September 21, 2006

• so mote it be.

  President Hugo Chavez’s Speech to the United Nations – well worth reading for a different point of view regarding geopolitical reality.

  Also, check this link from Dandalism to a speech on the religion of enviornmentalism given by Michael Crichton in 2003.
  If you are ever likely to discuss environmental issues with me, please
  take the time to read and understand this speech. Don’t read more into
  it than there is, just understand what he is saying – environmentalism
  as it is practiced by many people in modern culture is a religion. Not
  only is it a religion, it is a near mapping of the traditional
  Judeo-Christian story of an Eden, the loss of grace, and the coming
  doomsday. Along with the story comes the inability to shake the beliefs
  by pointing at inconvenient facts or the failing of prophecies.

  He
  says a lot – don’t necessarily take it as a statement of reality, but
  certainly take the opportunity to question your own point of view and
  beliefs. Understand why you think the things you think.

  He
  asserts several things which are contrary to common understandings of
  enviornmental realities. Please be aware that whether or not he’s right
  about these things doesn’t validate or invalidate his broader argument.

  That said, I’m very curious if he is right on any of these or
  where he gets them from. If you have any information on the support for
  his following statements, please post them (comments in italics are mine):

  I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. (Anyone know where this one comes from?)
  I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. (I’ve got to think that concentration is a major factor)
  I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. (This is a pretty vague statement.)
  I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. (As
  far as I know, this one is true, however, the land taken to support
  urbanization – such as farms and power production is somewhat higher).
  I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. (Anyone know about these?)
  I
  can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded
  that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise
  of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even
  nuclear. (d’uh. not with our population)
  The panel concluded
  a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise
  nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste
  of time. (without a corresponding reduction in population and power usage)

  So,
  I’m not sure about any of these claims, but I do agree with his
  statement that man was pretty much never in a state of “grace” – with
  each other or with nature. There were just few enough of us that our
  destructiveness could be absorbed/balanced. You can say the same about
  almost any organism to some extent, and you can argue that the right
  amount destructive elements are necessary for a balanced system.

  I
  do agree that nature is not kind, forgiving, or loving. You don’t
  bargain with nature. You adapt to what it demands or you die.

  I
  do agree that environmentalism as a religion can weaken
  enviornmentalism as a method to ensure our continued survival on this
  planet by removing people’s need to think.

  In many ways, I am a
  follower of the religion of enviornmentalism. I think that the
  enviornment we live in is the most immediate of our gods. If we adapt
  to its demands, we survive. If we do not, we will not. It will punish
  us for our transgressions, and reward us with plenty when we do what we
  should. Many of the things I do, I do not because they’ll make any
  significant difference, but because they bring me to what I believe is
  a closer understanding of those demands.

  All religions have the
  big rules and the little rules. Reduce-reuse-recycle. Eat natural. Fair
  Trade. Garden. No unnecessary chemicals. These are all little rules.
  Good ideas. Suggestions. If I toss a bottle in the trash, I will not be
  struck down (unless the wrong eco-vigilante sees me).

  But there
  is one big rule. On the order of “Thou shall not murder” to me. It is
  not something I can truly debate or argue. It is fundamentally
  arbitrary, but it is what the religion dictates. I may philosophically
  question it, but when I break it (and I do), it is tantamount to
  apostasy – it is a cardinal sin. This rule is this:

  Thou shalt not leave this world a poorer place than you found it.

  When
  we enter this world it has riches. These riches are pools of resources,
  biodiversity, natural beauty. Open spaces. Skys, forests, fields and
  water which teem with life. What’s more, they replenish themselves. You
  can take a tree and, given time, another will grow. You can harvest
  fruits and nuts. You can take an animal to eat – another will be born.
  An incredible gift to us when we are born. The responsibility given by
  this religion is not to take more than can be replaced. To ensure that
  future generations will receive as good as a gift as we did.

  The
  rule of seven generations. The idea that the choices we make should be
  made should be made with the thought of how it will impact the world
  our great-grandchildren’s great granchildren’s children will inherit.

  If
  we leave them something that they can’t survive in, we have broken the
  cardinal rule. If we leave them something that doesn’t have the same
  opportunities for living a healthy enjoyable life, we have stolen from
  them – perhaps even murdered them.

  However, to truly respect
  this rule, I must be careful not to be blinded by my religion. It seems
  to be a natural pitfall and one that catches many of us unaware. I see
  many followers of classic religions who miss the fundamental teachings
  of their religions to follow the “little rules”. I should try and be
  conscious enough to do my best to avoid the same mistake.

  And,
  of course, if I choose to accept the state of apostasy and ignore the
  rule all together, it won’t make a lick of difference. Except, of
  course, it will.

  • 6:26 pm
  • 2 Comments