“Saving Earth”: or “Plastic-free Earth” What’s Better.

Gowrav Vishwakarma
3 min readFeb 29, 2020

That's perfectly okay, and a great initiative to correct bad habits of humans as a species. I do support and I do whatever I can to make the mother earth free from plastic also. But I just don’t like the title of these movements.

Saving Earth?

This blog is just my thought to correct the way we look at the problem. If we are looking at the wrong problem statement the outcome would be definitely wrong.

So, The problem is “Global Warming”, “Pollution” and maybe to be narrow and specific “Plastic” that is harming our Earth’s environment. And, so many, so-called, Environmentalists are working to save the earth.

What if they just correct their titles and focus from “Saving Earth” to “Saving Humans”. I bet the second one is better. You are neither harming nor saving the earth in any sense. To understand let’s have a short story first.

The carboniferous Era

Once upon a time, approx 300 to 480 Million years ago. There was some fight of survival on this mother earth. It was a kingdom of new generations biomass, Trees. The species were fighting to be better. they were evolving and to get more and more sunlight they were trying to go higher and higher. Higher than others. using cellulose and a tough fibre called lignin to stay upright, we call trunk now.

But this was evolving Era, they produced trunk but their roots were still shallow. They grew tall and fell over quite easily. It was their learning.

And here was the catch. They were using Carbon for their new invention and when fell when grew due to shallow roots, it is just left on earth and Oops, by the time the bacteria, fungi, and other microbes that today would have chewed the dead-wood into smaller and smaller bits were missing.

Apparently this meant that a lot of carbon ended up stored in the wood of dead trees that wouldn’t get broken down. Resulting increased oxygen in the environment, resulting in enlarging giant creatures in size. Everything was changed and messed up.

The result was a disaster, A species did something for their survival, “put Mother earth on Risk” (As for how today’s environmentalist would have thought at that time).

We get our 90% Coal from that era only.

Anyway, that kept going for another 60 Million years until Nature (Or Mother Earth introduces Wood Eaters as it’s problem solver)

End of Story.

So what’s to be taken from this one story

The above story I specially selected is from 300 Million years ago and continued for the next 60 million years. The environment was totally changed at that time. Is monther earth dead now? Nope, we are still on here.

So, If plastics are our concern that is harming the environment and mother earth. We need to look at it the other way around. We are just another species on this planet, considering and thinking ourself as the most intelligent one, that can save the planet, that has seen millions of years and has survived very well.

Yes, we should and must be worried and do something. But once we correct our problem statements.

Is mother earth in danger?

What will happen, if we continue what we are doing? The environment will change, global warming or whatnot but the situation will be hazardous for mankind.

Hurrey, you got it right. So the problem is for mankind, not mother earth, maybe with tons and tons of plastic on earth for next 60 million years and nature will introduce and evolve to solve it, but maybe we as a human cannot survive that environment change.

So, what we need to save then?

What's the point to take from this writeup?

If we try to put our efforts in wrong directions, we would be a lost civilization, all over the world. Earth will be there, but we may not be. If we understand, that what we need is to “Save Humans” instead of “Save The Earth”, we have a better problem statement.

And a better problem statement and the well-understood problem is the first step to get it solved.

“Save The Humans”.

--

--