Right again, Arlo, "Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. > And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and > economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that > ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of > birds and butterflies is good.
I agree and I think this "religion" is in some dire need of Quality intellectual analysis too. Sometimes it seems that the scientific worldview is intent upon locking away wilderness and nature from human degradation and involvement - like it was some sort of carefully preserved archeological dig that must be kept free from contamination. The mention of Buddhism is thus apropos because the Buddhist principles of non-interference and "nothingness as value" have contributed and reinforced these scientific principles of objectivity to the detriment of the whole of man's relationship with nature. Sometime it seems the main thrust of Modern Science is it wants to lock away nature, study it, film it, put it on discovery channels and nova programs where humans can safely view nature without interfering in it. This way the scientist gets all that pristine wilderness experience for himself. But if evolution is true, then "nature" is as much of man as his fingers and toes, and locking it away from them may seem "good for nature" from a reductionistic view, in the end it perpetuates and increases the degradation of man into something weird and apart. The very attitude that makes the divorce seem like a good idea now, is the attitude that brought humanity to the conflict it's in to begin with. I realize that mankind has a history of exploitation and degradation of the environment, but I believe firmly we are past that, and to continue to remember that bit of history as if it's always necessary, dooms us to repeating and increasing those negative patterns. What we need, is to just dive in and play. Create new living systems with nature. Play with her. I long for a nature religion based on interpretations of patterns that man and nature have in common, and celebrate the unity in diversity. Where the word "weed" then is as ugly as "nigger" is now and insecticide unthinkable. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not > scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies > toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect > for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, > whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful." (Dyson, "The > Question of Global Warming, NY Review of Books) > > So whether or not Dyson correctly advances "environmentalism" as a "secular > religion", he is clear that such a belief has "fundamentally sound" ethics, > that preservation of species "is good", and that, and I quote in full "the > worldwide community of environmentalists HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND". > > Enough said. > > I agree completely. No more need be said along that vein. You are so correct, Arlo. John the tree-hugger AND carver Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
