“The point that doesn’t get considered, however, is not that humans are an accessory (consumers), but that they have the POTENTIAL to be useful to the life process and also to work to stabilize some of the natural fluctuations over time (We have shown that we can change the climate, so we can also help stabilize it if we choose to. We can also establish permaculture ecosystems and maintain them (versus agricultural extraction), protect against asteroid impacts, and moderate wildlife through hunting and replenishment work.)
Most of the physical activity of humans at this point is wasted on ‘economic’ models that religiously promote perpetual growth and overconsumption. (We have replaced our own usefulness to the food system with oil/chemicals.)
Is this likely to change? Yes. It doesn’t look like it’s going to be intentional, however.
We are at a point in the development of organic life where the experiment testing the validity of intentions/imagination/belief has reached a climax. We either will change our behavior, proving Intentionality to be useful to future species (whether or not they include man), or the experiment will fail in the depopulation of humans and possibly start over again under less convenient circumstances.
In the meantime, all of the questions about population, economics, nationalism and history will be compared in due natural process to the question of whether humans can be useful to their own future (creating/enhancing resources) or be nothing but unintentional yeast: totally dependent on random circumstances and unable to act deliberately on those circumstances in their own better interest. “
