One post. All it took was one post for someone to try and turn this into an agenda thread.
Frankly, I have yet to see any credible evidence that the WWF supports any kind of “population control” or “abortion on demand”. A report from some biased think-tank does not count as credible evidence.
As I said in the other thread (which was closed/deleted), sustainable growth and development is not a euphemism, it’s an assessment principle used by most western countries in environmental impact assessments, taking into account environmental, social, and economic factors. It includes the Precautionary Principle.
If you have any credible evidence suggesting something about the WWF, then lets see it. Reposting something from a biased website does not count.
I agree with you.
Even the idea of overpopulation is not evil in an of itself. There is the Catholic solution of celibacy and the rhythm method (or “abstinence makes the heart grow fonder”). However, overpopulation could also be rephrased as “under-resourced” or “not enough food & necessities for all.” That’s the other side of the “overpopulation” coin, and that’s the real concern of the “overpopulation” people – that people have enough to survive; and I’d say they are more pro-life than the typical pro-lifers at least in that way (as long as abortion is not being promoted as a solution). I sometimes tell people it doesn’t make any logical sense to kill children in order to save the earth for the children; and it is totally illogical to be against abortion and at the same time in favor of killing people, including fetuses, thru environmental harms. Both sides need to come to grips with their inconsistences.
Right now there is not real “overpopulation” problem, as there are enough resources and food to go around, only they don’t go around nearly enough to ensure everyone’s survival. So the bad is on us selfish horders and wasters.
In the future with environmental harms greatly depleting food and resources necessary for human viability we might start witnessing a killer musical chairs over ever-diminishing food and potable water and other diminishing resources needed to sustain human life. Then it might become a matter of “overpopulation,” i.e., “under-resourced.”
What I find interesting is that the WYD has brought in WWF, which I think is a great step towards rapprochement between Catholicism and environmentalism, esp with Catholics (e.g., here at CAF) ranting and raving against environmentalism and how it is tantamount to paganism, pantheism, and nature worship (and at least 10 other evils)…to the effect that BXVI had to mentioned it as a downside to environmentalism in “If You Want Peace Protect Creation,” as if paganism and pantheism really is serious problem with environmentalism…which it is NOT, but mainly and hugely in the minds of anti-environmental Catholics. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that the vast majority of environmentalists do NOT believe that propituating nature deities will gain them anything (esp since most environmentalists I know are Christians). Of course, prayer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob I am certain WILL help, as it has often helped me in my pursuits.
BXVI in that same message also spoke against the biocentric and ecocentric strands of environmentalism, promoting the anthropocentric strand.
I can see his point at a deeper level – biocentrism and ecocentrism could be followed by those who think humans are the scum of the earth, and the earth would be better off without them. However, most following these 2 strands are not human-haters, and I’d suggest most privilege humans over the rest of God’s creation.
I’ve listed the WWF as an example of biocentrism in my lectures, concerned as it is about the welfare of non-human species. The ASPCA is probably its forerunner – concerned about abuse of working animals in the 19th c. and now about pets. I can understand the impetus of those affiliated with these orgs – they are very sensitive people who would probably not tolerate abuse of other humans, but go further to include others in their circle of compassion (as St. Francis suggested). In fact when child abuse became an issue in the 19th c., and there was a terrible case of it (the McCormick child) – see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ellen_Wilson – they had to turn to the ASPCA for help, since there were no effective orgs to help abused children, and the ASPCA was most helpful. So caring about the treatment of animals in no way indicates a hatred for humans or even a lack of caring for them; rather it often indicates a greater sensitivity toward ALL of God’s creatures.
Now re “ecocentrism” v. “anthropocentrism” my idea is this: if people are truly concerned about people and environmental harms to them, then they will strive to understand how things in our ecosystem tend to be interrelated, and that we need to protect non-human aspects (like food crops and supporting conditions for crops) in order to protect and help people. In other words, while one could be ecocentric and against people, one cannot in my estimation be anthropocentric without being ecocentric. That goes for biocentric (tending to focus on individual species in isolation) as well; one cannot be biocentric, without being ecocentric.
So, it is truly good that we are opening our hearts to all of God’s creation (which is indicated by including the WWF), which just might help us to love our fellow humans more too.
Also the WWF has gone well beyond just animals, and has put out many reports that indicate environmental harms to people, as well.
We can think like this – we (humans and non) are all in the same boat…Noah’s ark.
