Environmentalism vs Religion

[Valke2]

Well, in the off chance that you are an engineer, look at it this way. Population is much like a PID control on a very slowly reacting system. (Which makes sense, because it takes about 100 years for people to die off.) Right now the P is negative, but we are still going up because that I is so wound up. But the P is getting more and more negative and that I is going to unwind quicker and quicker and when we do start lowering the earth’s population again, it is going to happen sharply, because all the variables will be heading in the same direction.

If you don’t know about PID controls, well, just ignore everything I just said.

But I believe that is based on a false assumption. the “PID control” in this instance is not getting more and more negative. And the argument that it is “Cyclical” doesn’t take into account the toll that has already been taken on the Earth. Are clean water supplies being regenerated? Is there any indication that, barring a massive disaster, that population will return to anything close to 3 billion?? Are oil supplies going to be replenished if population goes down? Does any credible scientific study dispute the prediction that we’re looking at 9 billion plus over the next 25 years or so? Where do you get the information that the PIP is negative?

 

[Valke2]

Also, if is is just a trend or cyclical, where has this trend been repeated in history?

 

[Valke2]

In 1 CE there were about 200,000,000 people.
over the next 1,000 years, the population increased only to 275,000,000.

500 years later, it jumped to 450,000,000.

250 year later, it went from 450 million to 700 million

From 1750 to 1804, it jumped from 700 million to 1 billion.

So, while it took 1,000 years for the population to increase by 75, million, in 1750 it took 54 years for the population to increase by 300 million.

From 1804 to 1850 it increased another 200 million, to 1.2 billion.

Now we are entering the industrial age.

From 1850 to 1900, population increased by 400 million, to 1.6 billion.

From 1900 to 1927, it increased by another 400 million. Only now instead of it taking 50 years to do so, it took only 27. So we’re up to 2 billion.

From 1927 to 1950, an increase of 550 million (in only 23 years). Population was now at 2.55 billion.

In five years – from 1950 to 1955 – it increased by 250 million.

From 1955 to 1960, another 200 million. Total population now at 3 billion.

From 1960 to 1965, another 300 million.

1965 to 1970, another 400 million

1970 to 1975, another 300 million. Total population 4 billion.

In 1 CE it took 1000 years to increase the population by 75 million. In 1960 it took 15 years to increase the population by 1 billion.

From 1975 to 2006 (I’ll skip ahead for brevity) the population incresed by 3.45 billion, more than a billion people ever 10 years.
Today’s world population stands at 6.45 billion.

 

[mvinca]

But you claim that there will be 9 billion in 25 years. Here is the fallacy. The problem is that there aren’t enough people of reproductive age that are reproducing to do that. (This would be the P). There are a lot of older people (which will be the I). So it will go down. That is why overpopulation is a myth. However, noting from your other posts, you seem to mean more by overpopulation that I do. I simply am talking about the number of people on the earth. But you also add things like oil supplies into the picture, so your definition is a bit broader.

By the way, the P, being negative, comes from the majority of western countries having a population replenishing ratio of less than 1.

To answer the other question about Enviromentalism being extremism while caring for the environment being the responsible thing to do: Those people I see who call themselves Environmentalists where the ones that were claiming Global Warming one year, then the next Ice Age is coming the next year. They took the junk science of the day and ran with it without thinking. Now we actually have some good science that supports the concepts of Global Warming but they wonder why people have a hard time believing them? Because they cried wolf and changed their minds so many times in the past 20 years they lost their credibility. Now that they have something credible to present, no one is listening because we learned to tune them out long ago. Too bad, because some of their points today are quite valid.

But to answer the original question on what the church is doing about “this” in regards to the thread hijack of overpopulation, I refer you to this article at the USCCB.

 

[Valke2]

But you claim that there will be 9 billion in 25 years. Here is the fallacy. The problem is that there aren’t enough people of reproductive age that are reproducing to do that. (This would be the P). There are a lot of older people (which will be the I). So it will go down. That is why overpopulation is a myth. However, noting from your other posts, you seem to mean more by overpopulation that I do. I simply am talking about the number of people on the earth. But you also add things like oil supplies into the picture, so your definition is a bit broader.

In order to accept your explanation I would have to believe that, for the first time in 2,000 years, there are not enough breeding people on the earth to increase the population. I just don’t see it. My comment about resources was in response to a post that suggested the world will always have enough resources for us, and that the population can’t (because of Divine intervention) outgrow the available resources.

 

[Valke2]

As a bit of anecdotal evidence, there was just a story on the news a few hours ago about the population in the phillipines growing so rapidly, and there being no place or resources for many, that people are actually moving into graveyards and stealing electricity from local power lines.

 

[Valke2]

But you claim that there will be 9 billion in 25 years.

.

According to this website, by 2030, the population will be 9,308,000,000. ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop/

THe US Census Bureau predicts 8,295,882,474 by 2030.
census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbagg It doesn’t predict the 9 billion mark being surpassed until sometime between 2040 and 2045

 

[puzzleannie]

there is no conflict between environmentalism and religion, any more than that is inherent conflict between science and religion. see this from Zenit, Vatican news service
zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=97228

 

[Contarini]

No, I am basing it on their own views. One doesn’t need to look towards radical groups like ELF or Earth First to find what I would call “extremeism” in the environmental community. Most enviromentalists I know (I used to be a political organizer in the field) held views that are very opposed to the Church’s teaching on just about everything, let alone a proper view of the natural order and stewardship.

Yet again, you refuse to give specifics, and you resort to guilt by association. You have given one example of an “environmentalist” view you disagree with (forced sterilization). Are you really claiming that this is a central plank in the environmentalist movement as a whole?
**

As for “political” issues like ANWAR, I take issue with the inference (yours and others) that because I support oil drilling and exploration that I am a “right-wing Republican” with no moral compass and loathes creation.

I never said that you loathed creation or had no moral compass. Please let’s try to keep this discussion substantive. And please note that the one example you gave (forced sterilization) turned out to have nothing to with environmentalism, while the one example I gave (oil drilling) turned out to reflect your views accurately. So I’m not sure where you get the claim that I’m somehow misrepresenting you.

I understand why decent and moral and rational people could support opening up new areas to oil drilling. I tend to disagree. I’d be very open to having a substantive discussion on this issue. But note that you are the one claiming that environmentalism is contrary to the Church’s teaching. Can you explain how opposition to oil drilling (the only point we’ve found so far on which we disagree) is contrary to the Church’s teaching? How does it reflect a flawed understanding of the natural order?

Edwin**

 

[Contarini]

I’ve stated this before and I don’t appreciate the accustion that I’ve said things without facts.

You haven’t given one single fact to support your claim that environmentalism as a whole has principles that contradict orthodox Christianity. So whether you appreciate the accusation or not is irrelevant–the accusation is true.

I’m not about to go into a treatise on the proper role for proper Christian charity for the environment.

A treatise is not necessary. A few examples would do.

I simply gave my reservations about the environmental movement in general, that one as a Christian should be wary about the Deistic or New Age elements in the movement in general.

But you said earlier that you didn’t think environmentalism involved Deism. I’m confused.

I know that you simply gave your reservations about the movement in general. That’s my problem with what you said. You don’t seem able to support these reservations with any evidence at all.

Of course environmentalism is going to contain people with heretical or pagan ideas. But since when was that a reason for opposing a particular position without further evidence? William Lloyd Garrison came to reject orthodox Christianity because he thought it supported slavery. The right response (and the one adopted by many Northern evangelical Christians) was to point out that this was not the case and to oppose slavery on orthodox grounds, not to support slavery.

Same here. I’d argue that what passes for orthodox Christianity in the modern world is deeply infected with Deism, and that the rise of neopaganism and the New Age is the direct result of this. They are rejecting something that is not robustly orthodox in the first place. Smearing the whole environmental movement as heretical, and rejecting it out of hand, simply furthers the vicious cycle by confirming their belief that Christians are committed to the plundering of the natural world.

Perhaps that is not what you are doing. If so, prove it by replacing your blanket statements with specific, nuanced definitions of just what is good and what is bad in environmentalism.

These tendencies skew solutions brought about to the world’s problems in a way that contradict Church teaching and would violate the human dignity God gave each of us.

Again, no specifics.

You are the one who then accused me of not caring for the environment and not presenting anything to the discussion even though that is not the truth and it is getting old and tired.

Why so slow to give specifics, then? I don’t know if you care for the environment or not. I know that you are slow to say unequivocally that we *should *care for the environment because you’re afraid of endorsing anti-Christian ideas. I understand that concern, but since you won’t clarify your position or lay out just what is legitimate vs. illegitimate care for the environment, it’s hard to have any kind of substantive discussion.

I am the one who has said that I’m not sure we disagree at all. Yet you keep accusing me of attacking you or denigrating you in some way. I’m happy to say that we are substantially in agreement, if you in fact think that caring for the environment is an important issue and that we should not reject environmentalism out of hand just because many environmentalists are working from non-Christian presuppositions.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not nervous about the claim that abortion and degradation of the environment are evil.

Good

But they are not morally equivalent and that is the claim you are making regardless of whether you are honest about it or not.

Why the hostility? I was perfectly honest–I gave three specific kinds of environmental degradation and explained just how I thought they measured up to abortion. So why on earth are you saying that I have some hidden agenda? This is truly bizarre, not to mention unjust and uncharitable.

Are you denying that, for instance, wanton pollution that knowingly puts the lives of many people in danger is equivalent to abortion? Doesn’t that involve saying that somehow the lives of the unborn are *more *valuable than the lives of those already born?

If you have a problem with my drawing an equivalence between a nonhuman species and an individual human, then you may be right. I said I was unsure about this. I certainly believe that an individual human life is *equal *to the life of an entire nonhuman species. I don’t like measuring things this way, beyond the obvious truth that individual humans are qualitatively of more value than individual irrational animals or plants.

The accusation of “moral equivalence” implies that no degree of environmental degradation can possibly compare to abortion. If that is what you are saying, then we do disagree.

That is the mistake that is making the environment worse for everyone because it is leading to unjust policies whether it be excessive taxation, land-use laws, or forced abortion and sterilization.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Are you saying that taxation to support conservation policies and laws that restrain companies from destroying rare habitats are making the environment worse for everyone? If so, I disagree strongly. I can respect your position with some effort (and some suspicions), just as I try to respect the people who tell me (with apparent sincerity) that trying to ban abortion will not in fact reduce the frequency of abortions, and “progressive” social policy is a more effective method. But in both cases, I think this argument is seriously flawed, and I suspect that it constitutes a justification for compromise with evil.

If, for instance, a species of bird can only live in a particular habitat, and we allow a corporation to destroy that habitat, then we have committed a grave sin against God. One aspect of God’s creation has been wiped out by our wanton greed.

Now there’s a specific. Do you agree or disagree?

Edwin

 

[Jennifer123]

Sorry, some others are going to have to take up this thread. Not because I can’t provide facts or other examples, I can, but because I’m not getting into an argument over semantics. No hostility implied, just exasperation.
If anyone wishes to discuss overpopulation, I’d welcome another specific thread.

 

[Valke2]

The world’s driest inhabited continent was in the grip of the worst drought in 1,000 years, a river management expert told Australia’s political leaders. .breitbart.com/news/2006/11/07/061107055949.t193etet.html

 

[murtad]

Mother Theresa was wrong. While its true that better use of resources could end a lot of suffering, that don’t change the fact that we are over 6 billion and will be over 9 billion in 25 years or so. When I was in highshool, about 25 years ago, we were 3 billion.

Since Mother Theresa is a canonised saint just as Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, I doubt she can be wrong.

 

[murtad]

That’s vague. In what way are we not called to protect the environment?

What do you mean by “protect the environment”? I’ve heard this buzzword mostly used by Marxists

 

[Valke2]

Since Mother Theresa is a canonised saint just as Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, I doubt she can be wrong.

Really? Maybe one of us needs to study a bit more on what it means to be canonized.

But in any event, her quote carried a huge “if” to support her argument. “If all the money that is being spent on finding ways to kill people was used instead to feed them and house them and educate them - how beautiful that would be.” That is not happening and I see no inidcation that it will happen. And, if it happened, it sounds like it would not solve the overpopulation problem.

The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area’s carrying capacity. dieoff.org/page27.htm

 

[murtad]

You are the one who seems to have some stake in saying that Christians should be wary of environmentalism.

I’m sure you are aware English language or for that matter any language is subject to corruption and polution by politicians. Remember, George Orwell spoke off doubletalk and takiya? Can you define what you mean by “environmentalism”? AFAIK, my cousin works in France he told me most Christians, particularly Catholics prefer the Chiraq conservative party, over the godless communists led by Jospin. Its not only France, but also Greece, Sweden, Germany and USA who are ruled by the right-wing.

But you haven’t given one single valid reason for this (the fact that some environmentalists hold immoral positions is hardly a valid reason, since in any movement you can find people with untenable or immoral views). I have no stake in saying that you or Fr. Trigilio are wrong. I would like to think that we all agree that abortion and the pollution of the environment are both wrong.

Republican and Democrats in USA are like Conservatives and Communists in France. The contemporary left sadly is irreligious and refuses to care of Christian minorities in Muslim countries, such as refusal to cut off diplomatic and trade ties with Islamic governments that refuse to allow Muslims freedom to leave Islam. The defeated French presidential candidate, Jospin wanted to allow more Muslims into France and that means demographic suicide as most Muslims support Syariah and not secularism!

Insofar as they can be compared, I agree that abortion is the greater evil, though I’d say that it depends on just how great a degree of pollution we are talking about. Obviously abortion is much more evil than dumping a load of litter into a stream. Is it greater, than, say, annihilating whole nonhuman species? Probably, though that’s tough (certainly it is no less an evil). Is it greater than polluting a large space of ground so that thousands of children die or become diseased? No.

Your use of the words “annihilating whole nonhuman species” tells us you have bias. Conservatives do believe that zoos can be used to save endangered species from being annihilated. A zoo can boost tourism dollars and increase the economy.

But my main point is that I don’t understand why we need to set them against each other at all. The Church needs to be politically independent.

Edwin, perhaps you are not aware that the Catholic Church has always been politically independent and allows the laity to hold diverse political views. Its only your Protestant churches that are politically-motivated. Most Protestant churches that are pro-gay and pro-abortion are members of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and its U.S. chapter, National Council of Churches (NCC). Both the WCC and NCC are ideologically Marxist and their leaders, Konrad Raiser and Bob Edgar believe religion is the opium of mankind and deny Trinity.

If you are not trying to justify support for the Republican Party, why are you nervous about the claim that both abortion and destruction of the environment are gravely evil?

Republicans are the lesser evil of the two, and if I were an American, my vote is for them, just as if I were a French, I would vote for Chiraq’s party, or if I were Spanish, Aznar is my choice! It was a shock that Aznar lost to that atheist Zapastero.

Why, when confronted with one evil, do you feel the need to say that some other evil is greater? That’s not the evil we are talking about here. Why not agree that this is an evil, and that abortion is an evil as well?

Our priority is to stop genocide on the unborn babies, which is no different from the Nazi genocide on 6 million innocent ethnic Jews - two million of them were Christians! As for saving endangered animals, these so-called “environmentalists” forget we have zoos for that purpose.

 

[dolphinlove]

Hi,
This is my first post here, and this is a subject I have a big interest in. Im Roman Catholic…
But when it comes to the environment vs religion thing, I dont think there should be a vs in there.
I think we need to really help this planet NOW, regardless of what religion we are. I dont think God wanted us to destroy what he created and we are well on the path to doing so.
I go to church every Sunday, I say the rosary, im a pretty devout catholic, but im going to really get into some organisations to start helping this earth.
Here in Australia, we are having the worst droughts in history, its so dry here its not funny. I do pray to God for rain quite a bit also, but I think the earth needs a hand, since we are depleting it from most of its resources. More tree’s need to be planted, more energy friendly ways like solar power or wind power need to be introduced very quickly.
I pray to God to give me the strength to get into a venture where I can help. I feel he does want me to help, but Im still confused in what way too.
Anyway, thats my .02c worth!

 

[Valke2]

Hi,
This is my first post here, and this is a subject I have a big interest in. Im Roman Catholic…
But when it comes to the environment vs religion thing, I dont think there should be a vs in there.
I think we need to really help this planet NOW, regardless of what religion we are.

Amen. I was suprised to see anyone try to make an argument to the contrary. It never occurred to me that one could look at enviornmentalism, or being concerned about global warming, as something contrary to their religious beliefs.

 

[Valke2]

Hi,
Here in Australia, we are having the worst droughts in history, its so dry here its not funny. I do pray to God for rain quite a bit also, but I think the earth needs a hand, since we are depleting it from most of its resources. More tree’s need to be planted, more energy friendly ways like solar power or wind power need to be introduced very quickly.
I pray to God to give me the strength to get into a venture where I can help. I feel he does want me to help, but Im still confused in what way too.
Anyway, thats my .02c worth!

Australia and AMerica are the only two countires not to sign on to the Kyoto treaty. Admitedly, Austrailai’s hesitancy probably has more to do with the fact that AMerica hasn’t signed. But it can’t hurt for you to contact your representatives and let them know how you feel.