- Is there a better concept or term than "stewardship," that still conveys the fundamental point of humans' responsibility for their actions that impinge upon or impair the Earth's capacity to sustain itself as a healthy and habitable planet for our form of life and others?
- Is stewardship "liable to ignore social and international justice"? (99) Why?
- Have western forms of religion in fact fostered anthropocentrism, a domineering approach to the rest of nature (the "dominion")? Does Matthew 6: 26-9 and Romans 8: 21-2 really get Christianity off the hook? 93
- Is western religion earth-centric? ##
- Do Zen Buddhism and St. Francis offer suitable remedies to human exploitation and degradation of nature?
- Is nature God's creation, or is God nature's? 93
- Is "completing the creator's work" (94) a plausible conception of human responsibility, if in fact the creator is the Judeo-Christian omni-being possessing all power, knowledge, wisdom, and goodness? (Or is it akin to how my Dad the Vet let me assist him in surgery, as a child: "You can hold the tail.")
- Is nature sacred? (94) **
- What does it mean to say that philosophy "has outlived its social origins"? 96
- Does pantheism "add value" to nature?
- Is ubuntu the right eco-philosophy for our time? 104
- Are you disappointed to have Chief Seattle debunked?
- Is Black Elks "harmony" still available to us? 105
- $$ What do you think of E.O. Wilson's appeal to fundamentalists? Is religion in America now hopelessly politicized?
- Why are so few of our leaders willing to make the "strong ethical case for vigorous and concerted action to mitigate climate change"? 107
- Do you think the average American understands that we have already spent more than our share of "humanity's carbon budget"? 111
- Are you struck, as I am, by the extraordinary nature of Robin Attfield's appeal to American readers?: "American readers are encouraged to use their voices (and if necessary their votes)..." 114
- Are you confident that alternate energy generation of renewable energy will scale up quickly enough to make a difference? Or that appropriate fuel efficiency standards on automobiles will be imposed in the years just ahad? Do you expect to drive an e-vehicle soon?
- Do you think Deep Ecologists,ecofeminists, Greens et al will unite effectively in pursuit of environmental and social justice>
- 10## See Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God (based on his 1985 Gifford Lectures in Scotland, echoing William James's Gifford Lectures of the early 20th century which became The Varieties of Religious Experience. Sagan: “we have a theology that is Earth-centered and involves a tiny piece of space, and when we step back, when we attain a broader cosmic perspective, some of it seems very small in scale. And in fact a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the God portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much less of a universe.”
** I recommend The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough... and, a propos nature and the sacred, I also recommend Cousin Mary's poem:
“You do not have to be good. You do not have to walk on your kneesfor a hundred miles through the desert, repenting.You only have to let the soft animal of your bodylove what it loves. Tell me about despair, yours, and I will tell you mine.Meanwhile the world goes on.Meanwhile the sun and the clear pebbles of the rainare moving across the landscapes,over the prairies and the deep trees,the mountains and the rivers.Meanwhile the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,are heading home again.Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,the world offers itself to your imagination,calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting—over and over announcing your placein the family of things. -Mary Oliver==
$$ The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earthby Edward O. Wilson
We have not met, yet I feel I know you well enough to call you friend. First of all, we grew up in the same faith. Although I no longer belong to that faith, I am confident that if we met and spoke privately of our deepest beliefs, it would be in a spirit of mutual respect and goodwill. I write to you now for your counsel and help. Let us see if we can, and you are willing, to meet on the near side of metaphysics in order to deal with the real world we share. I suggest that we set aside our differences in order to save the Creation. The defense of living Nature is a universal value. It doesn't rise from nor does it promote any religious or ideological dogma. Rather, it serves without discrimination the interests of all humanity.
Pastor, we need your help. The Creation—living Nature—is in deep trouble.
- “Human nature is deeper and broader than the artificial contrivance of any existing culture.”
- “We need freedom to roam across land owned by no one but protected by all, whose unchanging horizon is the same that bounded the world of our millennial ancestors.”
- “There is no solution available, I assure you, to save Earth's biodiversity other than the preservation of natural environments in reserves large enough to maintain wild populations sustainably. Only Nature can serve as the planetary ark.”
- “Science has become the most democratic of all human endeavors. It is neither religion nor ideology. It makes no claims beyond what can be sensed in the real world. It generates knowledge in the most productive and unifying manner contrived in history, and it serves humanity without obeisance to any particular tribal deity.”
Dr. Oliver In regards to your question about whether Christianity is off the hook in environmental concerns I do believe they are. The reason being that most of Christianity along with the other single deity religions is because it is not within the sphere of their influence. I do not believe that any religion has much to say about the environment at all because it was not in they did not care about the environment. The most extreme example of religion getting involved with the environment is probably the eastern religions that White likes so much because they venerate animals.
ReplyDeleteI was asking if those specific verses of scripture excuse religious people--individual humans like you and me-- from responsibility for the environment. "Religions" may have "nothing to say," but individuals must speak for themselves.
DeleteAnyway, I venerate animals too. I'm not a practitioner of eastern religion.
I agree that the environment is not a topic heavy discussed within religions, however, I do believe there are not "off the hook". In many religions, we hear that everything on Earth, what inhabits it and all surrounding it, is God's creation. I mean the very first words written in the bible are that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Therefore, those that practice Christianity should be very environmentally conscious due to the harm they are imposing on God's creation.
DeleteThey're*
DeleteIn regards to whether various fighters for the environment will ever all team up to tackle these issues, I do not see that happening in the near future. I've obviously made how I feel politically obvious in this class, but with the state of our current politics, there doesn't seem much hope in uniting.. well really anyone. Unless radical change were to happen, I think we are more or less stuck with the current status of the country's environmental stance.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the sense of unity has gone out the window, especially in things that can involve politics. With the government being heavily involved in many things that impact our environment, there would have to be an underlying agreement that what they're doing is hurting the environment. Beyond that, they would also have to agree on ways to improve it and as you mentioned, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. This can influence fighters for the environment. For example, activists for the environment can embed their personal views on politics within their actions and can hinder their ability to unite on a common front.
DeleteWhy are so few of our leaders willing to make the "strong ethical case for vigorous and concerted action to mitigate climate change"?
ReplyDeleteThis question is really interesting to me because it implies the whole world, different leaders and how they react to this situation.
A leader of every country has different responsibilities, that obviously include the people in his country, but also his promises and business made with other countries/leaders and with his party. Apart of that, we obviously have countries in which leaders do not have a strong feeling about others or even their own people, which is probably the main reason, why climate change is the last thing they would worry about.
If we just take into account leaders that have the ability and governmental preconditions to make a strong ethical case for vigorous and concerted action to mitigate climate change, that still does not mean they have to. In the US for example, we definitely have not only a personal preference of the leader about not caring, but also it does not work with his promises to the population about bettering the economy. Even though there might be a huge part of the population that would want the government to be more vigorous or concerted about this, it does not fit into the program of the leader. That is the case with a lot of other countries around the world. They are not willing, because of their personal fear of losing the support in their party and population, which is a really selfish thing, since we are talking about the well-being of our planet here. There are other countries and leaders, that might be willing to, but are being stopped by their bureaucratic system or by other people that are in charge with them. Obviously, it is not one person deciding everything (at least in a democracy that should not be the case), which is why it might take longer, or it fails to make an actual plan against climate change.
I also believe that people will never be satisfied with what they have. In the US, we have people criticizing Trump for withdrawing the US from Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, in other European countries, we have all of that signed but still people complaining about other things. My point is, that not everyone will ever be satisfied, and a leader will probably ever be liked by everyone. I think that some leaders are very willing to make a drastic change and lot more would be if they would not have to be feared of so much negative backlash for everything they do. Even if there is a very strong and awesome vigorous, concerted case for climate change, the people who are against it will find a way to get that person out of office. As long as the majority of the people does not understand the big picture, a leader will not be willing to go through all the obstacles to get there. Of course, for a lot of people to get there, we also need a willing leader, but that is the reason it is not working out at the moment and why it will take much more time than what we have, to save our planet.
I think I earned 5 points last week, with my own essay (+3) and two comments (+2). And now I have another essay (+3) and are going to comment on two other people. That will leave me with 10 points so far. Correct me if I am mistaken or have to do something differently!
Are you confident that alternate energy generation of renewable energy will scale up quickly enough to make a difference? Or that appropriate fuel efficiency standards on automobiles will be imposed in the years just ahead?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that gives me hope for alternative fuels is that we are still in the early stages. It took about 30 (ish) years, from the early 1900s to the 1930s, for the car to fully establish itself, and around 30 years for the public to fully embrace air travel. Alternative energies are less of a jump than "from the horse to the car"; they are the same cars as before just powered differently. I think the public would for the most part embrace electric cars (and the ability to charge them at home), it is the oil and gas lobby that is really the roadblock to mass adoption. If the oil companies were to pivot to green energy (not happening) they could make just as much if not more money, with less effort. They have to drill farther and farther out in the ocean and spend large sums of money just to reach the oil, but sunlight and wind are right in front of us all the time. They could even sell their energy to a way bigger customer base; everyone uses electricity, but most people only use gasoline for their car (it’s good that I’m not powering my computer with a noisy smelly gas engine). But without the government forcing car companies to produce a larger percentage of electric cars and phase out gasoline, I feel adoption is going to continue much more slowly. I know that several companies have pledged to go all electric in the future, Volvo being the main one that comes to mind. Hopefully, we can overcome the influence of fossil fuels sooner rather than later.
Weekly activity:
9/10 This essay
9/10 Commented on Kathryn's "An Economic Solution to Hand-wringing and Disingenuous Politicians"
9/10 Commented on Betty Mae's "Nature: The Underrated Deity"
Last week I earned 10pts with an essay and two comments, and I am not sure what the introduction counts for so I’ll call it 20pts in total.
Whoops, I misremembered how much everything was worth so the total at that time was actually 10pts.
DeleteDoes pantheism "add value" to nature?
ReplyDeleteAnswering whether or not pantheism adds value to nature, depends on how we measure or define that (something “adding value” to a thing). Which is important to consider before answering for many reasons. If I understand it to be that some of the ideas within pantheism having the potential to bring a different prospective that benefits the conversation of nature, then yes. There are certain aspects within pantheism (just like in anything else) that is worth exploring, mentioning, and taken into consideration when talking about nature.
8/26 - Posted an Introduction essay.
9/10 - Posted an essay on Pantheism.
= 8 points total.