Go figure I am posting Rex Murphy again, though like I said before not a fan. Perhaps if one doesn't see him he's not so bad. Sometimes he is such an oddball that one has to laugh. Sad thing is it is really not a laughing matter, guess I am more in the mood to laugh than cry or fume about it today, I find it thoroughly entertaining.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/16/rex-murphy-excuse-me-sir-that-cockroach-has-rights/
Two more days till Sun news starts I hope I can follow online.
http://www.suntvnews.ca/
To many environmentalists, it really is a battle against Genesis which pushes the view that man is made in the image of God and therefore superior to the rest of nature. As this article shows again with the push by Bolivia in the UN, many want to return to the pagan age where we are merely life, similar in value bugs. This idea for "nature worship" is often no less passionate for the environment than Christian evangelicals passion for Jesus. G.K Chesterton, once quoted that “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything”. To me, this describes the environmental movement of the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteIt would really interest me to know where you get your information about the environmental movement. Surely you can do better than Rex Murphy.
ReplyDeleteI self identify strongly as an environmentalist, if I am allowed to define environmentalism. If I allow Rex Murphy to define environmentalism, then no, I am not an environmentalist.
I believe that God created humans in a way that separated them from all other creatures in that He gave them the ability to understand their environment, and the ability to anticipate the consequences of their actions. They are able to understand right and wrong in ways the other creatures can not. This is why God set humans up to rule over the rest of his creation. It would not make sense for God to charge an elephant to have dominion over creation because the elephant is not able to understand these things. Psalm 42 (and elsewhere) states that the “Earth is the Lord's”, which supports what is only common sense, namely that humans are not given ownership of the Earth, but rather that we are called to look after it on behalf of the owner – who is God. I fail to see how anyone who believes this can be other than an environmentalist.
But alas, Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, have not given leadership to any kind of earth care. As I have said previously in this blog, animals, if placed on a piece of land with defined resources will increase in number and consume that resource until it is gone. Then they will die. I gave the actual example of Reindeer on St. Matthew Island. A good farmer will not let that happen. He will manage his cattle herd so there is enough feed for them. This is what it means to rule. This is what it means to be an environmentalist.
Humans, on a micro level have done what God expected of them, but on a macro level they behave exactly like the animals they are to rule over. On a macro level they are saying that every one ought to act in his/her own interest, and everything will be OK. This is exactly what the Reindeer on St. Matthew island did.
As an environmentalist, I am saying God is calling us to a higher standard. This standard for certain says that we are not to treat the earth as though it is ours, but recognize that it is God's. That standard says that it is not right to live in such a way now, that generations down the road will be impoverished. One egregious example is to continue to develop nuclear power when we still have not found a way of disposing of nuclear waste.
True, I do encounter some, even here in southeastern Manitoba, whose relationship with the environment is more pagan that Christian, but they are way in the minority. Unfortunately many are there because they have seen Christianity portrayed as a religion that is divorced from creation. Sadly, I encounter many Christians whose relationship with the environment gives no recognition that God is the creator or that the first commission God gave to humans (in Genesis 1) has any significance to their belief system.
Incidentally, Caroline, Rex Murphy can't help the way he looks, but he does determine what he says. I agree with him sometimes, and sometimes not, but I must say he is able to but words together in a way few others can. What do you think he could accomplish if God had given him better looks?
I agree with much of what you wrote. However, I do think the environmental movement is at odds with Genesis from the standpoint that the leadership in environmental movements, would not agree that humans are more valuable than plants and animals (as well they would not agree with God’s notion that humans be fruitful and multiply). I don’t know how best to demonstrate that, as I think pulling out many anecdotes from environmental leaders would not properly convey it. I will have to stew on that, but I do believe the whole movement to ethanol –based fuel, which takes corn and inefficiently converts it to energy, is a decent example to understand the priority on the environment vs human prosperity. For much of the world, corn is a very important food source (notably much of Africa), and clearly it is a very important input (to feed cows, and other livestock we eat). Yet, in the name of the environment, we push the use of ethanol-based fuels, which has caused corn prices to go up 300% in the past few years, and thereby starving much of the world of affordable food.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you, that we could and should do a better jobs being better stewards of the land and animals.
But on your point of the Reindeer example, I thought we also resolved that. Humans invent things, and technological progress enables us to go from 100 people on the earth, to 6+ billion, and decrease the % of people that are starving. Reindeer don’t advance technologically (unless you believe that they actually did learn to fly and pull sleighs in the air).
I do not know how one determines who has leadership in the environmental movement. You are certainly right when you have implied in the past that Al Gore and David Suzuki are attributed to have leadership by the media, although they most certainly are not the leaders I would go to. Do they have the attitude you describe? I am almost certain that they would not admit to that attitude, and I am certain if you went to their web sites you would not draw that conclusion. But perhaps you could make the case if you cherry picked some of their statements.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of leaders in the environmental movement, I think of Fritz Schumacher, Bill McKibbon, James Hanson, Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry, Richard Heinberg, and yes, Rachel Carson to name but a few. I have little doubt that we could get into a debate as whether any one of them should be taken seriously, but I am certain none of them have the attitude you describe.
The push for ethanol and bio-diesel fuel is totally misguided and short sighted. I am 100% certain not one of the environmentalists named above would support the development or production of such biofuel, not even cellulose based ethanol, in fact I am almost certain everyone of them would be vigorously opposed to it. The push for these bio-fuels has come from farmers who were trying to find a market for their surplus produce and investors who have seen an opportunity for a quick buck. With the possible exception of a few people (whom I cannot name) environmentalists have been opposed to it.
Incidentally, when we visited Caroline and Karl in Germany some four years ago, they took me to a biogas plant. I was very interested, because I was assuming they were turning wast biomass into methane. In fact they were not. They were growing crop specifically to turn into electricity. The technology is interesting, but when used in this way, in my opinion misguided and short sighted.
If I gave you the impression that we had resolved the Reindeer example, sorry. I remain of the opinion that this is an extremely relevant example of what happens when a population – any population – grows without taking into account that the resource it depends on is limited – finite. If you don't like the Reindeer example, read up on Easter Island. I agree that humans have an ability to innovate and develop technology. It is this ability that has enabled us to build a whole food system utterly dependant on cheap oil. When that era of cheap oil ends, how long will it take us to find alternatives? How much time will we have? Do we have a clue, even, what that alternative will look like? My assertion: corporately we humans are behaving much more like the reindeer than like the ruling humans God intended us to be.
Caroline, just saw your comments now.
ReplyDeleteYes these posts sometimes go indirections we don't anticipate.
To fully answer your last question, I would have to reread his article. I think to a large extent he is correct in his description of what is going on in Bolivia, but I am not as down on that as he is.
In a world filled with nations determined to let rampant capitalism and the human desire to consume and have ever more and more, two small nations stand out in that they are trying something else -- Bolivia and Bhutan. I would give them a thumbs up for not following the herd which will likely cascade over the cliff.