from the media"

nickster on September 21, 2011 at 10:50 AM

So corviphobia is cool, but anthropocentrism is uncool.

Go back to posting bad pix of the homely houses that threaten "our" neighborhoods.

RonK, Seattle on September 21, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Radiation is harmful to microscopic life as well. that's why it is used to treat cancer and sterilize things like food and medical equipment. "Tree of Life" or no, Earth would be a lifeles chunk of rock without an atmosphere.

thatsnotright on September 21, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Getting mad at people who write nonsense, huh? I think there's some projecting going on here....

Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on September 21, 2011 at 11:40 AM

Exactly...if the atmosphere were really there to protect our planet from asteroid impacts, the mammals would never have risen and you wouldn't be reading this.

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on September 21, 2011 at 11:43 AM

If a rampaging elephant intercepts a cruel and reckless driver that would have otherwise plowed into a hapless bike rider, did the elephant protect the biker?

Zebes on September 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM

The biosphere is part of the planet, elemental oxygen is part of the biosphere (produced almost exclusively by plants, algae, and cyanobacteria) - a majority of what our planet is, is life. The atmosphere very much protects the planet.

LQ on September 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Zebes @30, perhaps. If I took shelter from a hailstorm under a rock overhang, the million year old rock did in fact protect me from the hail.

wingedkat on September 21, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I do agree with Mudede on the basic principle here, although I think the example of "protecting our world" to be a bit weak.

I'm also amused that people who seem to dislike Mudede in general really drive up the comment count on his posts.

wingedkat on September 21, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Life can't exist without molecular oxygen?
I RAGED SO HARD MY FLOOR TURNED TO LAVA.
FUCK YOU CHARLES. ewstrdykniolijuytrdeykirtyas09uyg3ioDAy7i 32ec[l,.liaO8932OLKXKjUWOKAE1OCo nuja

venomlash on September 21, 2011 at 1:36 PM

@36, breath now...calm down...

I too read it that way on the first go, but no, that's not what he said. He said MACROSCOPIC life would not be possible without oxygen, which is accurate, as far as our observations have taken us.

Not that the post makes any kind of sense even with that. Free oxygen is hardly an "accident" but a byproduct of photosynthetic life. And I wouldn't be so confident that macroscopic life (a largely arbitrary distinction, since it means "life Homo sapiens can see with its eyes) can't exist without oxygen, since we don't actually have other planets with life to compare evolutionary paths with, but then I'm probably asking too much from Charles already eh?

Lynx on September 21, 2011 at 2:57 PM

@37 I agree with you on that, but some of the wannabe scientists will argue that point, just watch.

KittenKoder on September 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM

@37: Some polychaete worms are facultative anaerobic organisms; that is, they will use oxygen if it is available, but are also capable of metabolizing in an entirely anoxic environment.

venomlash on September 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM

@39, but I don't really think that defeats the statement, since they are facultative, not obligate. I don't know what their evolutionary path was, but it could well be that they started out as fully aerobic and developed a facultative anaerobic ability later. It's widely understood that pluricellular life is associated with aerobic respiration, so you really can't put Charles on the hook for that. Not to worry, that leaves about 999,999 other science related fuck ups to get him for ;-)

Lynx on September 22, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Nice, just nice, I say a loosely similar thing and get told I was wrong ... yep, that's the nature of hatred, blind and stupid.

KittenKoder on September 22, 2011 at 5:57 AM

Well, the difference is that you're a dumbass. Go fuck yourself.

Fifty-Two-Eighty on September 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM

Nothing Protects Our Planet

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Washington's Backlogged Crime Lab Braces for Influx of Low-Level Drug Cases from Seattle

Meteor Showers and Makeouts: The Stranger Does Day In Day Out

Milk Bar Finally Comes to the Pacific Northwest

We Probably Do Not Need Cops Directing Traffic at Sports Games

The 15 Best Restaurants in the Seattle Area 2023

How Will Conservatives Smear City Council Candidates This Election?

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!