# The Popes Influence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404 "2015-06-24T22:24:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/21 "2015-06-25T00:26:09Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I will make it a point to read that, I love the message. I am just questioning whether or not a pope can abuse his power if he goes too far. I’ll take his abuse, thanks, if the choice is the abuse of all the other leaders, who are only concerned with propping up their own systems regardless of the long-term cost. He wants us to be good to each other and our planet. I am no green-hearted ecowimp, nor a Catholic, nor religious, nor any particularly nice guy… but I can get behind that. Time someone with authority said so. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/22 "2015-06-25T00:29:15Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > He never campaigned on his philosophies to go through an election. Pope is an elected position. Granted suffrage is limited to a small pool. Campaigning didn’t involve lawn signs, but the Cardinals didn’t elect him by random number generator or who his daddy was. > [@wolfpup](#): > > His scientific comprehension and accuracy is commendable – see for instance paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 in which he discusses _Climate as a common good_. He does have scientific training in chemistry. Although it appears that [he doesn’t actually have a master’s degree](http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/does-pope-francis-have-masters-degree-chemistry), as is commonly reported. > [@](#): > > The word “capitalism” appears nowhere in it, neither “unbridled” nor “unregulated” nor any other kind. Indeed in paragraph 129 he says, “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.” He is not anti-business or anti-capitalism. Is that a clear enough “expanding” on your issue? > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > The comment I am referring to was being reported second hand so I guess it is possible the pope never said it. These are important points - reporting is subject to interpretive biases. Don’t rely on secondary sources. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/23 "2015-06-25T00:34:36Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I’ll take his abuse, thanks, if the choice is the abuse of all the other leaders, who are only concerned with propping up their own systems regardless of the long-term cost. > > He wants us to be good to each other and our planet. I am no green-hearted ecowimp, nor a Catholic, nor religious, nor any particularly nice guy… but I can get behind that. Time someone with authority said so. This is what I was looking for. I have a feeling this Pope will do some good things, but I also have to wonder if it could serve to set a precedent for other Popes with less attractive views. I feel like a see more of a potential for abuse than I do actual abuse of power. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/24 "2015-06-25T00:43:01Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > This is what I was looking for. I have a feeling this Pope will do some good things, but I also have to wonder if it could serve to set a precedent for other Popes with less attractive views. I feel like a see more of a potential for abuse than I do actual abuse of power. You are way late on that, what we have here has to be encouraged, not the hypothetical that in this case is not happening. It took about 400 years for the church to accept that Galileo was right, about 100 to accept that Darwin was onto something (officially nowadays evolution is considered to be more than a hypothesis, the only sticking point is that according to the church souls did not evolve, so there.) And on the more current ecological matter the Church has seen the light decades ago. > **[Global Climate Change A Plea for Dialogue Prudence and the Common Good](https://www.usccb.org/resources/global-climate-change-plea-dialogue-prudence-and-common-good)** > > A Statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops June 15, 2001 The text for Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Comm... > [@](#): > > As Catholic bishops, we make no independent judgment on the plausibility of “global warming.” Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so many scientists and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a basis for continued research and prudent action > > … > > Responsible scientific research is always careful to recognize uncertainty and is modest in its claims. Yet over the past few decades, the evidence of global climate change and the emerging scientific consensus about the human impact on this process have led many governments to reach the conclusion that they need to invest time, money, and political will to address the problem through collective international action. > > The virtue of prudence is paramount in addressing climate change. This virtue is not only a necessary one for individuals in leading morally good lives, but is also vital to the moral health of the larger community. Prudence is intelligence applied to our actions. It allows us to discern what constitutes the common good in a given situation. Prudence requires a deliberate and reflective process that aids in the shaping of the community’s conscience. Prudence not only helps us identify the principles at stake in a given issue, but also moves us to adopt courses of action to protect the common good. Prudence is not, as popularly thought, simply a cautious and safe approach to decisions. Rather, it is a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good. > > In facing climate change, what we already know requires a response; it cannot be easily dismissed. Significant levels of scientific consensus—even in a situation with less than full certainty, where the consequences of not acting are serious—justifies, indeed can obligate, our taking action intended to avert potential dangers. In other words, if enough evidence indicates that the present course of action could jeopardize humankind’s well-being, prudence dictates taking mitigating or preventative action. > > This responsibility weighs more heavily upon those with the power to act because the threats are often greatest for those who lack similar power, namely, vulnerable poor populations, as well as future generations. According to reports of the IPCC, significant delays in addressing climate change may compound the problem and make future remedies more difficult, painful, and costly. On the other hand, the impact of prudent actions today can potentially improve the situation over time, avoiding more sweeping action in the future. Even with that this lapsed Catholic (me) is not going to leave his agnosticism, but as I pointed many times before, we have to accept that organized religion will not disappear soon; secular people should at least keep an eye that the churches become and remain benevolent. We have to encourage positions like this that encourage the faithful to look at science and not just dogma. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/25 "2015-06-25T00:56:03Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > This is what I was looking for. I have a feeling this Pope will do some good things, but I also have to wonder if it could serve to set a precedent for other Popes with less attractive views. I feel like a see more of a potential for abuse than I do actual abuse of power. The precedent for Popes with unattractive views happened long ago. However, the ability for any particular Pope to abuse his views, whatever they may be, is dropping every day. The Catholic Church has nowhere near the political influence that it had even mere decades ago. He’s got a loud soapbox, and in this case (from what I gather, I haven’t read the encyclical), he’s using it for good. Sounds fine to me. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/26 "2015-06-25T01:01:15Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > The precedent for Popes with unattractive views happened long ago. However, the ability for any particular Pope to abuse his views, whatever they may be, is dropping every day. The Catholic Church has nowhere near the political influence that it had even mere decades ago. > > He’s got a loud soapbox, and in this case (from what I gather, I haven’t read the encyclical), he’s using it for good. Sounds fine to me. The more I think about it the more I think you are right. It is his message that has the appeal, his status simply gives it a bit more credibility. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/27 "2015-06-25T03:59:50Z")
I’ve been looking at some of the press around this, and I love the way it’s forcing certain political factions to take sides in ways that are very revealing. The venerable Rush Limbaugh called the encyclical a “Marxist rant” and accused the Pope of “issuing a commandment to vote Democrat”. Limbaugh had earlier suggested that the encyclical was so unbelievably over the top – since everyone is now supposed to know that “global warming is a hoax” – that it might be a faked leak by the religion-hating Marxist left to discredit the Pope. Continuing to rant and froth at the mouth, Limbaugh also informed his listeners that “every other word [in the encyclical] seems to be about how unfettered capitalism is destroying the world” (as I mentioned, the word “capitalism” does not appear anywhere in the encyclical, and par. 129 makes a strong pro-business statement). So there’s the line in the sand – who should we side with? On one side: the Pope, who has proven himself exceptionally compassionate, intelligent, and scientifically knowledgeable, and every reputable climate scientist in the world. On the other side: a venal, lying, drug-addled gaseous windbag. Climate change denialists are getting some really embarrassing friends! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/28 "2015-06-25T04:08:53Z")
For my part, I wish the Pope would dry up and blow away. Yeah, it’s nice he’s saying things I agree with. But in the next breath, he’s going to say something I don’t agree with. It’s nice that he’s saying that science is good…but he’s still working from a faith-based perspective, and faith is not compatible with science. Some day soon he’ll say something against abortion, or contraception, or gay rights, or women’s rights, and I’ll be disgusted again. His religious beliefs push him to a number of harmful and evil opinions. ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/29 "2015-06-25T04:25:38Z")
Reading the title again: well, they never reached the influence of the Pogues, but were often a good outlet for Shane MacGowan’s talents/debauchery. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/30 "2015-06-25T04:53:53Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > This is what I was looking for. I have a feeling this Pope will do some good things, but I also have to wonder if it could serve to set a precedent for other Popes with less attractive views. I feel like a see more of a potential for abuse than I do actual abuse of power. What, you mean like homophobia? Or sexism? Covering up for pedophiles? Lying about effective AIDS prevention techniques in Africa? Jesus, whatever will we do if we get a pope who does stuff like that? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/31 "2015-06-25T06:29:39Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I have some fear that his political leaning,( even though it would be obvious anyway through his messages) should be less direct. Any system is bad if unregulated, unregulation should be the target. For those of us who weren’t familiar with him before his election, those political leanings you find offensive were made clear as soon as he said he was Francis “as in Assisi”. And I hope you meant to say that “regulation” is the target. That’s Francis’ target too. > [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > He never campaigned on his philosophies to go through an election. It seems like cheating to me. Which part of “the Pope is elected” have you apparently never heard? Do you sincerely believe that the cardinals who elected him didn’t have the foggiest idea about his leanings? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/32 "2015-06-25T10:44:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m going to guess that you didn’t read [the recent Encyclical](http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) in which the Pope clearly lays out his views. I’m with **Amateur Barbarian** on this – it’s definitely well worth a read. I think the “unbridled capitalism is bad” being referred to here isn’t from that encyclical, but from the exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium”? That came out in 2013, and while it also never mentions the term “capitalism”, it decries income inequality and the idea that free markets are necessarily just: > [@](#): > > In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/33 "2015-06-25T11:16:38Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > That is what I hope to see debated, I feel he should not get too far into politics. How is the distribution of any point of view able to be apolitical? The Pope is leader of a group. That group has positions which reflect their paradigm. They would like to distribute that point of view to their constituents. For nations with any semblance of participatory mechanisms which allow those constituents to influence policy-making, the most broadly accepted mechanism to effect change is “political” (as opposed to, say, terrorism or brute force). It’s not possible to express a position without that being “influence.” It’s not possible to influence without that being “politics.” If you are suggesting that some topics such as AGW should be off-limits because they are so politically charged, I disagree. The Pope’s role as a Catholic leader is to shephard his flock toward whatever world they are trying to build, and the extent to which a given initiative is politically charged should be irrelevant. If you are suggesting that concern over AGW should be off limits because it is a political issue and not theological, I believe the Pope would disagree. I believe he would say that Catholic theology calls for humans to be good stewards of the earth. Therefore where there is evidence we are not being good environmental stewards, we should alter our behavior accordingly. Whether Catholicism=environmentalism is defensible theology may be a matter of debate, but once that point of view is taken, it becomes the Pope’s duty as a Catholic leader to disseminate it, political ramifications be damned. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/34 "2015-06-25T12:03:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ve been looking at some of the press around this, and I love the way it’s forcing certain political factions to take sides in ways that are very revealing. The venerable Rush Limbaugh called the encyclical a “Marxist rant” and accused the Pope of “issuing a commandment to vote Democrat”. Limbaugh had earlier suggested that the encyclical was so unbelievably over the top – since everyone is now supposed to know that “global warming is a hoax” – that it might be a faked leak by the religion-hating Marxist left to discredit the Pope. > > Continuing to rant and froth at the mouth, Limbaugh also informed his listeners that “every other word [in the encyclical] seems to be about how unfettered capitalism is destroying the world” (as I mentioned, the word “capitalism” does not appear anywhere in the encyclical, and par. 129 makes a strong pro-business statement). > > So there’s the line in the sand – who should we side with? > > On one side: the Pope, who has proven himself exceptionally compassionate, intelligent, and scientifically knowledgeable, and every reputable climate scientist in the world. > > On the other side: a venal, lying, drug-addled gaseous windbag. > > Climate change denialists are getting some really embarrassing friends! 😃 I have never heard Mr Limbaugh, and didn’t realize he was “venerable,” but I completely agree Denialists have embarrassing friends and spokespersons. Bozos, even. I was not as enamored as you with the beauty of the Pope’s document, other than the sense in which a sermon admonishing us to stop sinning is beautiful. It was, for me, one rhetorical construction after another. It has a lot of language like this: _"A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest. We need to stop thinking in terms of “interventions” to save the environment in favour of policies developed and debated by all interested parties. "_ The poor need lifting up. The privileged need to do the lifting. GM cereals might be bad because they enable oligopolies that displace small farmers. Rich nations should pay for swapping out the grid and for climate change effects that damage poor nations. Inequality is bad. The wealthy should live more sparsely. Good stuff. Amen. Preach it brother! (Parishioner returns home refreshed and renewed; orders new golf clubs.) There are some specifics. My favorite is paragraph 171 calling out that Carbon Credits are a fraud. (I have likened them to indulgences which are bought for the purpose of allowing the purchaser to continue sinning, and apparently Pope Francis agrees). But in general, beautiful though it may be, it’s more or less a cheerleading speech. For those of us less enamored with platitudes about what we all should do, I don’t think it has any elegant solutions. The world has too many people (how about an encyclical on having fewer children?), and everyone of them would live like me and Al Gore if they could. Here’s a beautiful message: Stop living well right now until we first solve the energy grid. You cannot lift up the poor and be a consistent environmentalist. If we actually want to minimize our invasive damage as a species, we need to all become poor for the moment, and we need to find ways to reduce our population. Neither is likely, and anything short of that will not work, no matter how beautifully the pontificating rings from the pulpit. ---
**Author:** ![HoneyBadgerDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/honeybadgerdc/32/1033_2.png) [@HoneyBadgerDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoneyBadgerDC)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/35 "2015-06-25T12:06:37Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > How is the distribution of any point of view able to be apolitical? > > The Pope is leader of a group. That group has positions which reflect their paradigm. They would like to distribute that point of view to their constituents. > > For nations with any semblance of participatory mechanisms which allow those constituents to influence policy-making, the most broadly accepted mechanism to effect change is “political” (as opposed to, say, terrorism or brute force). > > It’s not possible to express a position without that being “influence.” > It’s not possible to influence without that being “politics.” > > If you are suggesting that some topics such as AGW should be off-limits because they are so politically charged, I disagree. The Pope’s role as a Catholic leader is to shephard his flock toward whatever world they are trying to build, and the extent to which a given initiative is politically charged should be irrelevant. > > If you are suggesting that concern over AGW should be off limits because it is a political issue and not theological, I believe the Pope would disagree. I believe he would say that Catholic theology calls for humans to be good stewards of the earth. Therefore where there is evidence we are not being good environmental stewards, we should alter our behavior accordingly. > > Whether Catholicism=environmentalism is defensible theology may be a matter of debate, but once that point of view is taken, it becomes the Pope’s duty as a Catholic leader to disseminate it, political ramifications be damned. ``` I think Global warming is a moral issue and should be addressed by religious leaders. I think he is right on target with his entire message. I am having a hard time identifying what it was that left me feeling uncomfortable. The pope is probably one of the most influential men on the planet. Lets suppose he comes out with a very good message that is widely accepted. His popularity would naturally start to grow. He comes out with more good messages and his popularity and influence grows even more. At this stage he has an opportunity to start injecting his own personal slants on things and has the potential to start swaying elections. ``` I am not comfortable with any one man potentially having so much influence, especially when he has a slightly unfair advantage in having such a large audience right fro the start. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/36 "2015-06-25T12:54:43Z")
> [@HoneyBadgerDC](#): > > I feel he should not get too far into politics. Not very familiar with the history of the papacy, are we? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/37 "2015-06-25T13:13:10Z")
Even were he not Pope, he would have a right to speak his mind. As he is the Pope, he has not only a right to do so, but an obligation. If you disagree with any of what he says, then the recourse to that is your right to ignore him. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/38 "2015-06-25T14:18:25Z")
> [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > These are important points - reporting is subject to interpretive biases. Don’t rely on secondary sources. And if some large number of people would frame this and hang it on the wall, the world would be on the road to being a better place. How many loud, angry public battles have taken place in just the last… oh, half-decade that informed observers could see were not about anything in the actual object of contention? As an essayist, this Frank guy said some important and valid things. The first round of pundits freaked out and turned it into a open attack on Capitalism and Business and The American Way… and so goes the public debate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/39 "2015-06-25T14:45:54Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I have never heard Mr Limbaugh, and didn’t realize he was “venerable,” but I completely agree Denialists have embarrassing friends and spokespersons. Bozos, even. Of course, as it was noticed before you do ignore how big the disinformation efforts are. [snip] > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The world has too many people (how about an encyclical on having fewer children?), and everyone of them would live like me and Al Gore if they could. > > Here’s a beautiful message: Stop living well right now until we first solve the energy grid. Here are 2 messages that many times over have dealt with those inert platitudes many times before: > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. The second one is what Richard Alley and the many economists he consulted told many times to the ones that are alarmists about thinking that proponents of change are demanding that we should become poor. [QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You cannot lift up the poor and be a consistent environmentalist. If we actually want to minimize our invasive damage as a species, we need to all become poor for the moment, and we need to find ways to reduce our population. Neither is likely, and anything short of that will not work, no matter how beautifully the pontificating rings from the pulpit. Of course you only demonstrate to ignore what statistician Hans Rosling has pointed many times before, (on this it is good the Popes have not been given much attention, people and specially women do family planning when they become less poor and more educated) [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM) > [@](#): > > Professor Hans Rosling presents a spectacular portrait of our rapidly changing world. With seven billion people already on our planet, we often look to the future with dread, but Rosling’s message is surprisingly upbeat. Almost unnoticed, we have actually begun to conquer the problems of rapid population growth and extreme poverty. > > Across the world, even in countries like Bangladesh, families of just two children are now the norm - meaning that within a few generations, the population explosion will be over. A smaller proportion of people now live in extreme poverty than ever before in human history and the United Nations has set a target of eradicating it altogether within a few decades. In this as-live studio event, Rosling presents a statistical tour-de-force, including his ‘ignorance survey’, which demonstrates how British university graduates would be outperformed by chimpanzees in a test of knowledge about developing countries. And again: history does show that in the past critics of the then proposed clean up of water and a sewage system were the chicken littles when they claimed that cleaning up our act was going to bankrupt all. Same goes for the real alarmists that claim that we should become poor so we can change when many changes in the past that solved environmental issues caused no such thing. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404/40 "2015-06-25T14:59:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And again: history does show that in the past critics of the then proposed clean up of water and a sewage system were the chicken littles when they claimed that cleaning up our act was going to bankrupt all. Same goes for the real alarmists that claim that we should become poor so we can change when many changes in the past that solved environmental issues caused no such thing. The root cause of nearly all our global problems is gross overconsumption… which is not a natural thing no matter how smugly its defenders try to pin it on human behavior. Acquisition is a natural drive, yes, but we’ve had sixty to seventy years of behavioral engineering hammering on that button until we can think of nothing else. This fostered desire has built us an economy that demands that each and every person consume to the limit of his or her ability, down to making every life choice in favor of increased income and thus increased ability to consume their share. Disagree? Muse a moment on what happens when consumer spending drops a tiny fraction, or even just stays level… the whole merry-go-round shudders. And if the great mass of people were to do what’s sensible and start saving 10-15% instead of spending it… the word you’re looking for is “crash.” But that all assumes we have a choice. We don’t, and this Frank guy gets it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-popes-influence/723404.md?page=3)