J. Matthew Sleeth reviews Allan Carlson’s book, Fractured Generations: Crafting a Family Policy for Twenty-first Century America in his article, “6.5 Billion and Counting” in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 36- 37. He is well aware of the toxic environment cause by too much: too much soot in the air and too many chemicals in the environment, and perhaps, too many people on the planet. Allan Carlson’s book is devoted to family policy issues and gives public policy suggestions in each chapter.
Most of those crying out the loudest, are claiming the major crisis being faced by the world today is overpopulation. Carlson, however, states that the major problem is depopulation, not overpopulation, and he fears that dwindling populations in developed countries will eventually cripple their economies. Sleeth, however, disagrees, saying that immigration from overpopulated countries to developed nations will most likely alleviate any economic problems caused by depopulation.
The major reason for the dramatic increase in population growth is due to the advances in medicine and the prolongation of life. Sleeth has an excellent illustration of the population growth of the world throughout history:
One way of visualizing the rate of population growth is to take all of mankind's history and place it on a 12-month "Big Calendar of History." January 1 stands for the year 8000 BC. Each "day" represents twenty-seven years. December 31 on the Big Calendar of History represents ad 2000. Some important "days" are circled. In July, people start writing, building libraries, and using iron tools. In September, Christ lives, dies, and is resurrected. December 24 is a big day. By now 98 percent of all human history has passed. On this day, the Census Bureau throws a party. Mankind has reached the one billion mark. On the 29th of December, we reach two billion. We add another billion on the 30th, and during the 31st we add a billion in the morning, another billion in the afternoon, and another billion before midnight.
According to Carlson, the main reason for smaller families in Western countries is the rejection of Christian values. He claims that religion is the number one factor in determining birth rates. “Declining birth rates are, in large part, the result of people turning away from Christian virtues like sacrifice, long-term commitment, altruism, and responsibility.” It is difficult to take this kind of reasoning seriously.
Carlson fears that underpopulation is real and that overpopulation is a lie invented by social engineers to advance their agenda. However, overpopulation and underpopulation are occurring at the same time. Underpopulation is a problem for specific countries while overpopulation is a global issue. There is no global shortage of people. There is a global shortage of the things necessary for each and every person on earth to live a full, meaningful life. There might be enough economic resources to support a growing population, but there aren’t enough environmental resources to support a population growing at its present rate.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/8.36.html
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Feeling Green
Andy Crouch reviews the book, A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, by Roger S. Gottlieb, in his article, “Feeling Green” in Books & Culture, March/April 2007, pages 32-35. The role religious faith plays in the environmental movement is difficult to determine since there are so many different groups that are playing a role: Catholic, Evangelical, Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian, Episcopalian, Wiccan, Sufi, Calvinist, Hindu, and more. Even among Evangelicals there is a lot of disagreement, as seen in the conflict between the Evangelical Climate Initiative and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, as well as the pressure put on Ted Haggard when he was president of the National Association of Evangelicals.
There are sever reasons for this conflict within Evangelicalism over the environment: First, many evangelicals fear that “creation care” is a wedge issue designed to split the evangelical voters from their allegiance to the Republican party or a left-wing attempt to undermine free-enterprise and economic growth. Second, many fear that environmentalism is a thinly disguised pantheism that sees the earth as “God’s body” and human beings as parasitic parts of the evolutionary web of life.
There is always the danger of creating a policy that sounds good theoretically but is difficult to implement practically. Crouch quotes Gottlieb:
“Yet, many would argue, the very idea of cooperation with rather than domination over nature, though (perhaps) appealing in the abstract, is impossible in practice. Don't humans need to eat, build houses, and watch TV? Don't deep ecologists and ecofeminists use antibiotics to treat their kids' ear infections? And don't we all use computers and drive our cars? Isn't all of this talk of cooperating with nature simply an armchair philosophy that evaporates once we leave our armchairs and start to deal with real life?”
“These questions are not easily answered.”
While most of these questions are red herrings, designed to weaken the force of his opponents’ argument, it is difficult to see how the need for humans to eat can be explained as cooperating with nature. While the Christian tradition asks us to love our enemies, which is difficult, it is not logically impossible, and in fact, it has been done many times throughout history. But to not eat would be logically impossible for anyone to do.
According to Christian and Jewish tradition, man has been given dominion over creation, not to abuse it but to guard, protect and utilize it wisely as a stewardship. Man is the only species with the ability to do this and the only one that can feel guilt when it fails. Man has been created in the image of God and ordained by God as the steward of creation. Much of the foolishness propagated by some environmentalists is a rejection of this belief. By seeing animals and inanimate objects as merely “different” from human beings has resulted in most Christians being unable to work directly with most environmentalist groups.
Environmentalists like to evoke Native American religion as pure and eco-friendly while the historical truth is that it wasn’t as friendly to the environment as they think. Some even quote Chief Seattle as the ideal of an indigenous religious leader, failing to realize that often the words they quote were never spoken by him at all. In fact, much of what is quoted is from a time after he had already converted to Christianity. Evangelicalism has been very friendly to indigenous people and has interacted with them for centuries, as was the case with David Brainerd.
Some environmentalists have tried to put all religions, including Christianity, into one bag, thinking that doctrinal differences and historical perspectives are immaterial. This attitude makes it very difficult for most Evangelicals to cooperate with these groups. Christianity is not concerned merely with internal spiritual experiences but is committed to the historical veracity of the gospel events, which is why we celebrate Easter, Christmas and Communion. Christianity hinges on the truth of historical events and the claims of the particularity and exclusivity of Jesus. The Exodus, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are foundational to our faith, not mere individual experiences. Therefore, it is impossible to build a Christian environmental position that disregards these historical truths.
There is an environmentalism that is rooted in historical faith. Jesus modeled both feasting and fasting, abundance and simplicity. Christianity can, and must, speak to the present environmental situation, but it must do so in a way that honors and upholds its view of truth and reality.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/7.32.html
There are sever reasons for this conflict within Evangelicalism over the environment: First, many evangelicals fear that “creation care” is a wedge issue designed to split the evangelical voters from their allegiance to the Republican party or a left-wing attempt to undermine free-enterprise and economic growth. Second, many fear that environmentalism is a thinly disguised pantheism that sees the earth as “God’s body” and human beings as parasitic parts of the evolutionary web of life.
There is always the danger of creating a policy that sounds good theoretically but is difficult to implement practically. Crouch quotes Gottlieb:
“Yet, many would argue, the very idea of cooperation with rather than domination over nature, though (perhaps) appealing in the abstract, is impossible in practice. Don't humans need to eat, build houses, and watch TV? Don't deep ecologists and ecofeminists use antibiotics to treat their kids' ear infections? And don't we all use computers and drive our cars? Isn't all of this talk of cooperating with nature simply an armchair philosophy that evaporates once we leave our armchairs and start to deal with real life?”
“These questions are not easily answered.”
While most of these questions are red herrings, designed to weaken the force of his opponents’ argument, it is difficult to see how the need for humans to eat can be explained as cooperating with nature. While the Christian tradition asks us to love our enemies, which is difficult, it is not logically impossible, and in fact, it has been done many times throughout history. But to not eat would be logically impossible for anyone to do.
According to Christian and Jewish tradition, man has been given dominion over creation, not to abuse it but to guard, protect and utilize it wisely as a stewardship. Man is the only species with the ability to do this and the only one that can feel guilt when it fails. Man has been created in the image of God and ordained by God as the steward of creation. Much of the foolishness propagated by some environmentalists is a rejection of this belief. By seeing animals and inanimate objects as merely “different” from human beings has resulted in most Christians being unable to work directly with most environmentalist groups.
Environmentalists like to evoke Native American religion as pure and eco-friendly while the historical truth is that it wasn’t as friendly to the environment as they think. Some even quote Chief Seattle as the ideal of an indigenous religious leader, failing to realize that often the words they quote were never spoken by him at all. In fact, much of what is quoted is from a time after he had already converted to Christianity. Evangelicalism has been very friendly to indigenous people and has interacted with them for centuries, as was the case with David Brainerd.
Some environmentalists have tried to put all religions, including Christianity, into one bag, thinking that doctrinal differences and historical perspectives are immaterial. This attitude makes it very difficult for most Evangelicals to cooperate with these groups. Christianity is not concerned merely with internal spiritual experiences but is committed to the historical veracity of the gospel events, which is why we celebrate Easter, Christmas and Communion. Christianity hinges on the truth of historical events and the claims of the particularity and exclusivity of Jesus. The Exodus, the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection are foundational to our faith, not mere individual experiences. Therefore, it is impossible to build a Christian environmental position that disregards these historical truths.
There is an environmentalism that is rooted in historical faith. Jesus modeled both feasting and fasting, abundance and simplicity. Christianity can, and must, speak to the present environmental situation, but it must do so in a way that honors and upholds its view of truth and reality.
You can read this article at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/7.32.html
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
State of Fear
Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, tackles “politicized science” in his 2004 novel, State of Fear. While I thought the novel was chunky, filled with unpolished dialog, and hindered by hard to believe plot twists, I had to admire Crichton for taking on such a politically charged issue as global warming.
The basic premise of the book is that certain environmentalist groups are plotting to force action to be taken to stop global warming by launching a series of ecological catastrophes that validate their claims that global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth. Explosives are laid in Antarctica to break off a large chunk of ice, thunderstorms in Arizona are fueled by electrostatic generators to create a monster storm, and undersea explosives to create a tsunami that would swamp the western coast of the United States, all in conjunction with a global warming seminar.
Crichton is even-handed in his treatment of the subject of global warming, giving all sides adequate exposure. His main theme is that certain ecological groups have created a “State of Fear” by twisting data and manipulating computer simulations. He calls for a clear-minded approach that takes into account all the data as well as the consequences of intended actions. Check out his conclusions at: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/.
The appendix and author’s conclusion are some of the most helpful parts of the book. Crichton shows how little we really know about climate change and managing the environment. He gives some very powerful incidents where regulations were implemented that had disastrous ecological and economic results. Many of the proposed “solutions” are worse than the problem they claim to cure while others are so costly and provide minimal help, that the costs far exceed any useful benefit.
I found the author’s conclusion extremely helpful and valuable in sorting out the issues in global warming:
1. We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, how to preserve and protect it.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.
3. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850 as we emerged from a 400-year cold spell known as “the little ice age.”
4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomena.
5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
6. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.
7. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models I think it is reasonable to require the models to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years, and twenty would be better.
8. There are many reason to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear-mongers. As far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
9. I find most environmental principles, such as “sustainable development” or the “precautionary principle,” have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West, and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the third world. They are a nice way of saying, “We got ours but we don’t want you to get yours because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
10. I believe people are well intentioned but I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
11. We haven’t the foggiest notion of how to preserve what we term “wilderness” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conduction such research in a systematic way. I, therefore, hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmentalist groups as much as developers and strip miners; there is no difference in outcomes to greed and incompetence.
12. We need a new environmental movement with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and fewer lawyers.
13. We cannot hope to manage a complex system, such as the environment, through litigation.
14. We desperately need a non-partisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct scientific research that may have policy implications. Scientists are only too aware of who they are working for; as a result environmental organizational studies are every bit as biased and suspect as industry sponsored studies. Government studies are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. I am certain there is too much certainty in the world
15. I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those spent in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied that they will be preserved in sufficient quantities or with sufficient skill. I conclude the exploiters of the environment include: environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
16. Everybody has an agenda, except me.
The basic premise of the book is that certain environmentalist groups are plotting to force action to be taken to stop global warming by launching a series of ecological catastrophes that validate their claims that global warming is an imminent threat to life on earth. Explosives are laid in Antarctica to break off a large chunk of ice, thunderstorms in Arizona are fueled by electrostatic generators to create a monster storm, and undersea explosives to create a tsunami that would swamp the western coast of the United States, all in conjunction with a global warming seminar.
Crichton is even-handed in his treatment of the subject of global warming, giving all sides adequate exposure. His main theme is that certain ecological groups have created a “State of Fear” by twisting data and manipulating computer simulations. He calls for a clear-minded approach that takes into account all the data as well as the consequences of intended actions. Check out his conclusions at: http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/.
The appendix and author’s conclusion are some of the most helpful parts of the book. Crichton shows how little we really know about climate change and managing the environment. He gives some very powerful incidents where regulations were implemented that had disastrous ecological and economic results. Many of the proposed “solutions” are worse than the problem they claim to cure while others are so costly and provide minimal help, that the costs far exceed any useful benefit.
I found the author’s conclusion extremely helpful and valuable in sorting out the issues in global warming:
1. We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history to its present state, how to preserve and protect it.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause.
3. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850 as we emerged from a 400-year cold spell known as “the little ice age.”
4. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomena.
5. Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.
6. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows.
7. Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models I think it is reasonable to require the models to predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years, and twenty would be better.
8. There are many reason to shift away from fossil fuels and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear-mongers. As far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century.
9. I find most environmental principles, such as “sustainable development” or the “precautionary principle,” have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West, and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the third world. They are a nice way of saying, “We got ours but we don’t want you to get yours because you’ll cause too much pollution.”
10. I believe people are well intentioned but I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences.
11. We haven’t the foggiest notion of how to preserve what we term “wilderness” and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conduction such research in a systematic way. I, therefore, hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmentalist groups as much as developers and strip miners; there is no difference in outcomes to greed and incompetence.
12. We need a new environmental movement with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and fewer lawyers.
13. We cannot hope to manage a complex system, such as the environment, through litigation.
14. We desperately need a non-partisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct scientific research that may have policy implications. Scientists are only too aware of who they are working for; as a result environmental organizational studies are every bit as biased and suspect as industry sponsored studies. Government studies are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. I am certain there is too much certainty in the world
15. I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those spent in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied that they will be preserved in sufficient quantities or with sufficient skill. I conclude the exploiters of the environment include: environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records.
16. Everybody has an agenda, except me.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Architecture and Christians
If you are interested in architecture, these two articles in Books & Culture, January/February 2007 are worth reading:
Cross Purposes (page 14)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/6.14.html
Edward Short reviews Ryan K. Smith’s book, Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses, showing how American Protestants in the 1800’s adopted the architecture style of Catholics.
Better Building (page 15)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/7.15.html
Bill McKibben reviews David W. Orr’s book, Design on the Edge, chronicling the building of the first echo-friendly building on the campus of Oberlin College in Ohio. He considers modern buildings the equivalent of stationary SUVs, wasting much more energy than necessary. Orr describes all of the red tape, roadblocks and stubborn leadership he had to battle to finish his project. Orr laments that modern universities do not function as “learning organizations” since various departments are isolated, risk-averse, and other academic sins that make change nearly impossible. “From the tower of Babel of competing disciplines, subdisciplines, and research projects, one does not talk much about the coherence of worldviews relative to natural systems…. What does seem to get our attention, alas, has to do with parking permits, retirement benefits, promotions, salary raises, and the enhancement of our particular fiefdoms.” Socrates, he says, would never get tenure.
McKibben makes an observation that is applicable in other areas as well: Orr is like a prophet and not a manager. Sometimes we need prophets who can inspire us with a new vision, but we also need managers who can turn that vision into reality. Orr is a prophet, while some of his students now are becoming effective managers translating his ideas into practical applications.
Prophet are not usually fun to be around, but we need them. Managers are not usually inspiring, but we need them as well. It is not a matter of either/or but of both/and.
Cross Purposes (page 14)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/6.14.html
Edward Short reviews Ryan K. Smith’s book, Gothic Arches, Latin Crosses, showing how American Protestants in the 1800’s adopted the architecture style of Catholics.
Better Building (page 15)
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/001/7.15.html
Bill McKibben reviews David W. Orr’s book, Design on the Edge, chronicling the building of the first echo-friendly building on the campus of Oberlin College in Ohio. He considers modern buildings the equivalent of stationary SUVs, wasting much more energy than necessary. Orr describes all of the red tape, roadblocks and stubborn leadership he had to battle to finish his project. Orr laments that modern universities do not function as “learning organizations” since various departments are isolated, risk-averse, and other academic sins that make change nearly impossible. “From the tower of Babel of competing disciplines, subdisciplines, and research projects, one does not talk much about the coherence of worldviews relative to natural systems…. What does seem to get our attention, alas, has to do with parking permits, retirement benefits, promotions, salary raises, and the enhancement of our particular fiefdoms.” Socrates, he says, would never get tenure.
McKibben makes an observation that is applicable in other areas as well: Orr is like a prophet and not a manager. Sometimes we need prophets who can inspire us with a new vision, but we also need managers who can turn that vision into reality. Orr is a prophet, while some of his students now are becoming effective managers translating his ideas into practical applications.
Prophet are not usually fun to be around, but we need them. Managers are not usually inspiring, but we need them as well. It is not a matter of either/or but of both/and.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)