Collapse: public policy and the environment

[Jose]

Jared Diamond's Collapse argues, persuasively in my opinion, that historical societies have survived or failed (collapsed) based on their response to environmental challenges. Failure to recognize deforestation before it is too severe leads to collapse of societies that require wood for housing and heating. Failure to recognize that increasing the population during decades of good weather, expanding agriculture into marginal lands, leads to collapse in later decades of bad weather (drought, cold, etc). To withstand climate change, resource depletion, political upheaval, successful societies have recognized the dangers and devised solutions before the crisis hit.

The US (indeed, the world) is increasingly dependent on oil, the production of which has peaked. [The Administration's energy policy is to extract the remaining oil faster, and to give tax incentives for owning larger vehicles, hastening oil depletion.]

The US is dependent on lumber for housing construction, but we have eliminated 97% of the Southern Pine Forest, 93% of the deciduous hardwood forest in Indiana (the only state for which I know the number), and a considerable amount of the western coniferous forests. We import much of our lumber. [The Administration's forest policy is to reduce environmental restrictions on logging, hastening forest depletion.]

The US is building housing at a prodigious rate in the driest environments (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, El Paso). The rivers that supply water for agriculture and drinking water (Colorado, Rio Grande) no longer reach the ocean. [Water rights law is antiquated and quite bizarre. Legal wrangling is already common.]

70% of the world's commercial fish stocks are in decline from overfishing. The North Atlantic Cod fishery collapsed a decade ago. The North Sea Cod fishery is on the brink of collapse. McDonald's Filet-o-Fish sandwich is no longer cod, but ocean whitefish. [The Administration's fisheries policy is to argue against mandatory limits on catches.]

We could list more, but why bother?

Jared Diamond predicts that the effects of depleting these and other resources will be experienced personally by children and young adults currently living. We are already experiencing the effects of oil demand vs supply, in the rising cost of gasoline.

Questions for debate:

1. In your opinion, how serious a problem is resource depletion?

2. What does Christianity teach its followers to do in this kind of situation? Is there no problem because the Bible tells us that God Will Provide? Or do Christians have a responsibility to God's Creation to protect it?

3. Does acceptance of evolution prepare us better to deal with these kinds of problems? If humans are simply advanced animals, we are not immune to the laws of nature. If we were not put here by God, can we look to anyone but ourselves to get us out of environmental messes that we have created?

4. Administration policy seems to favor rapid resource depletion, rather than planning for the future. Since the Religious Right elected GW Bush, shouldn't the Religious Right lobby strongly for policies that protect their families' future?The Administration won't pay attention to scientists, who are by definition tree-hugging liberals, and therefore yucky.

[Jose]

With Global Warming set to fry you; pollution poisoning you; viruses killing you; terrorists flying planes into you ... who's going to sweat the small stuff like gas prices went up ... again? Politicians (GWB or anyone else) react to what voters think, not to what scientists think. Ironically (to me at least) the environmental lobby is probably to blame for this mindset. Pick some cute and cuddly thing (the spotted owl will do), attribute its plight to evil industrialists and demand that they be stopped. Who can argue with that? And if you do argue with it you're obviously in league with them and should be ignored. All of this creates the impression that you are really taking action to solve a problem. Never mind that the actions taken may be the wrong ones to actually solve that problem and definitely don't address anything that's a major global issue.

I see what you are saying. But, look at if from the viewpoint of the scientists and the environmentalists. No one listens if scientists approach them calmly and say that the entire ecosystem is in danger, and we should slow down on clear-cutting. The only legal recourse is the endangered species act--hence the spotted owls and the snail-darters and least speckled this-or-that. It's not so much that these particular species are Terribly Important, but that they are the only way to protect the habitat in which they live, and upon which we all depend.

Remember, only 3% of the Southern Pine Forest remains. Only 7% of Indiana's native forest remains. That's one heck of a lot of greenhouse gas sinks that we've cut down. Most of it was cut down to make room for bigger parking lots and subdivisions. But, when we have an environmental advocate on the city council, and he suggests not approving a tax abatement for the new SuperWalMart because it would destroy more of the beautiful forest that attracts people to our city, he is attacked with cries of "property rights" and "God, Guns, and Guts Made America Great."

At some point, individual property rights butt up against the fact that what's on that property is necessary to support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of people who don't own that property.

Those nasty liberals are for protecting these things that are necessary for the common good. That's why they are cast as nasty bad guys--they ask that we think about common good, rather than individual enrichment. That's why they did not support extracting the oil from ANWR, or setting up a cyanide leach pit gold mine next to Yellowstone National Park. But the extractives industry always wins because they make the money, and money trumps science in today's politics.

That's why I ask Christians, who put the current politicians into office, to urge their politicians to think about the public good. Yet, it seems that "the public good" is, in their minds, outlawing gay marriage, and forcing theology into science classes. It seems that the way to show support for America is to buy the largest SUV possible, and use up the oil really quickly. This is rather odd, it seems to me. These are the choices that spell the quickest doom. Why not solve the Real Problems first, and then come back to the trivial things like repressing gays and teaching creationism?

"I may be dead, but at least I'm Right." Is this to become the motto of the future?

[AlAyeti]

If evolution is the guide then extinction of our species is part of the process. Guess we ain't as smart as we thunk.

But about Christians? I am one and I do every thing I can to slow the process. I do not own large properties, I don't build strip malls, I don't drive an SUV, I don't eat red meat (cows take up too much land), I'm not a Real Estate agent (or car slaesman).

The decline of a society has been shown to be more the cause of licentiuos and hedonistic behavior more so in depleteing resources as they go hand in hand. The Greek Empire and the Roman Empire died not from those reasons. Italy is still there on the site of Rome and Grece is still alittle country but certainly shrunk for reasons we can test.

The Christian Correct (rather than "Right") sees our society as sliding into sexual and criminal horror, not because we don't recycle our plastic, but because disease and crime are really killing our society. Like Roman and Greece and any licentious "Do what thou wilt" society, selfishish - the official religion of America! - is the cause of all the symptoms of Jose's concern.

If you read what James talks about in his little book in the New Testament, you see that Christians have a responsibilty to DO something and not just form commitees and pass useless laws.

If the Green Party wasn't so communist and socialist and filled with Leftists extremists, then it would be the place where Evangelical Christians could find a better voice than the GOP which is filled with Real Estate Brokers, Strip Mall Owners, and Land Developers. The Democrats, not a place for any Christian due to its membership of hostile anti-Christians, is no better than the GOP when it comes to selfish rich people using the political process to rape the earth of all its worth.

Look at the comparison of a licensed hunter. They kill one dear and make sure that a million deers have milloins of treed acres to thrive and spread in numbers. A business man or real estate professoinal wipes out the habitat and every life form that was living on the land before the bulldozer scraped them to death.

Christians have an answer to the earths problems. Unfortunately they are being duped by the two major political parties to speak for them instead of speaking to the problems that are killing the earth while two candidates debate worthless points of view. And around the world, the Christian message meets a different struggle. They are shot, imprisoned or silenced. While those that do not "Do unto others as they would have others do unto them," are depleting the Earth's resources because they are living the "only one existence" that the current humanist religion peddles. Why not take all you can now, when there is no tomorrow.

The question should have been: What are Atheists doing to counteract the inevitable selfishness that follows a no tomorrow belief system. "Grab of the gusto now!" "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!"

How do we get people to care about tomorrow when they are no part of it?

In every Christians mind and soul is the belief that their God will restart the Earth but will exclude selfish and "sinful" people from the new one.

Kind of like when mom and dad buy you a new and better car, when they see that you can handle the used beat up old Buick!

It's called "responsibilty" and it runs the pages of the Bible like a handbook for better living!!!!!

Maybe those millions of Christians that "voted in the current administration" in America should be trusted even more to lead us into the future.

[MagusYanam]

I agree with Jose on this one. It's kind of hard to see the Christian Right as having any credibility whatsoever with regard to environmentalism when they're courting the same interests that are contributing to the spread of suburbia, raping our virgin forests (what few there are left) and trying their damnedest to demolish what little environmental regulation we have. Since the Democratic Party seems to be the party that does the least damage to the environment and at least shoots for some good regulation, that's where I sit.

The Christian Correct (rather than "Right") sees our society as sliding into sexual and criminal horror, not because we don't recycle our plastic, but because disease and crime are really killing our society. Like Roman and Greece and any licentious "Do what thou wilt" society, selfishish - the official religion of America! - is the cause of all the symptoms of Jose's concern.

In that case, the Christian Right is not at all correct, because national crime rates (all across the board) have been going down since Bush Sr. (according to Disastercenter.com) This assessment would have been accurate during the Reagan Administraton (remember when he cut the funding for mental health programmes and turned a lot of potential lunatics out on the streets?), but thanks to the realistic domestic policies of Bush Sr. and Clinton, we're beginning to make some progress with regard to crime. With Bush Jr. it remains to be seen, but I'm not getting my hopes up. But this seems to be straying from the topic at hand.

If the Green Party wasn't so communist and socialist and filled with Leftists extremists, then it would be the place where Evangelical Christians could find a better voice than the GOP which is filled with Real Estate Brokers, Strip Mall Owners, and Land Developers. The Democrats, not a place for any Christian due to its membership of hostile anti-Christians, is no better than the GOP when it comes to selfish rich people using the political process to rape the earth of all its worth.

Ah, here's matter for a horror-genre B-movie: Attack of the Strawmen! Firstly (this is a sticky point for me, since I don't like being mistaken for a communist), you can't be communist and socialist at the same time: that's impossible for a Green Party member, or anyone for that matter. Communism in its most recent form refers to a radical-revolutionary dictatorial government which tries to control completely the mechanisms of material production and distribution. Socialism (I speak as a socialist, though not a Green) refers to a moderate reform-liberal movement which accepts some, but not all, of Marx's precepts and tries to reform existing institutions to represent and support more egalitarian and humanitarian policies. Communism is usually dialectical-materialist and can be hostile to religion where socialism is usually strongly associated with Judeo-Christian social-gospel moralism.

I also resent the assertion that the Democratic Party is not the place for any Christian. I am a Christian myself (and vocal about it), and I have never encountered hostility or prejudice from my fellow party-members just for being a Christian (though I have encountered both from fellow Christians just for being a Democrat).

I do agree with this point, though: the Green Party's ideology often precludes its being useful. They hamper the Democratic politic often far more than they should (especially Nader, when he was still a member).

Why not take all you can now, when there is no tomorrow.

This seems a more accurate representation of the premillenial dispensationalist viewpoint than it does of the humanist viewpoint. The humanist existentialists I've met would argue that their actions in this life (the only one they get) will define humanity for generations to come, and even though they won't be around to see it, they still have to do good in the world while they can. The dispensationalists I've met, on the other hand, seem to feel that they need have no compunction towards the welfare of this world since they will eventually be 'raptured' out - this argument extends from the political arena (as represented in their Likud-style Zionist politic) to the environmental (when the end of the world is coming, environmental policies seem to take the back burner).

[youngborean]

This seems a more accurate representation of the premillenial dispensationalist viewpoint than it does of the humanist viewpoint. The humanist existentialists I've met would argue that their actions in this life (the only one they get) will define humanity for generations to come, and even though they won't be around to see it, they still have to do good in the world while they can. The dispensationalists I've met, on the other hand, seem to feel that they need have no compunction towards the welfare of this world since they will eventually be 'raptured' out - this argument extends from the political arena (as represented in their Likud-style Zionist politic) to the environmental (when the end of the world is coming, environmental policies seem to take the back burner).

I think this labeling is a bit reductionist. Is a humanist existentialist who drives a hypocrite? Is humanism the perfect model for greed (I am saying this in jest)? What about nihilistic existentialists? Are they driving cars (the main source of Oil Cunsumption and ozone degredation)? If they are driving is it becasue of their nihilism? I think assume the model you suggest goes a little far. Since a dipensationalist usually believe in the literal word of the bible they still have equal responsibility in action (hopefully). This would include being reponsible about the resources that God has provided. Some dipensationalists might draw the conclusions you infer. But others, such as myself, don't. It really isn't fair to make that connection becasue a theology about the literal return of the Lord is in no way directly related to environmental behavior. It is a result of a type of hermeneutical approach to dispensationalism that you suggest. I.e. God is coming back, I am saved, so I am going to do whatever I want. This is hardly a fair representation of a literalist or a dispensationalist.

[AlAyeti]

Christian End-Timers are not as prevalent as the New York Times and CNN would like to point out. I recycle everyday, hope that the elements won't melt away anytime soon, and I always think about leaving the world a better place then I found it.

And I'm a Born-Again funduh muntelll est Chreeeeshtun.

But the environment needs to be taken care of by us Christians to show we are good stewards of what God gave us. I'd like to talk to End-Timers about their choices.

Where I live in California, the greenies are cartoon characters. Literally Birkenstock wearing stoners who care only about their own licentiousness and fear of dying in a war, while pretending to care about anything else. Odd that these greenies live in $900,000 to two-million dollar houses and drive SUV's (by the poor neighborhoods on way to the gated ones) the size of small strip malls.

I'm a union member. And I must admit I should have put an "and" between communists AND socialists. I have a good perspective to believe that they have morphed into the same thing. I cannot tell the difference in meetings where I dare not (open my right-winged nutball mouth and) challenge any of the zaniness of their uncapitalistic dogma. If there are no corporate businesses, how do Unions get dues payers?

They're one and the same thing to most politico-students in the dens of quasi-Marxist anti-American curriculum in California college classes. I don't see the need to qualify the labels any longer. Words and there meanings change over time. Somehow. I used to feel gay when thinking about the upcoming debate in social studies class until one day I learned all about the word "neologism."

Then I never mentioned thought about my feelings about going to any class again.

Marx and Christ and the followers of either cannot find labor under the same yoke.

One is God (Jesus!) and the other didn't believe in the other's existence.

No co-worker class there.

So, we should all get together to pass laws to force recycling, less red meat eating (cows take lots of land) and we should promote large ranch private ownership! The greenies and other Super-Environmentalists should buy the remaining forrests and spend their days like Ents taking care of these fellow creatures. That may sound smart-alecky but I would join forces with them anytime the want to do this.

I send money to Ducks Unlimited not so I can shoot Ducks out of the sky, but in recognition of the millions and millions of ducks, Geese and thousands of other animals that live on the Duck Hunters habitat that they created to "save" the land and all that live on it.

Hunters assure there are forrests and lands for the animals. They hunt because they are using their money and assuring animals and open land (the environment) to have a bright and endless future. A lot of hunters can be found in Church on Sunday in the non-hunting seasons.

[MagusYanam]

I think this labeling is a bit reductionist. Is a humanist existentialist who drives a hypocrite? Is humanism the perfect model for greed (I am saying this in jest)? What about nihilistic existentialists? Are they driving cars (the main source of Oil Cunsumption and ozone degredation)? If they are driving is it becasue of their nihilism? I think assume the model you suggest goes a little far. Since a dipensationalist usually believe in the literal word of the bible they still have equal responsibility in action (hopefully). This would include being reponsible about the resources that God has provided. Some dipensationalists might draw the conclusions you infer. But others, such as myself, don't. It really isn't fair to make that connection becasue a theology about the literal return of the Lord is in no way directly related to environmental behavior.

I speak as I find - note that I said the dispensationalists I've met, a group which happens to contain some family members. And their political stances do seem to be governed by their theology, and frankly that theology scares the heck out of me. My aunt has said that there can be no reasoning with Muslims in the Middle East until, basically, Jerusalem is rebuilt and Jesus comes again (the implication being 'and wipes them all out'). No need to try and hammer out a peace agreement, since it's all going to be blown away anyway. And my cousin used much the same argument concerning environmentalism. Now, I realise that this might not be true of all dispensationalists, but reading over some of the basic doctrine this view does seem to be official within most dispensationalist sects.

Also, dispensationalism is not literal interpretation or sola scriptura, nor is it in any way traditional. In fact, it is most definitely not the latter, though it often claims to be. It is, in fact, based on the hermeneutical codes laid down by an Irish clergyman named John Darby. These codes, I find, are almost cult-like, including a strange fixation on numerology, especially regarding passages in the Revelation. Darby's hermeneutic, a product of the nineteenth century, went largely dismissed until the advent of Darwinian evolution and higher criticism, after which time they were the core of a significant reactionary segment, particularly in the United States.

Also, I'm well aware that there may be some humanists who don't give that much of a damn about the environment, although I haven't met any.

They're one and the same thing to most politico-students in the dens of quasi-Marxist anti-American curriculum in California college classes. I don't see the need to qualify the labels any longer. Words and there meanings change over time.

Well, they're wrong. Although, you are right about words and meanings changing over time. At first, 'communism' and 'socialism' were used interchangeably for the political movements (although Marxist theory uses 'communism' to mean the stage of history that must precede 'socialism'). That changed, though, with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 - communism (or Bolshevism) became associated with the radical-revolutionary segment whereas socialism (or Menshevism) became more associated with the reformist movements within the existing social order.

After 1917, the socialists began using less inflammatory language and began to uphold the ideals of democracy and limited market capitalism (both of which I approve). They are represented today by the SPD in Germany, the Labour Party in Britain, the Liberal Party in Canada, et cetera. I consider myself a socialist who does not in any way advocate overthowing the American government or social system, though I will be the first to admit that it needs some heavy-duty work.

So, we should all get together to pass laws to force recycling, less red meat eating (cows take lots of land) and we should promote large ranch private ownership! The greenies and other Super-Environmentalists should buy the remaining forrests and spend their days like Ents taking care of these fellow creatures. That may sound smart-alecky but I would join forces with them anytime the want to do this.

This might not be the way to go about it. This might be counterintuitive, but I think the best thing we can do for the environment right now is to invest in our cities and try to slow and reverse the growth of white suburbia. Suburban living is probably the biggest threat to the environment today, and we can cut down on it by making cities nicer places to live. We should rewrite and enforce strict standards for clean air and water, for one thing. Introduce some cap on the shareholder salary / worker wage ratio (it works in every other Western democracy, so why not here?) to improve living conditions for the working poor and decrease crime rates. Raise taxes on families with more than one car to provide incentive for inner-city living. That sort of thing.

Trying to 'commune with nature' and 'live out in the wilderness' is noble on the surface, but human beings have too long been sedentary and gregarious. We might do more damage to the ecosystem trying to live like Ents than going about our normal lives in an urban centre.

By the way, I have no problem with hunters. Some of my friends from back when I lived in Wisconsin were very avid hunters (and also common-sense environmentalists), and I had a great deal of respect for them. I also have no problem with gun ownership, though I do think some level of gun regulation is needed to make sure they don't fall into the hands of criminals.

[youngborean]

Also, dispensationalism is not literal interpretation or sola scriptura, nor is it in any way traditional. In fact, it is most definitely not the latter, though it often claims to be. It is, in fact, based on the hermeneutical codes laid down by an Irish clergyman named John Darby. These codes, I find, are almost cult-like, including a strange fixation on numerology, especially regarding passages in the Revelation. Darby's hermeneutic, a product of the nineteenth century, went largely dismissed until the advent of Darwinian evolution and higher criticism, after which time they were the core of a significant reactionary segment, particularly in the United States.

I am only pointing out that all dispensationalists would agree with the principle that the bible is the literal word of God. This does not mean taht all literalist are dipensationalists, but the opposite is true (at least in the mind of the dispensationalist). The dipensationalism I believe in has nothing to do with John Darby or numerology. It is only a word to describe concepts laid out in scripture. If we are to say that basic dispensationalism is a belief that 1 Thessalonians is literal and that the literal return of Jesus will mark a new time, then you'd be hard pressed to argue that this theology is not traditional.

Also, I'm well aware that there may be some humanists who don't give that much of a damn about the environment, although I haven't met any.

But does humanism support or condem greed? Humanists are fully capable of consuming. I have met plenty that consume much more than me. I would be hard pressed to see how they truly care about the environment more than I do. So if we were to blame theories based on people we've met that really isn't a fair representation of each theory. Disspensationalism has no direct link to the behaviour you suggest. It may be inferred. Just like murder may be inferred from Marxism (regardless of the original intention). But my point is simple. All dipensationalists will agree that the bible is the literal word of God. That I can guarantee. If they are acting without accordance to the literal word, as their lack of care for real peace and neglect for the environment would show, then you could use the literal word (which they value) to correct them.

[MagusYanam]

The dipensationalism I believe in has nothing to do with John Darby or numerology. It is only a word to describe concepts laid out in scripture. If we are to say that basic dispensationalism is a belief that 1 Thessalonians is literal and that the literal return of Jesus will mark a new time, then you'd be hard pressed to argue that this theology is not traditional.

Pardon me for saying so, but the word 'dispensationalism' was not a product of 1 Thessalonians or of the belief that it was literal. It was a specific term coined in the nineteenth century to describe the movement of people who believed in Darby's hermeneutical codes and his six historical dispensations (which is where the term actually came from). That's how I'm using it here.

Also, literalism is not traditional. Perhaps I should have made that clear earlier. St. Augustine (though I'm not a particular fan) did not buy into a literalist interpretation of scripture - that's why we have a doctrine of original sin and a theory of just war. Thomas Aquinas did not buy into a literalist interpretation either - Summa Theologica is ample proof of that, since it contains many metaphysical questions and to some extent imposes an Aristotelian hermeneutic on much of the New Testament, and St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are, to this day, two of the key figures of the Christian tradition. It's not until the Protestant Reformation (Luther and Calvin) that you start getting doctrines of sola scriptura and literal interpretation. These were not traditional since they were meant to counteract perceived corruptions in the tradition itself.

So if we were to blame theories based on people we've met that really isn't a fair representation of each theory.

Fine, but you may want to qualify that with 'solely'. I wouldn't indict dispensational premillenialism if I had only my personal experience with dispensational premillenialists to go on. But I've read the theory and the commentary in the Scofield Bible - Bruce Bawer and Charles Kimball both describe it quite aptly. And it is a scary set of doctrines: the Jesus of dispensationalism is a Jesus I, as a mainline Christian, do not recognise. It is not the Jesus of the Gospel: Jeshua ben Joseph was the one who dined with sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes, preached love and forgiveness and taught us to turn to him who would strike us the other cheek also. The Jesus of dispensationalism is a Jesus who will come in wrath and judgment and who would slay all the good Samaritans of the world to pave the way for a select few 'true believers'. This simply does not tally with my understanding.

I can see, however, how (logically) a Likud-style Zionist politic would follow from a dispensationalist assumption that the Temple must be rebuilt before Jesus will come again, and how an attitude of environmental indifference could result from an apocalyptic weltanschauung, which might explain how such attitudes come to be commonplace among, for example, members of the Moral Majority or the 700 Club.

[Jose]

So, we should all get together to pass laws to force recycling, less red meat eating (cows take lots of land) and we should promote large ranch private ownership! The greenies and other Super-Environmentalists should buy the remaining forrests and spend their days like Ents taking care of these fellow creatures. That may sound smart-alecky but I would join forces with them anytime the want to do this.

The Greenies are trying to buy what little land remains (eg. the Nature Conservancy, the Archeological Conservancy, etc), but it's hard to do. Occasionally, a private landowner donates his or her estate to the Nature Conservancy, or approaches the NC to arrange a purchase. Unfortunately, the NC and its supporters aren't rich enough to buy much land.

We've tried to designate some of the best places as National Parks, or National Monuments, or National Conservation Areas, but this isn't so easy, either. Look at the Bushies' work with Yellowstone: declare that running snowmobiles all over it is a good way to protect it. Look at the locals' response to the designation of the Escalante/Grand Staircase as a National Monument: they started driving bulldozers all over it, in order to pretend that there were "roads" (ie. pre-existing right-of-way) which could be paved later. They (including the governor) marked these and other "roads" on maps, and filed them with the State. It has taken hundreds of hours by hundreds of volunteers to map and photograph these "roads" (some of which go up cliffs) to prove that they are fakes.

It puzzles me that the government could want to do this, or want to support it. It puzzles me more that this is the case with the self-proclaimed Moral Christians of the government, and that so-called Moral Christians can vote these types of people into power.

As you say, we do need laws for recycling. What we really need is to go one step further, as Denmark has done, and have laws that state that manufacturers must recycle their goods. This might lead us back to what used to be the ideal in manufacturing: produce high-quality stuff that lasts a long time. Now, it's hard to get a telephone that lasts more than a year or two--and then it goes into the landfill. I bet if the phone manufacurers had to take back the broken phones and recycle them, they'd learn pretty quickly to make phones that last.

The basic problem is that we've developed a culture that assumes infinite supply of resources, and that uses those resources wastefully. People who urge respect and conservation of our limited resources are ridiculed as Communists, Socialists, and Liberal Left-Wing Wackos. Yet, it doesn't take a very big brain to look at the data and see that we've had an impact on the world:


What the Big Fights are about now, with spotted owls on one side and jobs on the other, are the remaining small bits of forest that we can still find. It may seem to us tiny humans that the forests we have are vast, but they are a very small percentage of what we once had. There's not much left from which to build houses, or to convert by biotechnology into glucose that we can ferment into ethanol for fuel.

If you're right, Al, that there are relatively few end-timers, then we should be able to mobilize the remaining Christians to urge their elected leaders to start planning for the future, rather than continue on our current course. Or is it generally considered to be better to wait until the crisis is really bad, and then say "gosh, I wish we'd thought of this sooner"?

The reason, it seems to me, that they don't want to think about it is that the people who provide the data are typically Democrats--you know, those nasty people you claim are preaching licentious hedonism by studying the real world, and reporting what it is like. The message that the data gives us is that the wasteful policies of the past cannot be sustained. The data indicate that serious changes will be needed to the way resources are managed. It won't work (at least, not for long) for a few rich guys to extract them all, reaping vast profits, while everyone else suffers. Yet, this is the very plan for extracting the oil from ANWR.

Perhaps there is some hope, though. In a recent attempt by the Bushies to "open" vast areas of the Bitterroots to oil and gas extraction, a coalition of Left-Wing Liberal Wackos and Right-Wing Born-Again Hunters blocked the legislation. In some sense, it doesn't matter very much if we have a little more oil and gas, but have to live in a wasteland of pumps and pipelines.

[Which reminds me that it's very enlightening to go to the part of Texas that GWB comes from. It's a lot like Iraq, but with more mesquite, and is completely covered over with pumps and pipelines. I guess, if that's what you think is "normal" when you're growing up, you have a certain desire to make the entire world like that.]

[youngborean]

It's not until the Protestant Reformation (Luther and Calvin) that you start getting doctrines of sola scriptura and literal interpretation.

I'd like to discuss this point so I'm going to start another post in the Christianity section.