Last night I was watching a program on the Weather Channel about hurricanes. The narrator stated that hurricanes act like an air conditioner for the tropics. These cyclones slurp up heat from the southern reaches of the planet and redistribute the heat to the colder northern regions. In essence, while we humans regard them as nothing more than monstrous storms, hurricanes serve a distinct purpose in the ecology of Mother Earth.
To be quite honest, I had never viewed the topic from this perspective. Of course, once I pondered the concept a bit, it made perfect sense. Our weather behaves as it does because it provides benefit to the whole organism. Just as lightening strikes ignite fires to burn away overgrowth in the underbrush, hurricanes play a crucial role in maintaining optimal worldwide climate systems.
So, with this in mind, I was dumbfounded by the next segment of the program. The narrator shared with the viewing audience the fact that several research teams are trying to devise methods for stopping hurricanes before or as they are forming.
Needless to say, the producers of this show obviously didn't recognize the disconnection between these two segments. On the one hand, we're told that hurricanes play a critical role in keeping our planet livable. On the other hand, we're told that there are scientific teams working to dissipate these storms.
Hello? Has anyone stopped to consider that achieving the latter may negatively impact the former?
Almost every time we humans seek to "remedy" one facet of our environment -- something that we view as inconvenient or troublesome -- we screw up the rest of the fabric. If all things are interconnected, changing one variable changes everything else -- often in ways that make things a lot worse!
When are we going to learn that the goal shouldn't be to try to control and manipulate nature? Our goal should be how better to learn to live with it; how to adapt our lifestyles and society to a mysterious force far greater than we will ever be.
To be quite honest, I had never viewed the topic from this perspective. Of course, once I pondered the concept a bit, it made perfect sense. Our weather behaves as it does because it provides benefit to the whole organism. Just as lightening strikes ignite fires to burn away overgrowth in the underbrush, hurricanes play a crucial role in maintaining optimal worldwide climate systems.
So, with this in mind, I was dumbfounded by the next segment of the program. The narrator shared with the viewing audience the fact that several research teams are trying to devise methods for stopping hurricanes before or as they are forming.
Needless to say, the producers of this show obviously didn't recognize the disconnection between these two segments. On the one hand, we're told that hurricanes play a critical role in keeping our planet livable. On the other hand, we're told that there are scientific teams working to dissipate these storms.
Hello? Has anyone stopped to consider that achieving the latter may negatively impact the former?
Almost every time we humans seek to "remedy" one facet of our environment -- something that we view as inconvenient or troublesome -- we screw up the rest of the fabric. If all things are interconnected, changing one variable changes everything else -- often in ways that make things a lot worse!
When are we going to learn that the goal shouldn't be to try to control and manipulate nature? Our goal should be how better to learn to live with it; how to adapt our lifestyles and society to a mysterious force far greater than we will ever be.
Interesting this comes at the same time the Three Gorges Dam is being "tested" by flooding rains!
ReplyDelete