posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:42 PM
This makes me incredibly sad, personally.
I do respect the views of those who do not view this proportionally as a tragedy, however I do not personally share that view.
The dispersant, as far as I understand, only affects the oil that has reached the surface. We're talking about an underwater well which is leaking
continuously at the moment. Much of the damage being done is not visible on the surface if I understand correctly. Even if there weren't the
slightest drop of crude washing up on beaches or visible on the surface, oil would still be leaking into the sea.
I also agree with other posters who point out that the magnitude of this spill is not as great as others have been in the past (so far,) but I must
respectfully disagree that this lessens the degree of tragedy or the failure of human beings - once again - to protect the environment adequately.
Even if one were to believe that this is some sort of effort to kickstart a globalist/elite/etc. (I'm not clear on the specific of that hypothesis)
to sell us a new environmental agenda or an agenda to sell us new fuel sources, etc. etc. etc. none of that changes the fact that this still
constitutes pollution by human beings of their environment, and damage to said environment.
One doesn't have to believe that this is a portent of the end of the world, or will kill millions of sea creatures (although that it will have some
impact is without question in my opinion,) in order to view this as an incredibly saddening ecological tragedy.
I even agree with the above posted George Carlin's statements. The Earth will still be here long after we're gone, should our species perish from
the universe. It will balance itself out somehow, in the sense that some life will persist in whatever new ecosystem emerges in our wake. But
shouldn't we try to limit the amount of damage we're doing to the present, existing ecosystem, irrespective of Earth's durability as a
harbor of life?
Just my two cents.
[edit on 5/11/2010 by AceWombat04]