I make the distinction between classical environmentalism versus the modern version which has been hijacked by the left to promote their culture of death.
I just don’t get it. Knowing what is behind radical environmentalsm, you know the Western white man’s guilt on just about everything, global warning and over population fear mongering to name a few, what prompts the church to get in bed with these folks?
I see. This makes sense, but in light of lots of advances in scientific understanding and technology, I do think we need a modernized environmental movement all the same, one which goes beyond what the early 20th century folk did, albeit one guided by a responsible, pro-life philosophy.
But Catholic doctrine urges* prudence* on a whole bunch of matters not directly addressed (so far) by Church fathers. I think we would be right to ask ourselves how to put passage 2415 of the Catechism into practice:
I may be naive, but I am honestly concerned about global warming and population growth. For instance: critics of the global warming hypothesis attack certain specific studies that may or may not indicate an overall warming trend. But no one has ever disproved the science of the greenhouse effect, have they? And while I understand that the question of population growth is not inevitable, could you explain why a global population that has been on the rise since the dawn of man will not continue to rise until there is simply no room left for everyone?
No, dusting off one’s bicycle once a year is not going to make any real difference. We need a great deal more than that! I think it’s the fact that the situation seems so dire that makes people extremists, but while you can criticize their extreme responses for being “anti-life” or otherwise irresponsible, I think it’s equally irresponsible not to address the dire circumstances themselves! From your response I gather that you are more concerned with the cost of environmental protection and the people who are currently running it than you are with any overestimation of the threat itself. To the first concern I would say that maybe this effort will be worth the amount it costs; and to the second I say that if you are sick of Al Gore monopolizing the debate, perhaps we Catholics and others like us can strive to take the lead, rather than pish-poshing the whole important enterprise…
That is frightening. Earth Day is a indeed a global movement and what upsets me is the Church’s involvement as it’s been bad enough that for 39 years, this day has been promoted in all our public schools and I think few know of its original purpose and many still think that over-population is the main problem.
But from my point of view, the fact that so few people know of its original purpose means that that simply isn’t its purpose anymore. So while you’re right to warn us of the excesses environmental fervor can lead to – and someone surely needs to warn us about that! – at the same time, I don’t think it’s as though Nelson’s ideology is insidiously sneaking its way into our Earth Day consciousness (in the same way that Margaret Sanger’s eugenic philosophy, for instance, is intrinsically bound up in Planned Parenthood’s contemporary tactics).
So here’s Lord Monckton on AIDS in 1987:
Nineteen eighty seven was at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and there was great fear that this virus would rapidly infect and kill major populations which is happening in Africa so it may sound rash but at the time, it would been a comment among many comments.
I’m not concerned that it sounds “rash” so much as that it sounds evil: putting people in concentration camps because they’re sick sounds worse to me than whatever (vaguely defined) “population control” measures Nelson was talking about. What would that even entail – promoting contraceptive use? Ok, that’s bad and I’m against it, but I’m not sure his liberal politics merit all the rancor you’re heaping upon him.
In the video you offered, I’ll admit that Gore is pretty obnoxious, but that’s about the only problem I had with it. Because the question is not whether he is Mother Teresa – we’re trying to protect the environment, not canonize the guy. The question is, is he scientifically correct? Based on everything I’ve seen, he seems to be.
I just don’t see how “population control” (which still remains undefined) “continues to be a part of Earth Day.” I remember one quotation from Gaylord Nelson thirty years ago, and you seem to want to use that as a reason not to be worried about the environment today. Sorry if I’m being obtuse or oversimplifying things, but I’m afraid I just don’t get it!
The Catholic church is a non-profit that runs hospitals and schools. Al Gore is a for profit adventure capitalist that stands to make a fortune on energy. Al Gore does not nor would he ever work for $6.00-$60.00 per hour. He lives in a very lavish home and has to support his lifestyle so now he is telling us he is a non-profit who has worked for 30 years to make us energy efficient. I don’t believe Al Gore has worked on my behalf and he is pushing this bill along with other profiteers.
I’m sure there are many Catholics who live quite lavishly, though. My main point was that whatever you want to say about Al Gore’s character (which probably we aren’t qualified to judge, but whatever), this should not be a distraction from the most important question of all: is he right?
For 38 years, thousands of articles are posted each year on Earth Day in newspapers and now on the internet. Most write about population control so I don’t think there is any mistake about what Earth Day was from the beginning and still is prosetylized today. Here are a few articles.
Thank you for these quotations!! Ok, I see what you mean. You’re right, this is huge. If I have anything left to say it’s that these articles all seem to be saying, “Hey, I have an idea, let’s take Earth Day as an opportunity to talk about contraception,” which suggests to me that Earth Day isn’t intrinsically about population control but rather that people are coming around to making it about population control again. So maybe there is still room for Catholics to wrest a more positive message out of the debate – which is what you are doing, and that’s great.