Every story has two sides, and as a reporter, it is my sacred duty to report both sides. This must be done regardless of how factual, sane or coherent the other side is. This week, all the focus is on Earth Day â€“â€“ how to better save and conserve the Earth.
Naturally, in the interest of reporting both sides, I am giving a voice to the voiceless and discussing how to better destroy and consume the Earth.
The first thing to realize is that no idea is really original, and that lots of approaches have already been tried when it comes to destroying the earth. Since itâ€™s important to not repeat mistakes when it comes to this kind of thing, make sure youâ€™re not just re-hashing any of the following ideas.
The first idea, naturally, is some kind of huge explosion. No, not the firecrackers you have illegally stockpiled in the garage. Weâ€™re talking the firecrackers you only wish you had illegally stockpiled in the garage.
Letâ€™s say youâ€™ve been sitting on some antimatter-level explosives youâ€™ve been itching to get rid of. Seems like a decent notion, right?
The thing is, itâ€™s been done. The moon, theyâ€™re thinking, actually used to be a part of the earth. Itâ€™s called the giant impact hypothesis â€“â€“ something huge blew earth chunks into orbit, and thatâ€™s how we got a moon.
But that was a really long time ago; life has developed since then. That much explosion might do us in now, but itâ€™ll likely take more ordinance than we have lying around. But hey, we could still blow it up if we managed to orchestrate World War III, right? Nukes fix everything!
Again, sadly, itâ€™s been done. The Alvarez hypothesis is the fancy name for the meteors-killed-the-dinosaurs theory, and it says that the explosion that got the terrible lizards would have been two million times stronger than the biggest nuke weâ€™ve ever had kicking around. So that might not work.
Of course, the dinosaurs might disagree, but all in all it turned out pretty well for us, and on our Anti-Earth Day, we donâ€™t want the possibility of that happening again.Â
We could still try poisoning everything. Not just climate change or o-zone holes -â€“â€“ like a no-holds barred pumping of deadly, deadly poison right into the atmosphere. That should work, right? Just double the amount of trashy plastic kids toys we produce for Christmas, and that should be it for Earth.
Unfortunately, the Earthâ€™s already survived that one. Early life pumped a deadly gas into the atmosphere in a biological catastrophe so great that itâ€™s been unmatched despite other things really vying for second. It was called the oxygen catastrophe, and you can blame Earthâ€™s self-greening initiative as early plants brought ruin to a world unused to oxygen.
Without our big explosives and poisons, naturally you might think to turn to super-science. Maybe something like the Large Hadron Collider, with its near-magical ability to churn out black holes, strange matter and Gozer the Destructor. But this seems to be not panning out. Keep at it, science!
The problem here is our Anti-Earth Day set out with goals a little too lofty. Earth is really good at coming back from heavy blows. Sure, it loses a majority of its species each time, but new ones seem to always grow back. Itâ€™s a bit depressing for anyone hoping for a true global annihilation.
For those of you Anti-Earth Day celebrants looking for a more localized disaster, never fear. This goal is much more attainable, and together, we can build any world we envision â€“â€“ and life will always go on.
Johnathan Kastner is a senior computer science major. His column appears Wednesdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to email@example.com.