Recommended Posts

does environmentalism play a role in your religious/spiritual beliefs or practices? Why or why not? Do you believe environmental causes should trump economical? How far should environmental concers go? Just something I have been thinking about lately, and wondering how other faiths handled the environment.

In my personal views, I think environmental concerns should trump economical, as a part of my spiritual belief system I think the environment is entwined with humanities welfare in general. I can understand financial considerations exist, but I feel that with the resources available to the world at large today it should be no problem to find ways to do what we want to do while at the same time minimizing our impact on the world itself. I have no problem whatsoever with the governments of the world using a portion of our tax dollars to better our environment and find solutions to energy problems. I suppose this is antithetical to my typical republican stance, yet the environment is important enough in my estimation to warrent responsible government interference. I guess the biggest problem for me is defining what is responsible interference, as opposed to the usual botching of things the government does. I mean, they still can't deliver the mail right, so how can they possibly tackle something of this scale with anything close to effectiveness?

Link to comment

I see the world as an egg that gives birth to humanity.

If there is a planet intended purpose for humanity it is to leave this planet and take the life it has spawned elsewhere before the planet inevitably dies.

If you place environmental causes above economic many people will suffer and die, mostly in the third world. I see that as an unconscionable immoral act.

Environmentalism as a means of redistributing resources is nothing more than Socialism, a fact which has spawned the descriptive Watermelon, a fruit that is green on the outside but red on the inside.

While keeping the environment clean is worthwhile and enhances the standard of living, schemes involving the plant food of carbon dioxide are designed mainly to part select people from their wealth, to instantiate a bureaucracy to control the lives of all in the world to the smallest detail, and to enrich and empower those who are running the scheme.

Link to comment

I agree to a point pan, but...I never said to use environmentalism to redistribute resources. Its something I just recently started thinking about, and I like to hear people's opinions about how to go about environmentalism with sanity. I believe that environmentalism should trump economical considerations to a point, and I admit I wasn't very clear about that, was I? If we burn off all our natural resources as fast as we can in order to help a third world country so people there don't die, it reduces the quality of life for everyone left on the planet, until eventually we run out and all perish. On the same note, if we have absolutely no advancement because people are too afraid to hurt the environment to do research, experiment, etc...then we end up in a bad place as well. I was thinking of a greater environmental role than we currently have, not to take it to extremes that would end up hurting more than helping.

Link to comment

Why would you think a subset of humanity would be better at managing the environment than all of humanity reasoning and acting on their decisions independently. 7 billion average independent minds are smarter than even a 140 million genius minds in unison. (There are at most140 million geniuses in the current world population)

If you are not going to use force and confiscate or redistribute resources how do you expect to control what happens to the environment?

Mankind's greatest skill is in adapting to the environment, not controlling it. Man controls very little on this planet. We sandbox off small areas of our environment to live inside as an adaptation to the environment as a whole. We control our homes, our cars, our clothes, our work and play spaces. which is not very much at all.

When the hydrocarbons are all burnt we will have alternative energy, not before. Until then alternative energy will be like any other new technology a rich mans toy.

Link to comment

i don't claim to have the answers, merely posing that answers need to be found, and I had a thought that a subset of the world could handle it better than the mass population of the world, because so far the mass population of the world hasn't handled it effectively. I could easily be wrong, I don't claim omniscience, I am simply having a discussion to possibly raise awareness and find new possibilities.

as a side note, I have often heard that mob mentality has the I.Q. of its lowest how do you figure that the worlds population would act at the highest instead? Just curious.

Link to comment

Grandiose Realizations Enticing Environmental Destruction....'bout sums it up in my tired bean.

And, yeah, I can see where the "subset" would be better, especially folks focused on solving our environmental problems, not creating them for the sake of personal gain and profit. i.e; Having people who think burning rain forests for cattle grazing, is a necessary thing, is one sector of the populace I would not want involved in creating the many changes required for sustainable clean air, clean water and fertile (preferably organic) crop lands. Besides, burning rain forest is not necessary, it's currently the most cost effective and easiest method of transforming land from one type to another.

We have made technological advancements in such things as solar and wind generated electricity, but sadly, until every drop of greed driven fossil fuel is sucked out of the ground and nuclear power plants have paid for themselves, we will not see alternative energy resources in mainstream use. The only reason alternative power resources has not become more utilized is simple, even the Law says no one "owns" the air or ownership, no profits, no "use" to the greed mongers.

A hundred plus years ago men like Getty weren't satisfied with only oil burning or natural gas lights, the automobile would create billions in wealth for a small subset of individuals. Had men like Tesla been popular, and not a threat to the greed mongers, electric cars would have been the norm today...not hybrids, not dysfunctional electric "carts", but full sized SUV's and luxury sedans as well. Even in this area, we have the technology, it's just not as profitable as fossil fuel powered vehicles.

I don't have many answers either, but I do know with just a little effort we can turn Grandiose Realizations Enticing Environmental Destruction into Generously Resourced Essential Environmental Necessities. We can realize this in the real world as well, we can indeed meet our energy demands without the destruction of our planet.

Blessings Be,

Link to comment

The environment is a major component of my religion, but while I support the efforts of "eco-warriors" in most cases, I follow a more moderate path. For example, I drive an economy car, I recycle and don't litter, I give due consideration to my use of electricity and water, and I vote yes for (or make small donations to) reasonable environmental causes. I think it will be small things, but done on a large scale by multitudes of people, that will end up saving the environment. I agree that forcing someone to be environmentally conscious will not work, but leading by example and educating others as to the things they can do to help might. I don't think in general that anyone (excluding some corporate fat cats) actually hates the environment at heart, but he or she just does not always stop to take the environment into consideration or perhaps is just following the path of convenience. And as others have stated above, I don't have all the answers either :)

Edited by Gruffydd y Dryw
Link to comment

I am green as it concerns my wallet, which is the most accurate measure of my future physical well being. I ride a bike to work because I enjoy it. If I had the money I would live far away from work and commute by helicopter, even more fun. I separate my garbage to save money on garbage bags, none needed for recyclables. But the ban on shopping bags will eliminate that money saved because I will no longer have the bags from weekly grocery shopping for my trash. The government giveth and always taketh away more.

I do not irrationally hate or avariciously envy those who are better off than myself, but instead seek to emulate their actions to the best of my understanding and ability, and see them as a source of possible income through mutually beneficial trade. Doing both in order to make my life better, and thereby be a greater benefit to society as a whole. One can easily tell to what degree they are a benefit to society by the level any other individual is willing to trade for their services or goods.

The thing about the irrational desire to make the rich poorer is that this will also make everyone else poorer, since human wealth is based on production not availability of consumption. To consume without production is to impoverish society as a whole.

But back to nature, who is not effected by human existence more that any other life form. Why would one think the number of humans and their habitation is any different than other life form. To take the position that the diminishment of these life forms should be compensated for by the diminishment of those life forms only makes sense if there is a benefit in the action. Any benefit would have to be a measured effect to some entity. Changes to the balance or even existence of life has no benefit to the Earth as a planet. Changes to the balance of life have been ongoing and from evidence even extreme changes have not eliminated life. In fact stasis of the number and kind of life on the planet is not in life's best interest because this is the source of its robustness and longevity. Because of this life values no life form above any other in kind or number. So, short of the obliteration of the planet life will be just fine.

So if the planet is fine and life is fine, for whose benefit are environmentalists acting? If they are acting for other life forms they are not acting for the benefit of humanity, because all life forms are meant to expand to the limits of their environment (another one of life's strategies for survival). If they are not acting for the benefit of humanity there is no moral support for their actions, and any inclusion of environmentalism into any system of thought makes it immoral as well, to the degree it supports it

Link to comment

"if they are not acting for the benefit of humanity there is no moral support for their actions, and any inclusion of environmentalism into any system of thought makes it immoral as well, to the degree it supports it"... basically waste what you want if it makes you feel better? that seems like a special approach to me, but believe what you want. I disagree with you, and that is about as polite about it as I can be.

Link to comment

"if they are not acting for the benefit of humanity there is no moral support for their actions, and any inclusion of environmentalism into any system of thought makes it immoral as well, to the degree it supports it"... basically waste what you want if it makes you feel better? that seems like a special approach to me, but believe what you want. I disagree with you, and that is about as polite about it as I can be.

Since when is wasting detrimental to others when it does not belong to them anyway. Unless behind the comment is also the belief that there is no such thing as private property.

I am all for living a tidy frugal life that impinges no ill on others. Which is also why I am opposed to all who purposefully do impinge on others, for any reason that they might claim to have.

The knowledge required to effectively and beneficially interfere in the affairs of our fellow men against their will is unattainable, not now or ever.

Link to comment
  • Amulet locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.