You implied that we shouldn’t save endangered species because they’ll go extinct anyway. This is a fallacy of “a little learning,” which I tried to explain in my post.
Twice now, you’ve used this as your objection to Creationist environmentalism, apparently because they would, if philosophically consistent, preserve species from extinction. My point is that we should preserve species, for reasons based in the real world, & apparently unknown to you.
I can take the Creationists. The guys who don’t understand how long Deep Time really is, & how incredibly rare & precious the development of new life-forms is, who think that the Earth will just "heal from everything"it’s those guys that offend me.
The funny thing is, in my experience, it’s too much to expect much of a serious environmentalism to take hold among the devout Christian populace. Not because of Creationism; because of the belief in the Apocalypse.
It’s interesting. What they seem to be saying is if God gave people “dominion over the earth” then he also made them responsible for what happens. In other words, don’t just use it up and leave it on the cosmic scrap heap. Don’t wipe evrything out because of greed or stupidity. That sounds OK. Plenty of environmentalists have no scientific background. One of my favorites is Ansel Adams. He use pictures to further his cause. Another was Teddy Roosevelt. Again, not a scientist.
The neocons had better stomp on these guys quickly, if they want to continue abusing the environment with poor air quality metrics, unfetterred oil drilling, etc. Evangelical Christians are an important power base for the present administration, and no one likes to see one’s power base eroded. Heck, I doubt Bush would be around without the support of the evangelical and otherwise deeply religious Christian communities.
I agree that environmental assesment should be left to scientists (who are quite unequivocal about the fact that we appear to have caused a serious mess), but I have no problem with any group adding their voice to environmental campaigns – even for the wrong reasons. Doing something to stop the gallopping world pollution and steady extinction of species is a good cause, and it has the potential of being rather more useful than (for example) all those shrill collections of busybodies picketing abortion clinincs, or spewing anti gay civil union rhetoric, etc.
Besides, if it pisses the Neocons off, it has to be good.
But from a scientific point of view, don’t you think it’s possible that these Evangelicals who wish to save certain critters from extinction (at least for the moment) are also part of the natural evolutionary process?
Hmm. Wasn’t my intention. In any case, cannot a person practice conservation without necessarily trying to save every lifeform extant at this particular point in time? Without trying to freeze this particular moment in evolutionary history?
I’ll tell you what I do think about the escalating use of oil and its resulting rise in greenhouse gasses and global temperatures. I don’t think it matters the tiniest whit. By all estimates, and especially those who seem to worry the most about our escalating use, we’re on the verge of running out. Claims of remaining supply go from 100 years at the most optimistic, to we’ve all ready run out at the most pessimistic. And it is my contention that a mere 300 years or so of massive use of this substance and the resulting climatic changes are but a flyspeck in the larger geologic time-frame. Quite simply, by the time we’ve run out of oil, we’ll have some other, and presumably cleaner alternative (or at least an alternative which cause some other unforseen problem).
Lemme see if I understand what you’re asking me. Do I think, from a scientific point of view, that philosphy rises as a necessary component of evolution? Sure, the persons are part of the evolutionary process—obviously—so obviously I’m sure that’s not what you’re asking me. But, not the overarching philosophy of these Evangelicals is not a result of the evolutionary. I don’t think any particular metaphysical system is evolutionarily inevitable. And even less so, the genesis of this very, very specific belief. I’d be most interested in seeing a thesis proposing otherwise, and I know it’s a popular fashion to speculate that the rise of religion—in the very general sense (as in belief in a deity, or deities)—is a compulsory token of evolution.
Do you deny that there are problems both in terms of pollution and human-caused global warming, and that these problems are increasing? Or are you just saying that, problem or no, in xx years we will have cleaner fuel and therefore what we do now doesn’t matter?
Neither of these strike me as defensible positions. The second one may be remotely valid (remotely, since it relies significantly on optimism and assumptions of unknowns), but it’s also reckless and irresponsible and ultimately illogical. The mentality behind it reminds me of people who pick up smoking and rationalize it with statements such as “in 20 years medicine will have advanced sufficiently to provide a cure for the harm caused by cigarettes”. I think everyone has been hearing that line for at least 30-40 years, but I still see no cure for cigarette-related diseases – only a lot of smokers with lung cancer and emphysema, not to mention the dead ones.
To my knowledge we are not near running out, and estimates for the higher range of oil stores are in excess of 100 years – on the lower range, some estimates claim there will be a peak in production (not in supply) in 5-30 years. Production and consumption keep growing every year, yes, but many oil reserve estimates from 20 years ago (upon which many gloomy forecasts were built) are often considered too low to be accurate. Additional sources of oil are likely to extend the oil age significantly, if they can be properly exploited (e.g., tar sands).
Do you or your offspring, or any organism, have a geologic life expectancy? This is not a geologic issue, it’s an issue of ecosystems, air/water/soil quality, public health, global climate change, and so forth. All of these factors, we have seen, can be changed by human agencies within very short time frames and emphatically not geological ones.
That is a dangerous hope to hang the well-being of the planet on, since no one is really sure when hydrogen and methane power will come on-line in any meaningful manner (“later this century” is a popular refrain). And alternative energy sources probably won’t come meaningfully on-line until the last possible moment, as people with “use it and screw it all” mentality continue to burn oil until the last possible minute to avoid the effort and cost of switching. Oil is cheap, so why move to more expensive new technologies when you can instead squeeze every last drop of oil to the last, and ignore the various consequences along the way with convenient rationalizations?
That’s why I’ll gladly welcome even misguided and delusional evangelists to the environmental arena. The more voices are raised to limit human impact on the health of ecosystems, the Earth’s climate, the quality of water, soil, and air, etc., the more likely it is that someone will actually take note. Particularly if the recent arrivals to the arena happen to part of the most important power base of the current administration of the world’s biggest polluter.
So you, too, are in favor of preserving this particular random moment in evolutionary history?
Yes - and no. In actual fact, pollution isn’t generally increasing in many areas. All sorts of water, soil and air quality measurements show great improvement over the past 30 years, or so. At least in the Western world. I’m also not so sure that global warming, while I’ll admit an upward trend is occuring, that it is as significant of a problem as many environmentalists - even the secular ones - make it out to be. After all, I can remember it was not so many years ago that the burgeoning environmental movement was proclaiming doom to humanity and the globe from an impending ice age. And oddly enough, the supposed root cause of that imminent ice age was exactly the same as the cause of today’s global warming - overconsumption of fossil fuels.
I simply believe that we will run out of these fuels that are supposedly causing global warming long before we reach a point-of-no-return. Even if that point is life much as we know it today. When I see people call for reduction in fossil fuel use, what I hear is a cry against the development of industry in the Third World. Which is exactly the wrong tack to take. It is the industrialization of the West that has produced wealth - wealth vast enough that we’re actually able have the financial wherewhithal to not only allow us the leisure us to become concerned about the environment, but also the monetary resources necessary to study and attempt to improve such a huge machine as the global climate.
So, lemme see if I can oversimplify this. Since the signal in the debate isn’t great enough, you’re willing to settle for simply raising the noise level? Doesn’t it worry you that the noise will eventually drown out the signal? That uninformed people advocating solutions based on their particular interpretation of a 2000+ year old work of fiction will destroy the credibility of any potential secular and scientific solution(s)?
How does this question follow from what I said, or make sense? My entire point is that the evidence suggests human agency as a leading contributor to pollution (for example, carbon monoxide and fine particulates in the case of air pollution) and that this is not a random moment in a natural trend but one on which humans have made a significant impact. Certainly that would be the consensus I am familiar with.
To my understanding some improvement in air quality has been observed in some areas; somewhat less of an improvement has been observed in some waters, though of course waste such as sewage is an important factor. Overall – not looking at specific spots but at the larger picture – global pollution as a trend appears to be on the rise (and it is difficult to see how it could be decreasing at this moment, before countermeasures have been properly or widely established).
Well, you are playing with fire here, certainly the idea seems to worry most scientists who study this issue. A small rise in average temperatures, even if it is comparatively mild from a human point of view, masks factors such as temperature extremes and patterns of warming, and certainly does not preclude or significantly mitigate the ensuing consequences we are warned about (weather disruption, rising sea levels, destruction of ecosystems, etc., with all attendant impacts on economy and industry).
No I would not say the two are equivalent (hey I live in China!). But it is important for third world countries, particularly a behemoth like China, to institute good environmental practice as quickly as possible, even if it means curbing industrial development, within reason, with an increase in present costs. Developing economies are less entrenched and therefore more flexible to such changes in the long term, and it is important to consider the consequences: do we really want in the near future a heavily industrialized China of two billion people adopting the same politically- and industry-motivated environmental avoidance attitude as the US had to emissions and global warming until only recently? (Thankfully the global warming contrarians appear to have been shoved back, for the moment at least).
You make it sound like it’s optional. It isn’t, and the reason it isn’t is because there are costs and further consequences down the line. You might as well argue that health care in the developing world should be eliminated and the resources formerly dedicated to it poured into development. Industrial development will progress at a faster rate and prosperity will be achieved more quickly in the shorter term – at a cost in the longer.
Sure, the point was that, at a minimum, there are still decades of oil left to produce, and we may have well over a century left. A lot of time in which to cause further damage if industry and consumption are permitted to run rampant.
It does worry me, however, as has already been pointed out, environmentalists are activists, and activists come in different flavours, and some will be better suited to communicating to certain audiences (such as other evangelists or fundamentalists, who don’t necessarily like hearing from scientists unless of course they are “Creation scientists” or similarly faith-based).
Incidentally, the noise/signal argument is perhaps more appropriate for the other side of the fence: the noise from global warming contrarians has long drowned out any meaningful signal in their message, which explains the recourse to falsehoods and propaganda when real science provided no support for their ridiculous positions (I refer here to such execrable efforts as the famous petition sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, passed off as a document from the National Academy of Sciences that argued global warming is a myth, as well as the various political denials involved in this affair, the tortured commentary of worthless scientists such as Philip Stott, and so forth).
No I mean – quite obviously – the US. I specified “the world’s biggest polluter” period, not per capita or GDP, land area, or what have you. The flat data, not cherry-picked stats.