You know what I think? That nothing is going to stop global warming, by which I mean that we -- the people on this planet -- are not going to do what it takes to stop or significantly slow the rate of climate change.
I say this for a couple of reasons. First, Steven Hayward crunched the numbers, and shows how pie-in-the-sky the greenhouse-gas reduction targets are for the United States. But the bigger reason is: China.
I've been reading the excellent National Geographic special issue this month about China, on top of a couple of other sources of information on China's growth. It's hard to escape the conclusion that what's happening now in China is unprecedented in human history. Never before have so many poor people been lifted out of poverty so quickly. It is a miracle.
And yet, China is an environmental disaster zone. On greenhouse gas emissions, you simply aren't going to convince those people, having tasted prosperity, to give it up for the sake of global warming. They are going to overtake the US in short order in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. I hope they can be convinced to change, but if we can't manage the radical changes ourselves -- and neither can the Europeans, who are more greenishly inclined than we Americans -- how on earth can we expect people who have been dirt-poor for time immemorial to make those changes?
I don't say this as an excuse to despair and do nothing. Indeed, we -- you, me -- have a duty to do what we can, even if we can't realistically hope to prevail overall. It's just that I'm not at all confident that this disaster can be avoided, or even much lessened. The appetites driving it are too strong. If you have reason to hope in the face of booming China (to say nothing of India), please, let's hear it.
UPDATE: Patrick Deneen has been having similar thoughts this weekend, about human nature and self-destruction. When he discusses with groups the prospects that soon and very soon, we won't have enough petroleum to run our civilization in the manner to which we've become accustomed, most of his audiences ask how we can replace that lost petrol:
These immediate responses - the desperate wish to avoid, at all costs, the prospect of having to change our behavior - are the definite signs that we are not likely to change one iota until we have extracted every last possible form of energy that can be transformed into our active effort to control and master nature and to avoid the possibility of self-restraint. We do so thinking the alternative must be unthinkable, so awful and horrific to be unimaginable.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
And DeCosta? A case in point of the resistance, on a religious basis, to Global warming of both scenarios. Both that Global Warming premises conflict with Creationism, and the belief that it is some kind of liberal/secular/pagan conspiracy and therefore, no matter what evidence will be presented, it is to be resisted on that basis alone.
And you see no problem with not only a 6000 year old Earth, but that the Earth's crust has been cooling that entire period, since, of course, Jesus created the world? I mean.. on a scientific level. I really don't care about what the theology is. As long as I'm not to be expected to abide by it. Only what policies and actions proceed from the beliefs.
Karen, we should be a bit consoled that YECs have little influence in policy decisions, and that those who do -- while having resistance to science of a lesser extent -- can be convinced that science is actually a sound basis for making policy decisions.
Cleveland... there comes a point in any science vs. theology discussion where the tire meets the road, the nose the grindstone... at some point, belief must find itself taking a back seat to science and doing it voluntarily.
Climate change is a fact of life. I don't care if it's called Global Warming or sun spots. What I care about is that my society and the vast majority of the rest of the world -- albeit for different reasons -- refuses to take action until after a catastrophe happens. If the policy makers believe they cannot trust scientists enough to make changes, I can respect that (whilst grieving). If policy makers believe that God will provide and that is enough for them, then I want them out, and I want them out now. That was very baldly and simplistically put, but there it is.
As for unscientific statements... Mr. DeCosta, the core of the earth is solid iron, not molten rock. The earth's crust is a steady-state phenomenon, with dynamics of change over long periods of time. Saying it's "cooling" is a frivolous statement, like calling it hard, or dirty. The sun spot cycle has been observed for as long as humans have known how to observe the sun without going blind, and it has a poorly understood and still argued correlation to weather patterns. It has nothing to do with the earth's crust. It has had no "great effect" on weather, ever. Sir, I'm glad you find truth in the Bible, but I assure you that there is no science in it.
"I would suggest it is our liberty that allows such things, not our 'still religious' nature." Karen
That's one of your problems; the failure to realize that our true liberty (our inalienable rights) is based on our still religious nature; not on the will of secularists.
"And I have no doubt.. actually, I have a good idea what my fate would be in your ideal society. Or should say family recollection. My grandfather is a refugee (or was, he'd be pretty old now) from Franco's Spain." Karen
Actually, you don't have a clue what your fate would be in my ideal society. It would be liberty, not the horrors inherent in the ultimate secularism--Communism, including the monstrous, murdering anti-Franco version. Religious liberty is a guaranty of one's inalienable rights, including the freedom to be secular or religious in the public square, as we see fit. Secularists don't want us to have that freedom--they throw hissy fits all the way up to the Supreme Beings Court when they see a statue of the baby Jesus on public property. Not their property, mind you, public property.
"That's not what secular means. I have no idea what 'secularism' is.. I've never met a practitioner of it." Karen
Think republicanos (the Soviet Union-supported enemies of Franco), the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and, closer to your heart, the ACLU.
"And you see no problem with not only a 6000 year old Earth, but that the Earth's crust has been cooling that entire period...) Karen
What part of my statement ("I'm not a young earth creationist. I leave to science things like the age of the world...") don't you understand? As to the Earth's crust cooling since it was formed, I never knew it was debatable. The entire Earth is cooling down with time, but the core has cooled down less than the outer crust.
Gees, Karen, do I have to teach you history AND geology? ;-)
"I would suggest it is our liberty that allows such things, not our 'still religious' nature." Karen
That's one of your problems; the failure to realize that our true liberty (our inalienable rights) is based on our still religious nature; not on the will of secularists."
Again, I can find too many examples (most, indeed) to mention of RELIGIOUS (note, you still seem to be confusing that with specifically Catholic Christian, though I can find a few examples of that in the last 100 years) societies with absolutely no belief in rights, inalienable or otherwise. Again, there is not necessarily any incompatibility necessary in the two terms, only that some things are not religious, and some things are.
"And I have no doubt.. actually, I have a good idea what my fate would be in your ideal society. Or should say family recollection. My grandfather is a refugee (or was, he'd be pretty old now) from Franco's Spain." Karen
Actually, you don't have a clue what your fate would be in my ideal society. It would be liberty, not the horrors inherent in the ultimate secularism--Communism, including the monstrous, murdering anti-Franco version. Religious liberty is a guaranty of one's inalienable rights, including the freedom to be secular or religious in the public square, as we see fit. Secularists don't want us to have that freedom--they throw hissy fits all the way up to the Supreme Beings Court when they see a statue of the baby Jesus on public property. Not their property, mind you, public property."
I'm talking about Franco, not the 'anti-Franco' version. If it was bad, it has no bearing on how bad FRANCO was. Franco was pretty good at being monstrous and murderous himself. All with quite a bit of sanction and support, if I (and definitely my grandfather) not only remember reading, but experiencing.
I don't recall any 'hissy fit' about religious paraphenalia on YOUR private property, or any private property. And I also recall Christian hissy fitting about NON-Christian religious symbols on public property. And much of those hissy fits weren't by 'secularists', but by members of OTHER religions. (Again, you do recall they exist?)
You know, like Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc? Last I heard, public property is as much MY property as YOURS.
"That's not what secular means. I have no idea what 'secularism' is.. I've never met a practitioner of it." Karen
Think republicanos (the Soviet Union-supported enemies of Franco), the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and, closer to your heart, the ACLU."
You have no idea what's close to my heart. For all you know, I'm a rabid Libertarian. And again, I said I never met one, and I still can stand by that.
"And you see no problem with not only a 6000 year old Earth, but that the Earth's crust has been cooling that entire period...) Karen
What part of my statement ("I'm not a young earth creationist. I leave to science things like the age of the world...") don't you understand? As to the Earth's crust cooling since it was formed, I never knew it was debatable. The entire Earth is cooling down with time, but the core has cooled down less than the outer crust.
Gees, Karen, do I have to teach you history AND geology? ;-)"
First, your history lesson was off, as was your CIVICs lesson (though I was less snarky about that. And not knowing the difference between the Constitution and the DOI is a little worse than having a difference of opinion about the utopian nature of 15th century England).
You haven't taught me a bit of history. Only clarified the periods you are speaking about. As for the geology, it is about the fact that it has not a darn thing to do with the WEATHER.
And its our religious remnants that insure that I have very little say in the public square. I guarantee, it isn't secular people that have stated in polls that they would, based on that alone, not vote for a politician purely based on the politician not being religious.
And most of those societies, including England, had religious observance mandated, and had punishments for non-compliance.
Indeed, the biggest change to the plight of the worker in the 15th century was ironically most attributed not to religion, but to the plague.
It decimated so much of the peasantry that, in one of the original supply and demand social movements, the peasants gained some bargaining rights, changing the labor service for a sort of landlord-lease system. Note, this wasn't present in the 1350-until the 1500's period.
This allowed the rising of the Yeoman class, though it still wasn't exactly ideal. With still no real rights, the whole conversion of fields to pastures for sheep and evictions took place starting in that period.
Sounds like it wasn't quite the ideal place that it was.. well, unless you were the landowner.
In the end, many of the NEW rights of the 15th century for peasantry had more to do with a plague caused labor shortage than any religious impetus.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.