In addition to the points made by Sarah Frias-Torres, there is this to consider: Wide swaths of Christian conservatives think the end-times are at hand. Those who see environmental degradation as a sign of the end-times are not going to hasten to undo a sign from God. Some progressive Christians, thinking the world is a gift from God, see it as their duty to be good stewards of the environment, but others take the mandate from Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply" as a license for unrestrained growth. Additionally, other fundamentalists, even if they disapprove of environmental degradation, don't care very much because they figure everything will be over very soon. Unlike Ms. Frias-Torres, I have no respect for those religions that, for whatever reason, think that environmental degradation is fulfillment of their god's plan. What contribution can they make?
Martin M. Meiss 2011/12/5 Sarah Frias-Torres <[email protected]> > Interesting thinking, adding religion to the mix.... > One of the major problems explained in Paul Ehrlich's pioneering work is > human overpopulation. As we have reached 7 billion, and still growing, any > call for action should address such massive problem.The religions you > mention in your email are all against birth control. Particularly, against > women taking control of their own reproduction. Obviously, every religion > wants to have more followers, and you get that either by converting those > from other religions (a costly endeavor) or by having more babies. In fact, > a religion that promotes birth control, and negative growth, will quickly > become extinct (less and less followers will be born). > Therefore, in my opinion, I don't think we are going to find any realistic > support from religion (at least the 3 monotheistic religions I'm most > familiar with). Achieving negative growth is against the self-interest of > any religion. > The action should come from using reason and logic, which are not the > realm of religion. Remember that religion is based on faith, while the > massive environmental challenges we face today are based on facts.If > people, based on their religious faith, take pro-environmental action, > great! I'm just curious to see how they've reconciled overpopulation > control with the religious demands of having more and more babies. > In that respect, I think we still have not earned the "sapiens" word we > use when calling our species Homo sapiens sapiens. > > Note: I think I'm respectful of religion in my message, and I'm just > stating the facts. Always open to dialogue. > > > Sarah Frias-Torres, Ph.D. Schmidt Ocean Institute Postdoctoral FellowOcean > Research & Conservation Association (ORCA) 1420 Seaway Drive, Fort Pierce, > Florida 34949 USA Tel (772) 467-1600http://www.teamorca.orghttp:// > independent.academia.edu/SarahFriasTorres > > > > Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:33:31 -0500 > > From: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul > Ehrlich > > To: [email protected] > > > > Dear Mr. McNeely and Ecolog-L subscribers, > > > > I really like this thread, and I was thinking.... Nothing influences > people > > more than religion, and this has been used as a tool since, well, pretty > > much all of recorded history! Think about the horribly atrocities that > have > > occured with the influence of religion? Bloodshed, death, why not use it > as > > a tool for saving the Earth? For good? The ways it has been used for > death, > > I think, are more distortions of what is actually written (whether it be > > from the Bible or Quran, or whatever!). My point is not that we are > > manipulating text. My point is that it HAS been done, and it is very > > powerful. If you look in these texts, you will see there are messages > > CLEARLY written about saving our planet and protecting it. > > > > What influences the majority of Americans the most? The fear of going to > > hell. That is why you see so many politicians talking about religion even > > though they are really not supposed to... In fact our country is so > > Christian that even though there is supposed separation of church and > > state, our President says Christian prayers on national television. > > > > So... we should (and by we I mean environmentalists, conservationists, > etc) > > become pastors, preachers, fathers, whatever you want to call it, and > start > > preaching the "we must be stewards of the Earth" approach. Our Earth. > God's > > Earth. Or at the very least we need to start having sit-downs and chats > > with said reverends, fathers, etc. and speaking to them about the sins > our > > people are committing against this wonderful Earth "God has blessed us > > with". Also, making the point that by destroying the Earth, we are > harming > > our fellow man (future generations), both in our direct families and > > outside of our direct families. Either way, God said that we should > protect > > each other, did he not? > > > > Ezekial 34:2-4 - *Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; > > prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to > the > > shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not > shepherds > > take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the > wool > > and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. > > You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the > > injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. > You > > have ruled them harshly and brutally. > > > > *Revelation 11:18 - *The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The > > time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the > > prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small > and > > great — and for destroying those who destroy the earth.* > > > > What do you all think? > > > > I also read something very interesting and wonderful about a group of > > Muslims who were VERY environmentalist-thinking (and acting), and it was > > due to their faith. > > > > Environmentalists need to start thinking more pragmatically. I also think > > this is a powerful scripture. It is related to environmentalism because > > "rich" often means greedy and wasteful (though not always). Mathew 19:24 > > Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a > > needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." > > > > How about if people want to choose a faith to follow? They actually > FOLLOW > > IT..... > > > > Kindest regards to all! One people, one love.... > > > > Rachel E. Ford Melendez > > > > Note: Please be respectful and don't turn this into a religion argument. > I > > am not going to say what religion I follow if any. It is no one's > business. > > All I am saying is that these messages are clearly written in the Bible > > that MOST Americans follow. > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:49 PM, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a > > > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal industry to > the > > > endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic entities in Kentucky have > > > anything to do with this outrageous claim? How much credible science > is > > > needed to convince you? Does the fact that the world's leading > > > climatologists and the National Academies of Science all disagree with > you > > > matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from fewer > than > > > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack > credible > > > analysis matter? > > > > > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > > > > > ---- Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak > > > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of real data > on > > > > ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so we get some action on > > > > ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. However, we are only as > strong as > > > > our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. > > > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > > > Professor of Biology > > > > Alice Lloyd College > > > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bowles, Elizabeth > Davis > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from > Paul > > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some time now > that > > > > knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only > campaigns > > > > rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to commercial > > > > marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the public to give > something > > > > up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not reap > > > > immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely different > > > > approach, including removing perceived or structural barriers to > > > > sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly consider > collaborating > > > > with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior > change in > > > > the public is the goal. > > > > > > > > See this paper in conservation biology: > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x/full > > > > > > > > and this website: > > > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior/ > > > > > > > > and this report from the APA: > > > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx > > > > > > > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. > > > > Research Specialist > > > > Bull Shoals Field Station > > > > Missouri State University > > > > 901 S. National > > > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > > > phone (417) 836-3731 > > > > fax (417) 836-8886 > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > > > [[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from > Paul > > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > > > ---- Steve Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lawren et al., > > > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. I'm not > > > > > trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member were to follow > > > > > through and commit to the 'doing something', instead of just > 'talking > > > > > more', what would that accomplish? Just going by the numbers, > > > > > conservatively speaking, ESA membership is around 10,000 and > according > > > > > > > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is > 312,718,825 > > > > > ( > > > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, what do > we > > > > > do about the other 312,708,000? > > > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've been > trying > > > > > to figure out how to answer for a long time. I know advocacy is one > > > > > way and something I work on all the time. Maybe this should be > part of > > > > > > > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach. > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. I'm > > > > funny that way, I guess. > > > > > > > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as they seem > to > > > > be doing on this matter. So, I need help in knowing what to do that > > > > will actually work. So far as individual effort, I already try to > buy > > > > only what I need and to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by > > > > driving a Toyota Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, > not > > > > using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, wearing > warm > > > > clothing and keeping the house cool in winter ................ . > But I > > > > have not been able to persuade many others to engage in the same > > > > actions. Reading and understanding the data that come in seems > > > > unconvincing to so many. Science is only trusted when it reinforces > > > > already held beliefs, even if less than 1% of those claiming to be > > > > scientists provide the claims that reinforce. > > > > > > > > So, what can I do? > > > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or > entity > > > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > > > material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient > or an > > > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are > > > hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that > any > > > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is > strictly > > > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the > sender > > > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank > you. > > > > > > -- > > > David McNeely > > > >
