Pantheism

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think I agree with JS357 in that the whole problem with making nature a religion or even revering nature, is it is practically impossible to define what nature really is. Your OP suggests that we are part of nature, yet at the same time nature is typically used to refer to those parts of the world not yet significantly affected by man or at least somewh ...[text shortened]... life forms - at the expense of others. The question then is, is there a right and wrong?

Mankind is a part of the natural environment (although many of his actions stand outside of it) and has co-evolved with it over the centuries. Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives other species of the ability to thrive. Mankind can build cities and farms without driving whole species into extinction, one after the other. The ethical man would be one who strives to make these things sustainable and as minimally damaging as possible. Favoring organic permaculture systems over industrial monocultures would be one prime example of this. Building systems that mimic natural ones as much as possible, which integrate with it as seamlessly as possible, while generating as little waste as possible (or re-purposing it) would be morally positive acts.

Originally posted by JS357
This is my concern in a nutshell. This does not necessarily mean I reject the concept of making a philosophical commitment to certain ecological principles, or that I object to group efforts to support those principles. I don't think any appeal to a divine entity of any kind, or to "natural law," or anything like that is needed; in fact, such approaches can le ...[text shortened]... nd in relation to a divine being, that's OK by me, so long as he is OK with my not doing so.

You're free to not regard the universe as a divine entity. But if your actions continue to despoil it at current rates then you'll have to be drawn and quartered. Sorry about that.

Originally posted by rwingett
Mankind is a part of the natural environment (although many of his actions stand outside of it) and has co-evolved with it over the centuries. Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives other species of the abi ...[text shortened]... hile generating as little waste as possible (or re-purposing it) would be morally positive acts.

I think we overestimate our importance. There were tons of species going extinct before we were here, and there will be tons after we join the list.

Granted, I don't think this means we can do whatever we want, but I think we over-worry about things like causing extinction, and the main reason seems to be that we're crazy enough to think that we can best mother nature at it.

Originally posted by rwingett
You're free to not regard the universe as a divine entity. But if your actions continue to despoil it at current rates then you'll have to be drawn and quartered. Sorry about that.

That's not ecologically sound. T.C. Boyle once said that the most ecologically responsible thing we can do is to go out in the forest, dig a hole, get in it, rake as much dirt back into it as we can, and shoot ourselves.

Presumably this is with a biodegradable gun and bullet.

I recommend this as the standard means of defending the faith under the Pantheist Inquisition.

Originally posted by JS357
That's not ecologically sound. T.C. Boyle once said that the most ecologically responsible thing we can do is to go out in the forest, dig a hole, get in it, rake as much dirt back into it as we can, and shoot ourselves.

Presumably this is with a biodegradable gun and bullet.

I recommend this as the standard means of defending the faith under the Pantheist Inquisition.

Surely we would not sully the forest with our rotting corpses when there is so much inhospitable desert available 😲

(Not to mention buzzards that will go extinct otherwise...)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think we overestimate our importance. There were tons of species going extinct before we were here, and there will be tons after we join the list.

Granted, I don't think this means we can do whatever we want, but I think we over-worry about things like causing extinction, and the main reason seems to be that we're crazy enough to think that we can best mother nature at it.

The difference is that we are fully aware of our behavior and are capable of changing it. Asteroids are not. Since we value our own existence as a species, we must assume that if other species were capable of articulating themselves that they would do the same.

Originally posted by JS357
That's not ecologically sound. T.C. Boyle once said that the most ecologically responsible thing we can do is to go out in the forest, dig a hole, get in it, rake as much dirt back into it as we can, and shoot ourselves.

Presumably this is with a biodegradable gun and bullet.

I recommend this as the standard means of defending the faith under the Pantheist Inquisition.

That, of course, was intended as a throwaway line. I would be more interested in hearing your opinion of my previous post (assuming you have one).

Originally posted by rwingett
That, of course, was intended as a throwaway line. I would be more interested in hearing your opinion of my previous post (assuming you have one).

Do you mean this?

Mankind is a part of the natural environment (although many of his actions stand outside of it) and has co-evolved with it over the centuries. Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives other species of the ability to thrive. Mankind can build cities and farms without driving whole species into extinction, one after the other. The ethical man would be one who strives to make these things sustainable and as minimally damaging as possible. Favoring organic permaculture systems over industrial monocultures would be one prime example of this. Building systems that mimic natural ones as much as possible, which integrate with it as seamlessly as possible, while generating as little waste as possible (or re-purposing it) would be morally positive acts.

I could (and will) quibble with a few items, but I tend to agree that at least, we need to recognize that at times we exert influences on our environment that would not be exerted on it if our species or another with its capabilities had not come to be. Of course there would have had to be some environmental barrier to our development, and apparently such barriers exist on other some or most planets. My quibbles are like this: stromatolites may be responsible for our atmosphere having oxygen. That's at last as big an effect as anything we have done. Also, we seek to deprive Mycobacterium tuberculosis from existing as a species with no pangs of conscience, so the dictum on not exterminating other species has to be tempered. But yes: On the whole we are more morally responsible than "lower" species for the results of our actions. We should take the position that we are moral agents, the other species are moral victims. Extending the definition of moral victimhood to include the air, the water, the land that is our home, is not a bad idea. But, like the TB example, we matter, too. There are apparently nut jobs who want the human species to go extinct. I don't agree with that.

Originally posted by JS357
Do you mean this?

[quote]Mankind is a part of the natural environment (although many of his actions stand outside of it) and has co-evolved with it over the centuries. Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives ...[text shortened]... e are apparently nut jobs who want the human species to go extinct. I don't agree with that.

OK, that's good. But that was the post to twhitehead. I was referring to the previous post addressed to YOU.

Originally posted by rwingett
OK, that's good. But that was the post to twhitehead. I was referring to the previous post addressed to YOU.

Sorry but I am tired and will not look for it. I thought I had found what you meant to refer to. If you want comments from me, may I ask that you repost it.

Originally posted by rwingett
The time has come to start a thread on the topic of Pantheism. Here are the Basic beliefs of Naturalistic Pantheism/Scientific Pantheism as quoted from pantheism.net

The World Pantheist Movement's basic orienting beliefs which we call Naturalistic Pantheism or Scientific Pantheism are set out in the WPM belief statement. This is not a creed in the ...[text shortened]... you. Wherever you go, it goes with you. Whatever happens to you, it remains with you.

Rom 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

A healthy respect for the environment exhibited through common sense management and backed up by unilateral agreement is enough of a stretch of the imagination, but at least it's a corporate strategy. Suggesting we resort to a woolly-pulley hippy idolatry won't cut much credibility at the next global summit.

Originally posted by divegeester
Rom 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator...

A healthy respect for the environment exhibited through common sense management and backed up by unilateral agreement is enough of a stretch of the imagination, but at least it's a corporate strategy. Suggesting we resort to a woolly-pulley hippy idolatry won't cut much credibility at the next global summit.

Trouble is the last, oh, 18 global summits haven't cut much credibility.

Consequently the hellfire sects are probably on the money.

Originally posted by rwingett
Mankind is a part of the natural environment (although many of his actions stand outside of it) and has co-evolved with it over the centuries.

So how do you separate which actions are within the 'natural environment' and which are 'outside of it'?

Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives other species of the ability to thrive.
But who decides which other species should thrive and which shouldn't? One of mans greatest effects has been to assist 'invasive' species to travel to new areas and colonise new lands (to the detriment of the old residents).
This is merely an acceleration of what happens in nature, where species spread and replace others, but who is to say whether this acceleration is good or bad or which species has the moral high ground?

Favoring organic permaculture systems over industrial monocultures would be one prime example of this.
Not if it is highly inefficient. I think that this is one area where we usually disagree, because I think your tendency to religiously chase certain goals without counting the actual costs results in not actually attaining the stated goals.

Building systems that mimic natural ones as much as possible, which integrate with it as seamlessly as possible, while generating as little waste as possible (or re-purposing it) would be morally positive acts.
Not necessarily. If, for example, we can grow all our food in hydroponic vertical farms in cities (a long way from mimicing natural systems), we could have far less impact on the environment.

Originally posted by JS357
Sorry but I am tired and will not look for it. I thought I had found what you meant to refer to. If you want comments from me, may I ask that you repost it.

The last one on page 3, you lazy troglodyte.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So how do you separate which actions are within the 'natural environment' and which are 'outside of it'?

[b]Indeed he has changed his environment more than any other species. That is not necessarily a bad thing. What is a bad thing, though, is changing the environment to the point where it deprives other species of the ability to thrive.
But who d ...[text shortened]... ong way from mimicing natural systems), we could have far less impact on the environment.[/b]

The principle should be to interfere with ecosystems as little as possible. The introduction of invasive species should therefore be minimized as much as possible. In nature, species invade adjacent systems and bring about change that way. But mankind is facilitating the introduction of species halfway around the world in ways that have no natural precedent.

Industrial monoculture uses a huge amount of resources and energy for the amount of food grown, largely in the form of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Enormous amounts of waste are likewise generated which further degrade the system. In those respects, industrial agriculture is horribly inefficient. The only area where industrial monoculture is more efficient than organic permaculture is that its financially cheap, predominantly because it displaces human labor.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by mimicking nature. By that I mean mimicking the workings of natural systems whereby waste if eliminated by repurposing it as energy for other processes. The classic example is with aquaponic systems (a combination of aquaculture with hydroponics). On its own, industrial aquaculture generates a huge amount of waste that difficult to dispose of. But by combining it with a hydroponic system, the fish waste is filtered through hydroponic growing systems which absorb that waste as energy. The cleansed water is then circulated back through the fish tank, thereby forming a closed system with zero externalized waste.