Pantheism

Originally posted by rwingett
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.

And I seek clarification as to why you make these rules. You are making religious proclamations without even the benefit of being able to claim divine inspiration or a holy book as your source.

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.
Human labour is a lot more expensive than you seem to think. It is not just expensive in terms of wages, but also in terms of the various resources needed to support it. If we ran all our current farms on human labour then one of two things would need to be the case:
1. They would have to be extremely poor, as is the case for most subsistence farmers.
2. They would use many times the energy and other resources that city dwellers do. I am not talking about 10% more, I am talking about 10 times more.

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.
That's hardly 'mimicking nature'. Only someone with religious delusions would think that nature somehow plans everything out so that waste is re-purposed. Thats simply not how it works. If waste is useful, some life form uses it, if it is not useful, it remains waste. In some cases this waste can be devastating - see red tides for an example. I could go on all day listing natural systems where waste is not re-purposed. This is the whole problem with making nature into a religion, you start to believe things about it that simply are not true - which leads to faulty decision making.

Originally posted by rwingett
The last one on page 3, you lazy troglodyte.

You project such a winning personality, I am sure your efforts to promote ecological pantheism will succeed.

You said:
That which works in harmony with the Gaian system to enhance and preserve life (on the level of whole species) would be said to be good, while that which hinders it would be bad. That, coupled with the recognition that humans are but one species among many in an intricately interconnected, interdependent whole, could be said to be the basis for a pantheistic ethics. As such, causing global warming is a decidedly negative moral act. Actions which unnecessarily deprive others species of the ability to flourish would be negative moral acts.

We cannot turn back the clock to bring back the Dodo, or return vast stretches of farmland to forest, but we can minimize the impact of our actions going forward to prevent any further damage.

Humanism would be lacking in that it either implicitly or explicitly elevates human concerns as being of greater priority in relation to the other elements that comprise the working parts of the whole.

end quote.

I am not as certain as you that global warming will reduce the number of species. There may be a short-term die off, but I do not know if a warmer earth would necessarily mean fewer species in the long run. More species may flourish if the earth were on average five degrees C warmer.

Which brings me to my main reaction. Your measures of goodness are questionable. What is inherently good about there being more species? Also, if human concerns are not to be revered, what happens to your human concerns about global warming? You seem to be saying on the one hand that what is best for humans should not be the driver of decisions, and on the other hand that what is best for the universe is what is best for humans. If the latter is true, the former says we should ignore it!

Personally I think an ecological philosophy based on humanism, that does not denigrate anthropocentric values, but instead explains how ecological responsibility PROMOTES anthropocentric values, has a better chance of success in this real, anthropocentric world. But I don't see you as one who values success in your relationships, I think the way you depict yourself and treat others here is very off-putting. Your behavior is actually counterproductive to your stated aims.

Originally posted by JS357
You project such a winning personality, I am sure your efforts to promote ecological pantheism will succeed.

You said:
That which works in harmony with the Gaian system to enhance and preserve life (on the level of whole species) would be said to be good, while that which hinders it would be bad. That, coupled with the recognition that humans are but one s ...[text shortened]... hers here is very off-putting. Your behavior is actually counterproductive to your stated aims.

My, aren't we a little on the prickly side today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I seek clarification as to why you make these rules. You are making religious proclamations without even the benefit of being able to claim divine inspiration or a holy book as your source.

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. to believe things about it that simply are not true - which leads to faulty decision making.

Well, we seem to have reached our usual impasse. At least this one was a little more entertaining while it lasted.

Originally posted by rwingett
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.

Does that extend to non-animal forms of life? I could just as well say that a plant would value its species existence if it could articulate itself. I suppose we must assume it would, right?

Originally posted by rwingett
Well, we seem to have reached our usual impasse. At least this one was a little more entertaining while it lasted.

Why give up now? Why not at least attempt to justify some of your statements, or are they really just doctrine that you blindly follow?
Let me put in perspective some of the issues I have. I come from a very poor country. We keep being told how important it is to preserve the environment 'for future generations' etc etc. The World Bank is even willing to give us loans (not a gift mind you) to maintain our national parks (yes we have massive national parks). But my own view is that people come first. I believe that although balance is important, we should be putting all possible funds into education and health. As long as people are growing up illiterate and as long as people are dying of AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, cholera etc, we should not be spending money on saving the rhino or the elephants, but should be putting all our efforts into saving lives. Yet we get so many environmentalists from developed countries going 'oooh what cute rhinos, don't let them die out, we must preserve them', but they do nothing for our people.
So let me ask you, in your religion of Pantheism, how many people is it OK to sacrifice for one species? Or alternatively, is it acceptable to sacrifice a species, for the sake of peoples lives?

Originally posted by rwingett
Environmental ethics should be a part of any religion. But, sadly, it seldom is. Or it is overshadowed by various other concerns. Eastern religions tend to give it a higher emphasis than the monotheistic big three, but it is still insufficient.

To say that the environment is important to you isn't enough. It needs to be the most important thing for you ...[text shortened]... n that is what will need to be done. The old religions are no longer equal to the task at hand.

It's pretty hard to be thinking of the environment when we live in a world where those in power tell us global warming is a lie and many struggle to even put food on their family's table.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why give up now? Why not at least attempt to justify some of your statements, or are they really just doctrine that you blindly follow?
Let me put in perspective some of the issues I have. I come from a very poor country. We keep being told how important it is to preserve the environment 'for future generations' etc etc. The World Bank is even willing to ...[text shortened]... ? Or alternatively, is it acceptable to sacrifice a species, for the sake of peoples lives?

The thread begins to bore me. Five pages of going around in circles with you is enough.

I will say in parting, though, that the choice between people and the environment is a false dichotomy. Having to choose one or the other is only necessary under your failed policies.

Originally posted by JS357
You project such a winning personality, I am sure your efforts to promote ecological pantheism will succeed.

You said:
That which works in harmony with the Gaian system to enhance and preserve life (on the level of whole species) would be said to be good, while that which hinders it would be bad. That, coupled with the recognition that humans are but one s ...[text shortened]... hers here is very off-putting. Your behavior is actually counterproductive to your stated aims.

What is inherently good about there being more species is this: Diversity wins.

The smaller the species list the less likely the ecology will support life. Simple as that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What is inherently good about there being more species is this: Diversity wins.

The smaller the species list the less likely the ecology will support life. Simple as that.

Perhaps. The universe breathes in, and breathes out. Fewer species, then more. Then fewer. Perhaps no species. Then, perhaps, later, more, or not. Some theories have it that there be none, eventually. Which of these is inherently good?

Originally posted by rwingett
The thread begins to bore me. Five pages of going around in circles with you is enough.

We haven't gone around in circles. That would be a very poor description of this thread.

I will say in parting, though, that the choice between people and the environment is a false dichotomy. Having to choose one or the other is only necessary under your failed policies.
They certainly arn't my policies. And no, my question is not a false dichotomy. My question is one of priority. When there is a choice, when there is a dichotomy, which would your religion choose? Which does your religion favour? Which does your religion focus on? My fear is that followers of your religion will focus so much on saving the environment that they will do so at the expense of people - as currently happens in the world today - and not solely as a result of policies, but also because many people are 'environmentalists' or 'nature lovers' more than they are humanists.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Trouble is the last, oh, 18 global summits haven't cut much credibility.

Consequently the hellfire sects are probably on the money.

Yes, let's stop world leaders debating the issue and encourage the populace to join a religion.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, let's stop world leaders debating the issue and encourage the populace to join a religion.

The only thing likely to get world leaders to budge from self-interest is revolution on an unprecedented scale. Religion is a wonderful tool to achieve this purpose.

Originally posted by rwingett
They just need to look a little closer to home.

Perhaps...

As much as Christians are seemingly anti-idolatry, they sure seem uneasy when faced with a nameless, faceless "God". Mind you, that is the best way to describe It, ie. nameless,faceless.(without form , without extension , without any unfolding )

I don't know if this was a part of Pantheism's promoters' ideas but ...

Dont you think that once this movement has achieved it's ends it should dissolve?

i have enjoyed this thread, I've only had limited net use of late and this is one of the few threads I've read through.

This is such a great, open-ended idea, that potentially unites scientists,(atheists and the more scientifically minded), and "religionists" (theists and others), in a very worthwhile goal and movement.

I dont know how long it's going to take before people start accepting some basic facts:
1. Humans are the most important land dwelling animal on the planet. Therefore it is our imperitive to use our position to give a "fair go" to all life, and seek to maintain a balance between all terrestrial life . Maybe refer back to nature if we have some problems.
2. The environment is affected by us. By how much is apparently unknown, but some things are known.
Even if it is too late to save ourselves from ourselves doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It seems that change in our habits is a very difficult thing to achieve. Even with vegetarianism, people try to justify eating meat by a wide variety of angles, but at the end of the day you are really just eating meat for those little taste buds on your tounge. The evidence for a vegetarian diet being beneficial for the planet is overwhelming, imo. This is just one of many of our habits that could easily be changed. Materialism and fast food is another area where huge changes could be made.
3.We have a fair bit of technology now that we can affect large parts of the planet and really make a difference as to the outcome of certain things.

4. The inequality amongst us is reflected in the rest of the world. I am living below the poverty line here (Australia) where I would be considered quite rich and well off in other countries. That's just ridiculous.


So before we log off and goto our next drink/food/drug stop, we may want to just ponder for a moment our own affluence and perhaps try to think of how we could make our world a better place....because we can.

If this is the vehicle that brings us out of our slump (because we are in a huge form slump!!), then this is the vehicle. Get on board. There is no one to consult but yourself.

Make sure your money is good money 😉