Evolution, Ecology and Politics

Great Debates
1

Evolution and Ecology are two foremost causes of progressive Left.

On one hand, practically all on the progressive Left subscribe to the theory of Evolution of the Species.

On another hand, many of those progressive people consider industrial and technological expansion of modern Western civilization as potentially hazardous to the planet and possibly ecologically unsustainable.

Those progressive people advocate learning from primitive native cultures, still surviving in various places around the world, supposedly preserving “the only known time-tested models for the sustainable consumption of natural resources”.

Many progressive people would agree with the following statement:

“The life of our planet depends on saving both the remaining crucial biologically diverse ecosystems and—their exclusive, credible guardians—the indigenous peoples of the world.”

One question to people who both believe in evolution and extol virtues of primitive people: what cosmological systems do you think primitive people believe in? Fact is, all primitive people without single exception believe in the most unusual and unreasonable things about origins of life and structure of this world. You are always at war with biblical creationists, yet spiritually biblical creationists have a lot more in common with primitive people then you do.

Somehow, progressive evolutionists wage intellectual war against religious creationists, in the process accusing them of greed, stupidity and unscientific ignorant destruction of the planet and its resources. To prove their point, progressive evolutionists point to examples of indigenous people, living “wisely in balance with nature”. But all primitive people believe in creation myths of some kind and can’t even begin to fathom the merits of the theory of evolution of the species!

Strong case can be made that creationist mindset is most in tune with natural harmony. It’s certainly holds true in primitive settings among indigenous people.

Equally true, the effects of evolution and progress are hardly noticeable among indigenous people in primitive settings.

Therefore, Sustainable Development and Evolution are in contradiction!

How can one champion progress and sophistication, and at the same time champion primitive ways of life?

Are Western biblical creationists considered dangerous because they are can coerce power of Western civilization, but primitive creationists are adorable because they are helpless?

Is evolution vs. creation dispute all about the struggle for political power in the West, then?

2

I question whether there is any correlation between left wing politics and support of evolution.

3

The argument is invalid. Valuing a culture’s ecological practices does not require that one value every single aspect of the culture.

 Also, I don't think most progressives believe that the life of our planet depends on preserving indigenous cultures.  In my experience, a very small percentage of progressives believe that we must preserve these cultures in order to emulate them.  But I'd welcome any cite to the contrary.
4

Who specifically are these people of whom you speak? Democrats? I hardly think you can make a case for that.

So, if they have one faulty belief, all their beliefs (or knowledge) is faulty?

No. SCIENTISTS wage an intellectual war with creationists.

Natural harmony? That’a pretty outdated… something left over from the 60s. It’s becoming increasing obvious that primitive cultures just destroy the environment more slowly. The ones we see still in existence today are self-selected-- the ones that destroyed their environments faster died out long ago.

Evolution is not about “progress and sophistication”. It’s about adaptation. You are making the common mistake of assuming that evolution has a direction, and that direction is “progress”. It only seems that way after the fact

You’re conflating two things:

Is there value in sustaining primitive cutlures (saving them from civilization)?

Does a creation myth have anything to advise us about science and technology in an industrialized civilation?

Yes, but not in any way that you’ve shaped the issue in your OP. Pretty much everything is about political power when you’re talking about humans, though.

5

What?

If “progressive evolutionists” do this, they are mistaken. Primitive societies, after all, are the persons responsible for the desertification of Africa.

6

You are mixing 2 debates.

  1. Evolution vs creation
  2. Ecology vs non-ecology (or rate of consumption of natural resources vs rate of replenishment)

They are unrelated.

Whether you believe in evolution or creation, we still only have 1 planet. It doesn’t matter how it and all of the “stuff” on it got here, if we use up the resources faster than they can replenish then we will have a problem, won’t we?

7

So I do. Take a sip.

8

I gave quotes. To repeat:

“The life of our planet depends on saving both the remaining crucial biologically diverse ecosystems and—their exclusive, credible guardians—the indigenous peoples of the world.”

Apparently, “the life of our planet” doesn’t depend on building more efficient machines, developing faster computers, publishing more books, increasing exchange of knowledge and ideas.

You may think it’s outdated, but such stuff is still going 'round.

Well, adaption as practiced by indeginous people, means to settle into a strictly circumscribed ways of life, cling to absolutely ridiculous convictions about the origins and workings of this world, change as little as possible and actually fight against any novelties. If all this is well and good, even admirable in ‘noble savages’, why so much hostility against biblical creationists?

Yes.

9

Because they are here. Hell, there’s a few on this very message board. I don’t really care about the weird beliefs of some tribe in South America or Africa; I care about the weird belifs of Bush and friends because they are right here and in a position to push them on everybody else.

10

Oh I don’t know. Depends on your creation myth:

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

Leaving natural harmony alone seems optional at best, if I read that directive right.

The effects of applied mathematics and horticulture are also hardly noticeable among primitive peoples. Which is a pity, as with a little understanding of the basics, the people of Easter Island (and other places) might not have completely denuded their homeland.

Evolution seeks to explain the history of life on Earth, as it changed over the course of millions and billions of years. Sustainable development is about building a human society that can last indefinitely and not drive itself into the ground. If we can achieve such a society, then one day, maybe 50 millennia from now, we might have to start accommodating the changes wrought by evolution — if we haven’t already altered our gene pool by design. But I think people would be happy for now with a plan that would work for a few measly centuries. You have to crawl before you can walk, and all that.

Then how about the dispute, much less pronounced admittedly, between flat-earthers and round-earthers? If you advocate the round-earth explanation for the world, do you do so for political reasons?

Although I agree with John’s post otherwise, I just can’t agree with this remark. Yes, there are probably people jockeying for political influence in this debate, as there are in many other issues. But there is such a thing as being just plain wrong about the physical world, and that is what creationism is. You don’t have to care about politics in order to sincerely advocate the scientific view of things.

11

Primitive peoples are largely puddles of protoplasmic goo.

12

No.

No.

No.

No.

Was I the only one to catch this?

Only if sustainable development can only be found in indigenous peoples.

13

But what if this view is dictated by your irrational fears? What if you just relax and let down your defences, and discover that Bush & co. are as harmless as some MENTAWAI OF SIBERUT, INDONESIA. Probably even better custodians of Earth resources, even? After all, whence the assumption that evolutionists will manage the world affairs better?

14

Because the “evolutionists” happen to be right ?

15

This has been hinted at in several responses already, but since they have not been heard, I’ll try again on their behalf.

This connection you are trying to make is not centered in logic. I shall try to explain this (and part of my explanation will force the reader to assume certain statements in the OP are true, which I do not endorse).

Here is the chain of logic as you lay out:

-Progressive people are at odds with creationism
-Progressive people hold primitive cultures in high regard
-Primitive people’s views are closely linked to those who support creationism
-Primitive people do not understand the thinking of progressive people
-The beliefs of the primitive people, being at odds with the progressive people, nulifies the beliefis of the progressive people.

If that seems over simplified, I appologize but that is essentially how the OP reads. And as you can see, it makes no logical sense. It’s like a metric nut telling a standard socket wrench that it is a banana.

I think the point you missed in your introduction is that the progressive people believe the primitive people’s way of life is better than our current mechanized world. They are saying nothing about their values, just that their system of cultivation is more friendly for the Earth.

16

But what does that matter? Primitive people know nothing about evolution, yet manage to develop adaptive methods of sustainable development and wise use of natural resources.

Where is the proof that evolutionists will be more successful in protecting the environment and preventing natural and man-made disasters, like wars and hurricanes?

17

There is no link between being an “evolutionist” and being successful in protecting the environment or in preventing damage done by wars and hurricanes. I know plenty creationists who care about the environment, atheists who dont, and vice-versa. None of those standpoints guarantee success in creating and/or maintaining a sustainable eco-system.

18

James Watt: “We don’t have to protect the Environment, the Second Coming is at hand.”
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/scar_u.htm

Admittedly, uncited, and only attributed to, but generally along the lines of his other quotes. Millennialists tend to feel that the Second Coming is nigh, and there is no need to be a good custodian. Use it up before the Lord comes.
I’m finding citations of it to the Washington Post, but no direct article.

So, unless you think you can reasonably count on the world ending in under 50 years… probably not the best idea to let Bush & co manage the world resources.

19

Let’s say, some primitive people. Look above in the thread for examples contrary to your statement.

20

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Most liberals/progressives I know are educated, and thus know that primitive peoples aren’t always in-tune with the environment. They slash and burn, kill animals just to take small portions, and are “selfish” enough to hunt when they’re hungry regardless of whether an animal is endangered. They’re sometimes just as bad as we are, the only difference being that their numbers are too low to make a noticible impact.

I argue for the preservation of peoples with primitive lifestyle simply because I believe strongly in the rights of people to live the way they wish. If they want some of the benefits of modern life, give it to them, but don’t force them into “civilization.”