Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Creationist Science Foster Anti-Ecological Practices?
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 26 (171958)
12-28-2004 6:02 PM


Point taken, Quetzal. And certainly other animals have had negative impacts on their own sustainable environments. But I think the claim has merit as follows - if you look at a lot of ancient practicies, there is a sense of being in and of the natural world, part of it. And some of this is expressed in the idea of thanking an animal spirit for sacrificing itself to your cooking pot, albeit with much resistance.
But the christian doctrine of the earth as mans property, given by god, denies this sense of relatedness and instead places humanity above the world, not in it. I think this does indeed translate into a contempt for the world of nature, seeing it universally as the "wilderness" hostile to humans and not something over which humanity has to exercise care. This can even be taken to a suicidal extent if we imagine that god only gave us enough material resources to last till judgement day anyway.

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2004 8:04 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 21 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2004 10:39 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2004 10:40 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 17 of 26 (171987)
12-28-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
12-28-2004 6:02 PM


Moyer's speech revisited
I get the impression that you didn't read the Moyer's speech article I linked to in message 10. It contains more fundimentalist Christian material than perhaps I led you and others to think.
Sorry about being a nag, if you did read it,
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 6:02 PM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2004 3:03 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 01-04-2005 11:50 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 18 of 26 (172083)
12-29-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Abshalom
12-25-2003 9:59 AM


You are talking about consumerism. Mostly that has it's origins in socialism. In the sixties/seventies the slogan of socialists in the Netherlands was for everybody to have a car, and a refrigerator. They didn't know that refrigerators at that time carried a product that destroyed the ozone layer, but they could have known about so many cars destroying the environment, and it is quite apparent to me that it is mainly socialism that is fanning the flames of consumerism ever higher. Conspicuously the socialists do not accept any responsibility for their errors whatsoever.
In general a religious lifestyle doesn't sit well with extreme luxury. The main criticism of religion seems to be that it leads to too much ascetism, I never hear about it leading to wallowing in luxury.
(edited to add: Incidentally some years ago I saw an evolutionist on BBC television saying that mass extinctions are a normal part of evolution, it is a natural phenomenon. It happened before, so there was no reason to worry about the current mass extinction. So the responsibility was simply abdicated under the pretext that nothing is of value, except for human beings, the plants and animals also only having "potential" value in respect to human beings. It is very tempting to think that anything only has value in respect to people, but I think such an environmental policy which doesn't recognize some kind of selfworth of what you seek to protect, must be ultimately doomed to fail because of stimulating selfishness. Are we really going to protect the rainforest just because we might find some medicine there? I think if environmentalists exclusively argue like that, then as a side-effect it becomes increasingly tempting to cut them down to use the timber, because the value of the forest is exclusively human exploitation.)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-29-2004 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Abshalom, posted 12-25-2003 9:59 AM Abshalom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 10:23 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 26 (172086)
12-29-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Syamsu
12-29-2004 10:15 AM


In the sixties/seventies the slogan of socialists in the Netherlands was for everybody to have a car, and a refrigerator.
Sounds a lot like Herbert Hoover saying that we should have a chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage. In 1928.
To my knowledge, Herbert Hoover was not a Socialist.
The main criticism of religion seems to be that it leads to too much ascetism, I never hear about it leading to wallowing in luxury.
Lord knows no spiritual leader has ever exploited their position to sap money from believers, and live high hog on the dollars of the faithful.
That sort of thing has definitely not been going on as long as organized religion has been around.
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-29-2004 10:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Syamsu, posted 12-29-2004 10:15 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 26 (172131)
12-29-2004 4:19 PM


Genesis-based Wastrel Policies
The fundamentalist view I am referring to is the Utilitarian Earth View by which proponents claim the earth and everything in it belongs to man.
James Watt, a professed evangelical and Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior in the early 1980s, had an article, "Ours Is the Earth," published by the Saturday Evening Post (Jan/Feb ’82). In the article, Watts made it clear that he viewed Earth as "merely a temporary way station on the road to eternal life...The earth was put here by the Lord for His people to subdue and to use for profitable purposes on their way to the hereafter."
Watt’s career at Interior was not cut short by his chauvinistic anti-environmental political approach, which would’ve turned the Great Plains into a moonscape of craters and toxic pools on behalf of Adolph Coors and his corporate buds. No, Watts was brought down by his big fat mouth when he denounced the members of the federal coal-leasing commission as "a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple." The commissioners had shown the audacity to resist Watt's demented shale-oil strip mining scheme.
So like Earl Butz before him, Watt's political career was ended not by a reaction to his religious-based wastrel policies, but by a racist slur.

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 26 (172263)
12-30-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
12-28-2004 6:02 PM


I think what I'm looking for is some kind of objective evidence that provides a direct linkage between the religious outlook you mention and extinction. I also think you're being somewhat Rousseau-ian in your characterization of ancient peoples as "being in and of the natural world". If you look at the correlation between the arrival of H. sapiens to a region and the extinction of whole families of organisms during the Late Pleistocene, for example, you'll note that these ancient cultures certainly had a profound negative impact on the local fauna.
Please note: I am NOT a proponent of the "overkill" hypothesis. I think Martin's scenario for the North and South American megafaunal extinctions is simply physically impossible. Humans were likely not the ultimate cause (probably more on the lines of contributing factors), but certainly there is strong evidence that non-Christian "ancient" cultures were devastating to local fauna, especially on islands. All you need to do is look at the Maori on New Zealand, the Polynesians on Hawaii, the aborigines in Australia, etc.
However, I think the most telling evidence against the Christianity-as-cause is the widespread destruction caused today by non-Christians. From traditional Chinese medicine (extinction of Panthera tigris amoyensis, precipitous decline in Indian populations of P. t. tigris, Asian populations of Saiga tartarica and Panthalops hodgosni, and African populations of Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum), habitat destruction and hunting of the Indonesian rhinos Rhinoceros sondaicus (extinct) and Didermoceros sumatrensis (critically endangered), commercial bushmeat hunting in West and Central Africa (for instance, Pan troglodytes populations have been completely eliminated by this in Benin, Togo, Gambia, and have been nearly eliminated in Ghana and Guinea-Bissau). The list is literally endless.
Both the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene and the current list of extinguished and/or critically endangered species from around the world IMO tend to render a connection between Christianity and extinction somewhat problematic. As I said before, human need, human greed, and human ignorance are the ultimate causes of what could be termed the Holocene Mass Extinction - not a particular religion. Unfortunately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 6:02 PM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 6:49 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 26 (172264)
12-30-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by contracycle
12-28-2004 6:02 PM


double post
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 12-30-2004 10:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by contracycle, posted 12-28-2004 6:02 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 26 (172314)
12-30-2004 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
12-28-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Moyer's speech revisited
Actually, I did read it. I saw NOTHING in that article that would lead me to believe there's an actual correlation between religion and ecological disruption. What I DID see was simply more examples of corporate greed and corporate influence over government spending and policy. I also saw quite a bit of rhetoric directed at the carpet-chewing fundies. He spends a good deal of time trying to make the equation Republican = Christian = fundamentalist/rapturist, an invalid equation if there ever was one.
If you have hard evidence that the Christian fundamentalist worldview leads directly to environmental degradation, then please post it. Otherwise Bill Moyer's opinions don't hold a lot of water for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2004 8:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 26 (173755)
01-04-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
12-28-2004 8:04 PM


Re: Moyer's speech revisited
quote:
I get the impression that you didn't read the Moyer's speech article I linked to in message 10. It contains more fundimentalist Christian material than perhaps I led you and others to think.
?? I did read it, and nearly pointed out that Moyer stumbles on his own answer by referring to "moral imagination". As long as he treats the issue as a moral one he has conceded too much ground to the fundies. But thats largely irrelervant so I ommitted that remark. I also read the original Monbiot article to which he refers. In fact I've been sort of following the close relationship between the christian right, anti-environmentalism and sundry imperialists for some time now. Thats why I keep telling Amewricans they have to start acting on the basis of what their state actually does, not what it says, as you'll recall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-28-2004 8:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 26 (173998)
01-05-2005 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Quetzal
12-30-2004 10:39 AM


quote:
If you look at the correlation between the arrival of H. sapiens to a region and the extinction of whole families of organisms during the Late Pleistocene, for example, you'll note that these ancient cultures certainly had a profound negative impact on the local fauna.
Thats a straw man; whether or not they functionally caused extinctions is not germane to their psychology because they had no evidential feedback with which to assess their actions.
What IS common in their psychology tho is a sense of being directly related to other animals, even BEING other animals in human form, or with other animals members of a broader community of creatures over which the gods preside.
quote:
Both the megafaunal extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene and the current list of extinguished and/or critically endangered species from around the world IMO tend to render a connection between Christianity and extinction somewhat problematic. As I said before, human need, human greed, and human ignorance are the ultimate causes of what could be termed the Holocene Mass Extinction - not a particular religion. Unfortunately.
Hmm, well, I can't say that I can cite a precise correlation between christinaity and a specific extinction, but I do think it is clear that where christinaity is dominant environmentalism takes a back seat. the history of the medieval church is quite s-pecific in this regard - after the collapse and depopulation of the Roman empire, the church conceived of pretty much the whole world - even populated areas - as the "wilderness" into which man was cast out from Eden. So they were quite instrumental in the recovery of the agricultural economy that this goes hand inglove with an ideology of hostility to nature, to seeing nature as an enemy, a trial to be overcome, not an ally in the process of living. And this attitude was well displayed during the period of European colonialism in which most colonists were unable to perceive nayure as anything other than something ugly to be defeated, tamed, and subordinated.
IMO it was only through the works of thinkers like Rousseau and the later developement of environmentalism that has restored a now fairly widespread perception of ourselves as organisms on the planet like any other, rather than as the lords of creation bestriding our rightful demesne, and doing with it what we will without let or hindrance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Quetzal, posted 12-30-2004 10:39 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Quetzal, posted 01-05-2005 11:45 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 26 (174082)
01-05-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by contracycle
01-05-2005 6:49 AM


Thats a straw man; whether or not they functionally caused extinctions is not germane to their psychology because they had no evidential feedback with which to assess their actions.
How is it a strawman? I'm not misinterpreting your argument, deliberately chnaging your words into something you don't espouse, then knocking it down. I pointed out that early humans were at least the proximate causes of major extinctions beginning ~30-40,000 years ago. We continue the problem to this date. I can provide species-by-species correlations to my contention within +-1000 years (at the earlier end) all the way to specific dates (at the more recent end). Your quibble about "functional feedback" is totally irrelevant. If we continue that argument, then we excuse every human-caused extinction up until the rise of the environmentalist movement in the 1960's.
As to the psychology of early humans, you can not possibly have ANY real evidence to back up your claim. The fact that early humans made cave paintings of animals, for example, is no more relevant than the fact that a deer hunter has a painting of a 16-point buck over his mantlepiece. You seem to have bought whole cloth into the myth of Rousseau's "Noble Savage". It's utter crap, in spite of what the politicallly correct cultural revisionists would have you believe. I can point to quite a few recent/current "primitive cultures" who are as devastating to their local ecologies as DOW Chemical is to the global ecology. And NONE of them are Christian. I'd say this refutes your claims to primitive psychology even without the obvious absence of evidence.
What IS common in their psychology tho is a sense of being directly related to other animals, even BEING other animals in human form, or with other animals members of a broader community of creatures over which the gods preside.
More noble savage nonesense. Granted early human cultures were much more closely effected by nature, and their "spiritual" activities revolved around nature spirits in the main (and fertility spirits, among other things). This IS evidenced by their art, among other things. However, that didn't stop them from exterminating vast numbers of species in bulk.
I admit you know a great deal about Marx. I submit, however, that you have very little more than a general, cursory understanding of the causes and consequences of extinction.
Hmm, well, I can't say that I can cite a precise correlation between christinaity and a specific extinction, but I do think it is clear that where christinaity is dominant environmentalism takes a back seat.
That's the problem, as I see it. We can't justifiably claim a correlation, much as I would like to add this to the list of the "sins" of organized religion and specifically Christianity. The explanation for why in mainly Christian, modern industrialized states environmentalism takes a back seat as you note derives, IMO, more from human greed and less from religion. Especially considering the large number of non-Christian cultures that are even now going gleefully about the world slaughtering as many critters as they can. Not to mention mind-bogglingly vast habitat degradation. And not to mention bioinvasion-caused extinction due to globalization (which now leads both habitat destruction and pollution as an extinction cause).
I don't disagree with the rest of your paragraph, however. That was definitely the European mindset of the Middle Ages - and remains in many areas the American and Western mindset of today. It is also, unfortunately, the modern Asian and industrialized African mindset as well. The rest of the world is destroying the biosphere simply to survive.
IMO it was only through the works of thinkers like Rousseau and the later developement of environmentalism that has restored a now fairly widespread perception of ourselves as organisms on the planet like any other, rather than as the lords of creation bestriding our rightful demesne, and doing with it what we will without let or hindrance.
No disagreement.
This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-05-2005 11:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 6:49 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024