Is Planet Earth Doomed?

THE end of the 20th century is approaching, and the 21st century is about to dawn. In this setting, an increasing number of people who would normally pay scant or no attention to prophecies of doom are wondering whether some event of world-shattering importance may be in the offing.

You may have noticed newspaper and magazine articles about this—even whole books on the subject. With what developments the 21st century will begin, we must wait to see. Some people point out that reaching the end of the year 2000 makes a difference of only one year (or of one minute, from 2000 to 2001) and will likely be of no great consequence. Of greater concern to many is the long-range future of our planet.

One prophecy that surfaces with more frequency nowadays is that at some point—whether in the immediate or in the distant future—planet Earth itself is doomed to complete destruction. Consider just a couple of such gloomy forecasts.

In his book The End of the World—The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction, first published in 1996, author and philosopher John Leslie offers three possibilities as to how man’s life on earth might end. First he asks: “Could all-out nuclear war mean the end of the human race?” Then he adds: “A more likely scenario . . . would be extinction through the effects of radiation: cancers, weakenings of the immune system so that infectious diseases ran riot, or numerous birth defects. There could also be deaths of microorganisms important to the health of the environment.” A third possibility that Mr. Leslie puts forth is that the earth might be struck by a comet or an asteroid: “Of comets and asteroids whose orbits are such that they might some day hit the Earth, there appear to be around two thousand measuring between half a mile and six miles [1 and 10 km] in diameter. There is also a much smaller number (to estimate it would be sheer guesswork) of still larger ones, and a much greater number of smaller ones.”

A Graphic “Doomsday” Description

Or consider another scientist, Paul Davies, professor at the University of Adelaide, Australia. He was described by the Washington Times as “the best science writer on either side of the Atlantic.” In 1994 he supplied The Last Three Minutes, which has been termed “the mother of all doomsday books.” The first chapter of this book is called “Doomsday,” and it describes an imaginary scenario of what could happen if a comet were to strike planet Earth. Read part of his blood-chilling description:

“The planet shudders with the force of ten thousand earthquakes. A shock wave of displaced air sweeps over the surface of the globe, flattening all structures, pulverizing everything in its path. The flat terrain around the impact site rises in a ring of liquid mountains several miles high, exposing the bowels of the Earth in a crater a hundred miles across. . . . A vast column of dusty debris fans out into the atmosphere, blotting out the sun across the whole planet. Now the sunlight is replaced by the sinister, flickering glare of a billion meteors, roasting the ground below with their searing heat, as displaced material plunges back from space into the atmosphere.”

Professor Davies goes on to link this imaginary scenario to the prediction that comet Swift-Tuttle would hit the earth. He adds the warning that although such an event may not be likely in the near future, in his opinion “sooner or later Swift-Tuttle, or an object like it, will hit the Earth.” His conclusion is based on estimates that suggest that 10,000 objects a quarter mile [0.5 km] or more in diameter move on Earth-intersecting orbits.

Do you believe that such a frightening prospect is real? A surprising number of people do. But they brush aside any concern by reassuring themselves that it will not happen in their time. Why, though, should planet Earth ever be destroyed—either soon or millenniums from now? Certainly, it is not the earth itself that is the main source of trouble for its inhabitants, human or animal. Rather, is not man himself responsible for most of the problems of this 20th century, including the possibility of completely “ruining the earth”?—Revelation 11:18.

Man’s Mismanagement Reversed

What of the more likely possibility that man himself may totally ruin or spoil the earth by his mismanagement and greed? There is no question that great destruction of parts of the earth has already taken place through excessive deforestation, uncontrolled pollution of the atmosphere, and spoiling of the waterways. This was summed up well some 25 years ago by authors Barbara Ward and René Dubos in their book Only One Earth: “The three broad areas of pollution which we must examine—air, water, and soil—make up, of course, the three main constituent elements of our planetary life.” And the situation has basically not changed for the better since then, has it?

When considering the possibility of man’s ruining or destroying the earth by his own folly, we can take heart by considering planet Earth’s marvelous recuperative and regenerative powers. Describing this ability of amazing recovery, René Dubos makes these encouraging observations in another book, The Resilience of Ecosystems:

“Many persons fear that awareness of environmental degradation has come too late because much of the damage already done to ecosystems is irreversible. In my opinion, this pessimism is unjustified because ecosystems have enormous powers of recovery from traumatic experiences.

“Ecosystems possess several mechanisms for self-healing. . . . They enable ecosystems to overcome the effect of disturbances simply by reestablishing progressively the original state of ecological equilibrium.”

It Can Be Done

An outstanding example of this in recent years is the gradual cleanup of London’s famed river Thames. The book The Thames Transformed, by Jeffery Harrison and Peter Grant, documents this remarkable achievement that demonstrates what can be done when men work together for the common good. Britain’s Duke of Edinburgh wrote in his foreword to the book: “Here at last is a success story on such a major scale that it is worth publishing even at the risk that it may encourage some people to assume that the problems of conservation are not really as bad as they were led to believe. . . . They can all take heart from what has been achieved in the Thames. The good news is that it can be done and their schemes too can succeed.”

In the chapter “The Great Clean-Up,” Harrison and Grant write enthusiastically about what has been achieved over the last 50 years: “For the first time in the world, a heavily polluted and industrialised river has been restored to such a degree that waterfowl and fish have returned in abundance. That such a transformation has taken place so rapidly, in a situation which at first seemed quite hopeless, gives encouragement to even the most pessimistic wildlife conservationist.”

They then describe the transformation: “The state of the river deteriorated steadily over the years with what was, perhaps, the final blow coming during the Second World War when major sewage works and sewers were damaged or destroyed. During the 1940’s and 1950’s the health of the Thames was at its lowest ebb. The river was little better than an open sewer; the water was black in colour, contained no oxygen, and during the summer months the foul smell from the Thames was detectable over a wide area. . . . The once teeming fish had finally been driven out, apart from a few eels which were able to survive because of their ability to breathe air direct from the surface. The birdlife of the inner, built-up reaches between London and Woolwich was reduced to a handful of mallard and mute swans, and they owed their existence to spillages from the grain wharves rather than a natural food supply. . . . Who would have believed then the dramatic reversal which was about to take place? Within ten years those same reaches of the river were to be transformed from a virtual avian void to a refuge for many species of water birds, including a wintering population of up to 10,000 wildfowl and 12,000 waders.”

Of course, that describes but one transformation in one small corner of the globe. Nonetheless, we can draw lessons from this example. It shows that planet Earth need not be considered doomed because of the mismanagement, greed, and thoughtlessness of man. Proper education and united effort for the common good of mankind can help the earth reverse even extensive damage to its ecology, environment, and land surface. But what about possible doom from outside forces, such as a wandering comet or asteroid?

The following article contains the key to a satisfying answer to such a perplexing question.

[Blurb on page 5]

Education and united effort can help the earth reverse even extensive damage to itself