Dear Ted et al., I find it somewhat incredible that the Vatican is not strongly opposed to some of the other principles of the Manifesto, namely, Principle #8, the advocation for human population reduction. Then again, I'm not complaining.
-GW On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:25:49 -0500, Ted Mosquin <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello Matt & others, > >In addition to your citations (below) and as far as I am aware, the >Manifesto for Earth has been published in two other places, vis: > >- The Structurist No 43/44. University of Saskatchewan. pp. 5-9 2004 >Special Edition entitled "Toward an Ecological Ethos in Art and >Architecture. Edited by Eli Bornstein. 152 pp. > >- Davidsonia 2004. Quarterly journal of the Univ of B.C. Botanical >Gardens. 15: (2) 70-81. > > Generally, the Manifesto (www.ecospherics.net) has not received >negative criticism. It has been translated into Spanish, French, >German, Ukrainian, Russian and Italian. It was, however, reviewed by a >representative of the Vatican in La Republica, Italy's national >newspaper where the reviewer disagreed only with Principle Number 1 >which states that "The Ecosphere is the center of value for humanity." >The criticism stems from the core Catholic belief that source of value >is to be found in God and not Earth itself. It is of interest that >there have not been any science-based criticisms of the Manifesto so it >is good to see this discussion on Ecolog-L. The Manifesto is >Earth-centered and not organism-centered and, as far as I know, this >makes it the most ecocentric document in the field of ecological >philosophy and ethics. It represents the results of well over 100 years >of ecological and natural history observations, experience and thinking >of its two authors. >
