human's callous disregard

[alpacinou]

Hello,

Have I used "callous" correctly in this sentence? Does the whole sentence work?

Human's callous disregard for the Earth and its resources will come back to haunt himself.

I feel like the sentence needs work.

 

[GoesStation]

Have you introduced a character named "Human" in a previous sentence? I know you haven't, but that's how the sentence reads. You could try "humanity", or you may mean "humans'".

"Himself" doesn't work. Do you mean itself?

 

[alpacinou]

Have you introduced a character named "Human" in a previous sentence? I know you haven't, but that's how the sentence reads. You could try "humanity", or you may mean "humans'".

"Himself" doesn't work. Do you mean itself?

Is it okay now?

Humanity's callous disregard for the Earth and its environment and resources will come back to haunt itself.

 

[GoesStation]

Is it okay now?

Humanity's callous disregard for the Earth and its environment and resources will come back to haunt itself.

It's passable.

 

[alpacinou]

It's passable.

Is it possible to make it from passable to a good sentence?

 

[Tarheel]

Perhaps:

The callous disregard that people have for Earth and its resources may well come back to haunt them.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't think 'callous' is what you mean. That would mean that people are deliberately trying to cause harm to the Earth.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't think 'callous' is what you mean. That would mean that people are deliberately trying to cause harm to the Earth.

To me, callous is fine. We can argue about whether our disregard is, in fact, callous, but it's Al's opinion that it is. So it's fine for him to express that opinion.

The words that bothered me were Human's and himself.

Al, you fixed Human's, and you changed himself to itself to include women. That's good. But a reflexive pronoun is wordy and not needed. So what pronoun can you use that isn't reflexive?

 

[jutfrank]

We can argue about whether our disregard is, in fact, callous, but it's Al's opinion that it is. So it's fine for him to express that opinion.

You may well be right but I'm not convinced yet that that actually is his opinion. I suspect that he was using this word as a way of casting his own judgement on people's actions.

 

[alpacinou]

To me, callous is fine. We can argue about whether our disregard is, in fact, callous, but it's Al's opinion that it is. So it's fine for him to express that opinion.

The words that bothered me were Human's and himself.

Al, you fixed Human's, and you changed himself to itself to include women. That's good. But a reflexive pronoun is wordy and not needed. So what pronoun can you use that isn't reflexive?

Do you mean something like this?

Humanity's callous disregard for the Earth and its environment and resources will come back to haunt us / it.

 

[alpacinou]

You may well be right but I'm not convinced yet that that actually is his opinion. I suspect that he was using this word as a way of casting his own judgement on people's actions.

No that is in fact my opinion. I saw a documentary about sharks and the images were gruesome. They caught sharks, then cut their fin while they were still alive and then they threw them back in the ocean. It made me cry.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, yes, that's a good example of callousness. It makes me cry, too.

Your original sentence didn't make me instantly think about wildlife, though. I was thinking about non-living things, like oil and minerals, etc. I think that's why I had a problem with the word callous—I considered that there must be some kind of suffering on something's part.

 

[Tdol]

I don't think 'callous' is what you mean. That would mean that people are deliberately trying to cause harm to the Earth.

Some faith groups state that they were given the planet to treat as they want to, which would make callous OK for me. And then there's the fossil fuel industry. Etc. :-(

 

[Tarheel]

No that is in fact my opinion. I saw a documentary about sharks and the images were gruesome. They caught sharks, then cut their fin while they were still alive and then they threw them back in the ocean. It made me cry.

Shark fins are considered either medicine or an aphrodisiac. (I'm not sure which.)

I don't know why they can't just cut off the fin after they have killed the shark. Cutting off the fin and throwing it (the shark) back in the water is probably a death sentence.

I have seen videos of Japanese trapping dolphins in shallow water and then killing them. The water ran red with blood from the dolphins. Heart-rending! (This is not a slam against the Japanese. That just happens to be the people who were doing it.)

 

[alpacinou]

Shark fins are considered either medicine or an aphrodisiac. (I'm not sure which.)

I don't know why they can't just cut off the fin after they have killed the shark. Cutting off the fin and throwing it (the shark) back in the water is probably a death sentence.

I have seen videos of Japanese trapping dolphins in shallow water and then killing them. The water ran red with blood from the dolphins. Heart-rending! (This is not a slam against the Japanese. That just happens to be the people who were doing it.)

For some reason, shark soup is a popular and extravagant delicacy in China. This is the result:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/93/58/9a/93589a2f82fada517908df3db7a3bdbb.png

 

[Tarheel]

That's what I was talking about. Without those fins the sharks can't swim, and they die.

:-(