Earth Might be Fair is a series of articles that were compiled and edited by Ian G. Barbour. It was published in 1972. The topics of science, theology, how the human race views the earth, and population were discussed in an ecological light.
I found the principles of the publication to be sound. It was enlightening to see how the Christian faith was viewed in the environmental world. There are some who assert that Christianity should bear the blame of our current environmental condition, while others assert that it is the answer. No matter what the author’s respective view on Christianity (or other religions) was though, they all agreed on one thing; what had to change was how people viewed the earth, and they knew that the best way to do that was through the faith of the people.
Technology was discussed at length. An important distinction was made between technology and science. Technology for example is the computer that I’m typing this on, while science is the study that made the creation of the computer possible. Technology and science walk hand in hand, but they are not one and the same. I found this view to be refreshing as well as informative, and the various authors in Earth Might be Fair, agreed that society should focus on producing technologies that improve (or don’t harm) the environment rather than addressing the harmful effects of technology. This method wouldn’t only reduce the amount of harm to our environment, but encourage a wiser use of resources (government funding, research, etc).
How the human race views the earth was the main issue of the book. Whether it be that man should view himself in light of a genetic ancestry that tied him to all species, the miracle that man has even come into being, the miracle of the creation of the earth, or how estrangement from nature by objectifying it has led man to degrade the world he lives on. All these combined to try and instill in man a feeling of not only connectedness to the world around him (plants, resources, animals), but of blessing, and through that blessing an obligation to be responsible for the world around him.
I believe that the underlying principle of the book was not to present facts, but to change minds. From the introduction to the conclusion and throughout every article the authors presented information in an effort to get people to change the way that they saw and perceived the world around them. Some authors used logic, other religious appeal, and still others made an appeal to people’s fear.
The religious and fear appeals were used the most often, perhaps because it is a person’s sense of the spiritual, and a person’s life that is most valued. However, a blunt appeal to fear isn’t constructive. When an argument seeks to make a reader insecure, thought processes aren’t changed only diverted for a few moments in time while the reader is engaged in reading. An appeal to one’s religion calls on a reader’s sense of moral obligation – something they have chosen in their lives. By reasoning with this aspect of a person lasting change can be made.
I agree that technology needs to be encouraged to be more responsible, I agree that religion when really understood encourages mankind to take care of the earth, I agree that for any significant environmental change to be made people who consume too much (though that remains to be defined), should consume less (and recycle more). Out of all the things I agree with in this book, I cannot bring myself to agree with its views on population. Proposals in the book to “control population” were appalling; the “solutions” ranged from sterilizing 10 year old girls (and mothers of 2 - as a matter of law), to having the government decide which couples would be allowed to produce offspring. I respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do not believe that anyone is entitled to saying what human life is really worth bringing into the world.
In conclusion the book has a lot to offer. I think that it is an example of why people are often so ardently against environmentalism as well though. The ideas presented are as a whole sound and good, but their presentation is sometimes over enthusiastic, or abrasive. To accomplish what this book is trying to do (change the thoughts and attitude of people in order to change people’s actions) a more moderate approach is needed.
I read this book all the way through.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saving the Rain Forest
I read the book Nafanua Saving the Somoan Rain Forest by Paul Cox. Paul Cox is LDS and I don’t know if he is currently at BYU but he taught here while he was writing the book. This book was a narrative of his experiences while he was on sabbatical in Samoa. I was expecting the book to be more peer reviewed type articles but it seemed more like the author was writing in his journal about his daily activities and by the time he got home realized that he could easily just write a book from his journal entries. This made the book very easy to read because it flowed with his daily activities.
His initial intent for being in Samoa was to study the plants chemical natures and see if there was anything that could be made into drugs to prevent diseases. He took his whole family to Samoa for the year and although he could speak the language because he had previously served a mission in Samoa, his family didn’t know the language and customs and tried to assimilate themselves the best that they could. The family eventually was accepted into the community as members and they increasingly became more and more aware of the problems that faced the people of this island.
As they became more and more involved Paul Cox realized that he had a opportunity to save their rain forest that was going to be sold and chopped down by loggers so the small community could afford to build a new school for their children. He raised money and involved many people stateside in order to prevent the forest from being destroyed. He constantly is struggling to bridge the gap between the Samoan people and the international viewpoints of Samoa and their need for aid.
Some of the impressions that I got from the book is that there are a lot of people who desperately need help but they just don’t know who or where to turn to. These people had to come up with about $60,000 to build a new school. They didn’t have anywhere near the resources and the only way that they knew how was to sell the rain forest to loggers. They cherished the rain forest and in the past had done everything in their power to preserve it but they also knew that the education of their children was the only way to ensure their future. They felt that they had no choice. Paul Cox was able to help them in ways that they would have never imagined.
Another impression that I got was that one person can do a lot when they put their mind to it. Paul Cox had wavered on his decision to help with the rainforest because initially he wasn’t sure if he could raise the money necessary or not and he wasn’t sure if he was willing to lose all of his personal assets to save this rain forest. There was a point that he decided that enough was enough and he was going to do everything in his power even if it meant that he would sell his house in Provo and other things to finance the school in Samoa. It just shows that he felt that he could make a difference and he may not get another chance to make an impact like he did again in his lifetime. He seized the moment and ran with it and hard as he could. Honestly I don’t think that I could make a decision like that and put so much on the line like he did but I guess the morale of the story is find something that drives you and ride it out to the fullest.
Although I do not share Paul Cox’s same passion about saving the rain forests and will probably never involve myself the same way that he did with the village in Samoa, I can prepare myself to be able to act quickly and authoritatively when opportunities present themselves. By positioning myself so that I can be of help in the future, opportunities will present themselves that may have not opened up otherwise.
(I read this book all the way through)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Commonality among the Religions
Sorry for having to write my blog as a comment. Blogger.com does not like my MAC!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Collapse Book Review
Collapse discusses different civilization’s ecological impacts on their environments and the overall consequences of a people’s attitude toward the environment.
He writes first of societies that did not respect or understand their surroundings, and as a consequence became extinct. Perhaps the most interesting story Diamond tells is that of the people of
Of course, construction on such a large scale took its toll on the island’s resources. Trees, which were necessary for transporting and erecting the moai, were extremely valuable to the islanders for construction purposes. But they also prevented the soil from eroding into the ocean and decreased leaching of necessary elements. A chain reaction was initiated, and soon the people had inflicted such damage on their surroundings, that the island has no longer habitable. Animals decreased in population and diversity. Plants and marine life followed suit, leaving the islanders with a fraction of the resources they once enjoyed. Hundreds of years later, European ships happened on the tiny island and found a desolate place, with a population much smaller than had inhabited the island hundreds of years earlier.
Diamond portrays
The second, more positive, section of the book tells about societies that understood their environments, and thrived as a result. Diamond offers the story of another island, Japan. The Tokugawa Shoguns of Japan recognized that the population could very easily decimate the forests of Japan, and they took action to prevent deforestation. By creating a “tree census”, they were able to determine which forests were in danger of being destroyed. The government worked with local towns and leaders to ensure that they understood from where they could harvest wood and how much could be used. Their system was successful, and Japan continues to enjoy their forests.
I think the author was clever to use two examples, both island nations that harvested trees, to show that we can use the earth’s resources without destroying our environment. We simply need observe the problems we are causing, and correct them to avoid inflicting more damage. The book is an excellent read and includes many fascinating stories to support Diamond’s viewpoints.
In Collapse, Diamond addresses the viewpoint that technology will solve all of our environmental problems. Some people are of the opinion that whether or not we decide to ignore environmental issues, technology will eventually solve them for us. Diamond answers simply that new technology often creates more problems than it solves. Relying on technology to solve all of our problems is not a viable solution. Further, he argues that the purpose of technology is to increase our ability to do things, quantitatively not qualitatively. So if technology is going to be part of the solution, we need to adjust our outlook on the environment now, so when the technology is available we understand how to use it to help solve our problems.
Most people that I discuss environmental issues with feel that technology will play a large role in solving problems. But we already have so much technology that we do not take advantage of, so how will more technology help? By simply recycling we become a part of the solution, but not everyone chooses to recycle. We need to stop focusing on the marvelous technology we hope for, and address the problems in the present.
I certainly hope, along with Jared Diamond, that we can do so before another Collapse!
(I read the entire book)
Monday, March 23, 2009
What goes around, comes around
One of my goals in taking this class was to understand more about world religions. Aside from various sects of Christianity, I have very little knowledge of other religions. It is for this reason that our discussion of Buddhism struck me. We talked in particular about three different aspects of Buddhism: Balance, Karma, and Rebirth.
From our lecture, I gathered that one of the main goals of Buddhism was to achieve balance and attain the most perfected state of balance entitled nirvana. Through following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, one lives in a right way to achieve good Karma, eventually escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and become an “Awakened one” like Buddah. The eightfold view includes following the following aspects:
1. Right view of the world
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right practice
I loved the Buddhist readings that we were required to do for class. I was particularly intrigued with the processes of rebirth. According to Wikipedia (Yes, I know it’s extremely legitimate), “Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. It is important to note, however, that Buddhism rejects concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul.” I was impressed with this explanation because I always understood reincarnation or rebirth to be just one soul moving from one life form to another. This, however, is not the case. While my understanding is probably still a little juvenile, being that I’m just learning about Buddhism, the process of rebirth is not so much jumping from one life form to another, but rather a progressive state of being that is based on karma. Living right allows one to receive positive Karma “points”.
I thought it was really interesting thinking of the progression or regression of rebirth in terms of Karma. It is analogous to each of our progressions in this life. If we look at our spirituality in Buddhist terms, some of us may be on the level of a mouse or lizard whereas others may be steps away from attaining nirvana. Just as those who disrespect the eightfold missions of Buddhism and do not live the right life may receive negative karma points and be rebirthed at a lower state than they previously were, so are we negatively affected when we sin or treat others poorly. We may not be reborn as a horse or cow, but we certainly take a few steps away from the Savior and our goal of becoming like Him.
To me, one of the coolest things about other religions is learning the truths that they have, and being able to use their various doctrines towards the betterment of our individual lives. I believe that in the same way Buddhists use karma to progress towards nirvana, so do we as Latter-Day Saints use charity, service, and sacrifice to perfect us and enable us to one day achieve our ultimate goal, which is to live with our Father in Heaven once more. When viewed in this way, any religion can offer us edification , light and truth.
From our lecture, I gathered that one of the main goals of Buddhism was to achieve balance and attain the most perfected state of balance entitled nirvana. Through following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism, one lives in a right way to achieve good Karma, eventually escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and become an “Awakened one” like Buddah. The eightfold view includes following the following aspects:
1. Right view of the world
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right practice
I loved the Buddhist readings that we were required to do for class. I was particularly intrigued with the processes of rebirth. According to Wikipedia (Yes, I know it’s extremely legitimate), “Rebirth refers to a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. It is important to note, however, that Buddhism rejects concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul.” I was impressed with this explanation because I always understood reincarnation or rebirth to be just one soul moving from one life form to another. This, however, is not the case. While my understanding is probably still a little juvenile, being that I’m just learning about Buddhism, the process of rebirth is not so much jumping from one life form to another, but rather a progressive state of being that is based on karma. Living right allows one to receive positive Karma “points”.
I thought it was really interesting thinking of the progression or regression of rebirth in terms of Karma. It is analogous to each of our progressions in this life. If we look at our spirituality in Buddhist terms, some of us may be on the level of a mouse or lizard whereas others may be steps away from attaining nirvana. Just as those who disrespect the eightfold missions of Buddhism and do not live the right life may receive negative karma points and be rebirthed at a lower state than they previously were, so are we negatively affected when we sin or treat others poorly. We may not be reborn as a horse or cow, but we certainly take a few steps away from the Savior and our goal of becoming like Him.
To me, one of the coolest things about other religions is learning the truths that they have, and being able to use their various doctrines towards the betterment of our individual lives. I believe that in the same way Buddhists use karma to progress towards nirvana, so do we as Latter-Day Saints use charity, service, and sacrifice to perfect us and enable us to one day achieve our ultimate goal, which is to live with our Father in Heaven once more. When viewed in this way, any religion can offer us edification , light and truth.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Heaven on Earth
When I was in middle school back in Ohio, I remember clearly one day riding in a car with my mother. I remember looking out of the window and seeing buildings, subdivisions and parking lots everywhere. I turned to my mom and asked her if there was enough room for everyone on the earth. To me it looked like eventually there would be no space left to build houses for future families because the land was literally covered with them already. Once all the space was used, what would we do? Looking back now I would even add in, “what about all of the plants and animals, will they have room?” My mother could tell I was worried, and so I believed tried to comfort me by telling me “God has promised that there will be enough and to spare.” For a while this was good enough for me, my mother had said so and she must be right, because she is my mother. However as I grow older I see more and more clearly the troubles of this world and I cannot rely on the government or those higher up than me to just magically make things better somehow. I used to think that there was very little that I could do and if I just gave it time, someone else would find the solution to life’s troubles. After all, someone else discovered penicillin, someone else tapped the use of electricity, figured out how to make an airplane and so on. Surely someone will find a way to save all the endangered species, eliminate pollution and waste, and stop the deforestation and desertification around the world. Yet we know (we have talked about it in past blog entries) that if we all just look around and wait for that someone to step up, it will never happen. Instead I would like to address perhaps why we feel this way. While I was young my mother did a good job comforting me, yet now I find her advice slightly unsettling. There are many very religious people in the world who seem to dismiss their human responsibilities and say that everything is safely “in God’s hands.” In fact, there are also many people that I know who don’t believe in a God, and that humans are simply an ‘evolutionary accident’ yet they seem more environmentally responsible because since they believe there is no God, then it is absolutely up to us to make things right. I believe that God helps those who help themselves. Does God have the power to wipe us all out and begin the custodial clean-up? Of course he does. But will he? No. We are here to learn and grow and try to be more like him. If we have the foresight and take the time an effort to try to correct our past mistakes, if we do this with his will in mind he will help us. I think we as Latter Day Saints know the importance of this world and need to remind ourselves that we should not just sit in church on Sunday and wait for the second coming so that we may be glorified and live with our Father in Heaven forever. This world will be our celestial kingdom and we need to take care of it now, and prove to God that we will be good stewards. I think the best way to start to make a change is to picture the Earth and everything in it as it will be when it reaches its paradisiacal glory. Then, just as we view our bodies as temples, we can begin to see the earth as a temple and treat it as such.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Lisa is all alone, again
During the Simpsons episode that we watched many things came to my mind. I have watched my fair share of Simpsons episodes and a common theme is that Lisa is usually the only one that ever cares about anything. She is constantly standing up for what she believes is right. Mostly because she is the only one that is educated enough to know about what is really going on in the world. Homer is the epitomy (sp?) of the uneducated population whose only concern is about instant gratification, and in the case of this episode, making a quick buck. Lisa constantly argues with facts and scientific data that are largely ignored by the people of Springfield because they don't understand it. Ignorance rarely acknowledges truth because the thought process of deciding what is right or wrong usually never occurs which breeds more ignorance.
Another point that I think the producers of this episode were also trying to show is that sometimes people get so excited about their viewpoints that they fail to see other possibilities. Lisa was so positive that what she had found was a fossil and was so sure that Homer was wrong that she failed to see the other possibilities. By opening up our viewpoints and trying to see what the other side sees we may find valid points to their arguments and maybe be able to apply some of their points into our own.
But I think that the main point of the episode is that after all is said and done it doesn't really matter who wins, it is the relationships that we build that matter. Time and time again Lisa rants and raves about this and about that in the Simpson episodes and is usually confronted with many who oppose her but at the end of the day both sides come to some agreement and compromise in order to keep intact the relationships that they have formed. Usually this occurs by the public obtaining more knowledge about the topic and acting accordingly.
Many of the episodes, at least from what I have seen, show that ignorance breeds ignorance, Homer - Bart, and that knowledge is power. They also show that an individual who portrays superior knowledge that flaunts it is also not helping the community. It is the careful balance of knowledge and using that knowledge for the better good that allows others to become better people. This is where our knowledge that we have acquired will do the most good. By understanding other viewpoints and incorporating truth many people will want to do better and start to care about things that may have not even been thought about it the past.
Another point that I think the producers of this episode were also trying to show is that sometimes people get so excited about their viewpoints that they fail to see other possibilities. Lisa was so positive that what she had found was a fossil and was so sure that Homer was wrong that she failed to see the other possibilities. By opening up our viewpoints and trying to see what the other side sees we may find valid points to their arguments and maybe be able to apply some of their points into our own.
But I think that the main point of the episode is that after all is said and done it doesn't really matter who wins, it is the relationships that we build that matter. Time and time again Lisa rants and raves about this and about that in the Simpson episodes and is usually confronted with many who oppose her but at the end of the day both sides come to some agreement and compromise in order to keep intact the relationships that they have formed. Usually this occurs by the public obtaining more knowledge about the topic and acting accordingly.
Many of the episodes, at least from what I have seen, show that ignorance breeds ignorance, Homer - Bart, and that knowledge is power. They also show that an individual who portrays superior knowledge that flaunts it is also not helping the community. It is the careful balance of knowledge and using that knowledge for the better good that allows others to become better people. This is where our knowledge that we have acquired will do the most good. By understanding other viewpoints and incorporating truth many people will want to do better and start to care about things that may have not even been thought about it the past.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Searching for Patterns
During Evolution Week, I attended a lecture by Dr. Whiting. I believe it was titled “Grandeur in this View of Life”, or something to that effect. Dr. Whiting gave a general overview of evolution and the reasoning behind it. He also talked of Darwin. He spoke of Darwin’s life experiences and how these affected his scientific views. It was a great summary of evolution and Darwin for the general population. But to be honest, I found Dr. Whiting’s talk to be somewhat boring. I am in his Biology 420 class this semester, so I had already heard most of his lecture within the beginning week of January. And other biology classes had already taught me the general principles of evolution.
However, there was one aspect of his lecture that really caused me to think and ponder. Dr. Whiting talked about the importance of patterns. He showed us a picture of his daugther’s creation of cookies and pudding. He described this creation as a pattern, and by studying the pattern, one could see how the cookies and pudding were manipulated. It was possible to tell that the cookies had come after the pudding, and that the little girl had created the pudding painting using mainly her fingers. Dr. Whiting described some of the patterns in evolution and demonstrated how these patterns point to the mechanisms of evolution. He stated that by finding patterns in nature, we can understand fundamental principles.
Dr. Whiting seemed to assert that patterns in nature will lead us to understanding the science behind nature. I also believe this is true. But it made me think of the people who created Topeki Gobli, or those who erected Stonehenge, or even the Kogi today. These people also saw patterns in nature. They saw the renewal of the earth every spring. They saw the equinoxes and the solstices. They saw constant death but also constant life. To explain these patterns, they turned to myths such as the Babylonian story of Adapa the fisherman who refused the gift of eternal life or the Greek myth of Persephone who oscillated between the underworld in the winter and living with her mother the goddess Demeter in the summer. So far as we know, these myths do not contain much scientific truth. But every culture has always found a need to explain the patterns of nature in some way.
Now I’m not trying to say that evolution is our myth today. I do believe that evolution is scientifically sound, and that it is God’s way of creating new life forms. But it does make me wonder about our need for explanation and understanding. We see patterns around us, and we feel a need to fit in, to become part of the pattern, to understand and to feel like we are more than an individual, that we are a part of a whole. I think that explaining the patterns found in daily life and in the environment was perhaps the main reason religion arose. The need to connect and to understand is deep-seated in each one of us, and has been a part of humanity perhaps since the beginning. I wonder why we feel this need, why we can’t just observe and recognize that there is “grandeur in this view of life”. I don’t think it’s wrong to try and understand patterns. I just think it’s interesting to see how much effort we put into explaining them.
However, there was one aspect of his lecture that really caused me to think and ponder. Dr. Whiting talked about the importance of patterns. He showed us a picture of his daugther’s creation of cookies and pudding. He described this creation as a pattern, and by studying the pattern, one could see how the cookies and pudding were manipulated. It was possible to tell that the cookies had come after the pudding, and that the little girl had created the pudding painting using mainly her fingers. Dr. Whiting described some of the patterns in evolution and demonstrated how these patterns point to the mechanisms of evolution. He stated that by finding patterns in nature, we can understand fundamental principles.
Dr. Whiting seemed to assert that patterns in nature will lead us to understanding the science behind nature. I also believe this is true. But it made me think of the people who created Topeki Gobli, or those who erected Stonehenge, or even the Kogi today. These people also saw patterns in nature. They saw the renewal of the earth every spring. They saw the equinoxes and the solstices. They saw constant death but also constant life. To explain these patterns, they turned to myths such as the Babylonian story of Adapa the fisherman who refused the gift of eternal life or the Greek myth of Persephone who oscillated between the underworld in the winter and living with her mother the goddess Demeter in the summer. So far as we know, these myths do not contain much scientific truth. But every culture has always found a need to explain the patterns of nature in some way.
Now I’m not trying to say that evolution is our myth today. I do believe that evolution is scientifically sound, and that it is God’s way of creating new life forms. But it does make me wonder about our need for explanation and understanding. We see patterns around us, and we feel a need to fit in, to become part of the pattern, to understand and to feel like we are more than an individual, that we are a part of a whole. I think that explaining the patterns found in daily life and in the environment was perhaps the main reason religion arose. The need to connect and to understand is deep-seated in each one of us, and has been a part of humanity perhaps since the beginning. I wonder why we feel this need, why we can’t just observe and recognize that there is “grandeur in this view of life”. I don’t think it’s wrong to try and understand patterns. I just think it’s interesting to see how much effort we put into explaining them.
Bringing it Home
I have always held a particular life view: hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I have recently spent more time thinking about my impact on the environment and how my religious convictions require that I be more proactive. We have discussed several issues on this blog ranging from Christian beliefs to Star Trek; however, we have yet to put forth any real life, everyday solutions. I don’t think that there is a magical solution or that the majority of people will wake up one day and decide to take better care of the earth. I personally believe that many people are unaware of what goes on around them. Not that they chose not to care, but they simply don’t think about it. My intentions therefore are to lay out realistic and effective ways that we can make a difference for our planet, as examples to others, and to fulfill our sacred stewardship.
There are two phrases that I have heard frequently throughout my life. The first is a saying I learned in the third grade: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The second I heard in Primary: Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without. Something simple we can all do is try to recycle. If you already do, great job and keep it up. If you don’t, then there is never a time like the present. You don’t even have to burn yourself out with recycling everything you ever use, start small with something like newspaper and cardboard boxes.
Another thing we can all do is try to be smarter consumers. Consuming goods in America is a just a fact of life. Whenever you buy a new appliance you can’t ask for one without all of the packaging. What we can do is buy the cereal that comes in a bag instead of a box and a bag, drink more water and spare the pop cans, and buy bulk instead of individually wrapped. You can also buy things second hand where possible- saving you packaging and money. When you go hunting, only hunt what you are willing to eat. When you drive a car, if you have the option, carpool or take the car that is better suited to individual travel- not the SUV etc.
Sooner or later most of us will buy a home. We can make that home a modest one, one that is suited to our needs more than our pride. With that house we can plant a garden and trees etc. These things will not only lessen our personal impact on our environment, but they will enable us to stay close to nature and to teach our children and loved ones to respect and cherish the source of our mortal nourishment and home.
There are so many things that we can do as individuals to create a better tomorrow today and a better future for everyone. I believe the key is to willingly sit down and decide what it is that you, as an individual person, need and want within reason. We then have to be both willing and able to make goals with our natural surroundings in mind. I honestly believe that is we think about it, it is really doable.
There are two phrases that I have heard frequently throughout my life. The first is a saying I learned in the third grade: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The second I heard in Primary: Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without. Something simple we can all do is try to recycle. If you already do, great job and keep it up. If you don’t, then there is never a time like the present. You don’t even have to burn yourself out with recycling everything you ever use, start small with something like newspaper and cardboard boxes.
Another thing we can all do is try to be smarter consumers. Consuming goods in America is a just a fact of life. Whenever you buy a new appliance you can’t ask for one without all of the packaging. What we can do is buy the cereal that comes in a bag instead of a box and a bag, drink more water and spare the pop cans, and buy bulk instead of individually wrapped. You can also buy things second hand where possible- saving you packaging and money. When you go hunting, only hunt what you are willing to eat. When you drive a car, if you have the option, carpool or take the car that is better suited to individual travel- not the SUV etc.
Sooner or later most of us will buy a home. We can make that home a modest one, one that is suited to our needs more than our pride. With that house we can plant a garden and trees etc. These things will not only lessen our personal impact on our environment, but they will enable us to stay close to nature and to teach our children and loved ones to respect and cherish the source of our mortal nourishment and home.
There are so many things that we can do as individuals to create a better tomorrow today and a better future for everyone. I believe the key is to willingly sit down and decide what it is that you, as an individual person, need and want within reason. We then have to be both willing and able to make goals with our natural surroundings in mind. I honestly believe that is we think about it, it is really doable.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Faces of Darwin
I am glad that the blog has gone back to the topic of evolution. I do not know if I should admit this but my blog is a little late. But late is better than never. A few weeks ago the campus along with millions world wide celebrated the publication of the book Origin of Species and Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. I had the opportunity to attend several lectures presented by the Biology Department on the topic of evolution. Some lectures were even on religion and evolution. I did not attend those. I attended one Dr. Fairbanks entitled The Many Faces of Charles Darwin.
I had the opportunity at the beginning of Darwin week to hear Dr. Fairbanks speak at a lecture series presented by the Biology Department. Before he began to lecture Dr. Fairbanks presented a professor in attendance a beautiful drawing of Charles Darwin. I was very impressed with his artistic ability just from the drawing. I later found out after the lecture that Dr. Fairbanks was going to lecture during Darwin week and sculpt a clay bust of Darwin while he gave a lecture.
The lecture was very informal due to the Dr. Fairbanks sculpting Darwin as he spoke. I learned several things during the lecture that made me really ponder long after the lecture was over. First I have to say that I found it amazing that Dr. Fairbanks sculpted Darwin in one hour. I had front row seats and could not take my eyes off the sculpting for a second. In regards to what I take home from the lecture was the misunderstanding of Darwin and his contributions to biology. Charles Darwin made an observation and discovered a mechanism to describe his observations. He did not understand the complexities of genetics or molecular biology as we do today. It saddens me to read people really disrespect a man that did not like confrontation and was doing what most biologist hope to do in their life time which is be recognized in the field of their study. The lecture also made me ponder my views on evolution. To be honest I could careless how we evolved. I think that when it is all said and done everyone will know the truth and I hope that if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct people will apologize to the man and tell him that he made a great contribution to human kind.
If God wanted us to know how the world was created and by what mechanism he would tell us. Gaining knowledge and understanding is part of his plan for us here on earth. I can help but think of the countless times that President Hinckley instructed us to attain as much education as possible. Our intelligence is the only thing that we as children of our heavenly father will be able to take with us when we enter the next part of life.
I had the opportunity at the beginning of Darwin week to hear Dr. Fairbanks speak at a lecture series presented by the Biology Department. Before he began to lecture Dr. Fairbanks presented a professor in attendance a beautiful drawing of Charles Darwin. I was very impressed with his artistic ability just from the drawing. I later found out after the lecture that Dr. Fairbanks was going to lecture during Darwin week and sculpt a clay bust of Darwin while he gave a lecture.
The lecture was very informal due to the Dr. Fairbanks sculpting Darwin as he spoke. I learned several things during the lecture that made me really ponder long after the lecture was over. First I have to say that I found it amazing that Dr. Fairbanks sculpted Darwin in one hour. I had front row seats and could not take my eyes off the sculpting for a second. In regards to what I take home from the lecture was the misunderstanding of Darwin and his contributions to biology. Charles Darwin made an observation and discovered a mechanism to describe his observations. He did not understand the complexities of genetics or molecular biology as we do today. It saddens me to read people really disrespect a man that did not like confrontation and was doing what most biologist hope to do in their life time which is be recognized in the field of their study. The lecture also made me ponder my views on evolution. To be honest I could careless how we evolved. I think that when it is all said and done everyone will know the truth and I hope that if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct people will apologize to the man and tell him that he made a great contribution to human kind.
If God wanted us to know how the world was created and by what mechanism he would tell us. Gaining knowledge and understanding is part of his plan for us here on earth. I can help but think of the countless times that President Hinckley instructed us to attain as much education as possible. Our intelligence is the only thing that we as children of our heavenly father will be able to take with us when we enter the next part of life.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Evolution, Religion and the Environment
While serving a mission in southern Chile I often challenged people to ponder some of the deep questions of life: Where are you from? Where are you going? Often, the answer to those two questions helped seekers of truth to answer the more relevant question of what are we supposed to be doing in this life. I propose a parallel exercise to help us understand our religious and practical obligations to the planet and our environment.
Theodore Dobzhansky wrote in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, pages 125-129). Given Gallup Poll data asserting that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as of February 2009, one must conclude that to 61% of Americans who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. That frightens me because biology (the study of life) and evolution give us a new and deeper understanding of the earth, and our relation ship to it and all things found on it.
Evolution teaches us that the planet is very old, and that the world’s history is our history. Most of us have a difficult time understanding how old the earth really is, but evolution helps us to gain more perspective. Although it appears that life formed on earth relatively quickly (a billion years or so after the formation of the planet), it takes millions of years and generations for time to become meaningful. Earth time is deep time. Our lifetimes are barely noticeable next to the lifespan of the earth. Becoming evo-literate brings our roles on the earth into perspective.
Evolution also teaches us about our intimate and necessary relationship with earth. Using genetic markers, scientists can now trace the human record across the globe, back to Africa where genetic diversity is the greatest. We can see similarities across species as well, not just within species. This understanding of evolution drives home the point that we are related to all life on the planet, rather than mere obligatory roommates of sorts.
Finally, understanding evolution may help us to understand the future of our planet. There is little difference between those that subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe and those today that subscribe to an “anthro-centric” model of the planet. Our religion also teaches us to look outside ourselves to the needs and well-being of others. That teaching should extend to earth and all its inhabitants, not just our fellow men. Men were not meant to be the focus of all life, rather we are intended to be stewards to our planet and the life contained thereon.
I submit that if we continue spreading evo-literacy, people will also become more eco-literate. Once we understand how intertwined our fate and the planet’s fate are, we are much less likely to desecrate the earth. Evolution gives us an immediate and scientifically founded reason to care for the earth and guard against actions that may cause it damage.
Theodore Dobzhansky wrote in 1973 that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, pages 125-129). Given Gallup Poll data asserting that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution as of February 2009, one must conclude that to 61% of Americans who do not subscribe to the theory of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. That frightens me because biology (the study of life) and evolution give us a new and deeper understanding of the earth, and our relation ship to it and all things found on it.
Evolution teaches us that the planet is very old, and that the world’s history is our history. Most of us have a difficult time understanding how old the earth really is, but evolution helps us to gain more perspective. Although it appears that life formed on earth relatively quickly (a billion years or so after the formation of the planet), it takes millions of years and generations for time to become meaningful. Earth time is deep time. Our lifetimes are barely noticeable next to the lifespan of the earth. Becoming evo-literate brings our roles on the earth into perspective.
Evolution also teaches us about our intimate and necessary relationship with earth. Using genetic markers, scientists can now trace the human record across the globe, back to Africa where genetic diversity is the greatest. We can see similarities across species as well, not just within species. This understanding of evolution drives home the point that we are related to all life on the planet, rather than mere obligatory roommates of sorts.
Finally, understanding evolution may help us to understand the future of our planet. There is little difference between those that subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe and those today that subscribe to an “anthro-centric” model of the planet. Our religion also teaches us to look outside ourselves to the needs and well-being of others. That teaching should extend to earth and all its inhabitants, not just our fellow men. Men were not meant to be the focus of all life, rather we are intended to be stewards to our planet and the life contained thereon.
I submit that if we continue spreading evo-literacy, people will also become more eco-literate. Once we understand how intertwined our fate and the planet’s fate are, we are much less likely to desecrate the earth. Evolution gives us an immediate and scientifically founded reason to care for the earth and guard against actions that may cause it damage.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
How to Approach the Approaches
In class, we read “Christianity and Ecology” by John F. Haught, and he posed the question, “Precisely why should we care about the nonhuman natural world?” After reading this paper and pondering this question for myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that Haught has a pretty good grasp on the sanctity of the Earth and speaks a lot of truth. He gives us three different ways in which we can look at environmentalism and Christianity. These ways include the Apologetic, Sacramental and Eschatological approaches to create a type of “environmental theology” as Haught calls it.
In the Apologetic approach, theology examines the Bible in order to search for scriptures that prove that the bible does, in fact, give some indication that Christians should care about the cosmos and the Earth in general. As Haught says, “At its most simplistic extreme it does little more than recite the psalms and other biblical passages that proclaim creation as God’s handiwork”. From the description in the paper and our discussion in class, I understand the apologetic approach to be merely a defense of the faith. Since God gave us dominion of the Earth, that alone should be reason enough for us to care for it and help ensure its survival.
The next approach is the Sacramental approach to ecological theology. This approach views the natural world as a “symbolic disclosure of God”. Haught described this approach as one that more readily accepts scientific thought into the theological aspect of spirituality. In fact, he points out that this approach is more sympathetic to evolutionary theories and physics. From the paper’s description, I also felt like this view accepted the fact that the earth had a spirit as well. We discussed the Sacramental approach as being very creation centered, and being that the Earth was created by God, we have a duty to take care of it. In Genesis, God declares His creations to be “good”. In this context, good means sacred. Using this understanding, all that God creates is good, sacred, and deserves our respect.
The final approach is the Eschatological Approach, and it deals with the promise of future fulfillment. From the viewpoints of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that the earth will ultimately be resurrected and perfected to be the final dwelling place of those who attain the Celestial kingdom. This, to me, is a good interpretation of Haught’s eschatological approach to Christian theology. What better motivations do we, as Latter-day Saints to take care of the Earth than to know that God’s promises will be fulfilled if we are faithful and endure to the end?
I really loved reading and pondering this article, because I think it is important that every person do his or her part to take care of the world. However, in order to do so, each of the three approaches needs to be implemented in the world. In class, we talked about how various religions retain strengths in the various approaches. Some religions such as Buddhism are wonderful at accepting the sacredness of the cosmos and the spirit of the earth. They support the Sacramental approach. Those of the Jewish faith tend to be excellent defenders, and therefore are sympathetic to the Apologetic. Just as all of the religions in the world retain facets and elements of truth, likewise all of them view the world in a way that, when combined with other religious views, will enable us as a planet to better care for and show proper stewardship over our final home, the Earth.
In the Apologetic approach, theology examines the Bible in order to search for scriptures that prove that the bible does, in fact, give some indication that Christians should care about the cosmos and the Earth in general. As Haught says, “At its most simplistic extreme it does little more than recite the psalms and other biblical passages that proclaim creation as God’s handiwork”. From the description in the paper and our discussion in class, I understand the apologetic approach to be merely a defense of the faith. Since God gave us dominion of the Earth, that alone should be reason enough for us to care for it and help ensure its survival.
The next approach is the Sacramental approach to ecological theology. This approach views the natural world as a “symbolic disclosure of God”. Haught described this approach as one that more readily accepts scientific thought into the theological aspect of spirituality. In fact, he points out that this approach is more sympathetic to evolutionary theories and physics. From the paper’s description, I also felt like this view accepted the fact that the earth had a spirit as well. We discussed the Sacramental approach as being very creation centered, and being that the Earth was created by God, we have a duty to take care of it. In Genesis, God declares His creations to be “good”. In this context, good means sacred. Using this understanding, all that God creates is good, sacred, and deserves our respect.
The final approach is the Eschatological Approach, and it deals with the promise of future fulfillment. From the viewpoints of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that the earth will ultimately be resurrected and perfected to be the final dwelling place of those who attain the Celestial kingdom. This, to me, is a good interpretation of Haught’s eschatological approach to Christian theology. What better motivations do we, as Latter-day Saints to take care of the Earth than to know that God’s promises will be fulfilled if we are faithful and endure to the end?
I really loved reading and pondering this article, because I think it is important that every person do his or her part to take care of the world. However, in order to do so, each of the three approaches needs to be implemented in the world. In class, we talked about how various religions retain strengths in the various approaches. Some religions such as Buddhism are wonderful at accepting the sacredness of the cosmos and the spirit of the earth. They support the Sacramental approach. Those of the Jewish faith tend to be excellent defenders, and therefore are sympathetic to the Apologetic. Just as all of the religions in the world retain facets and elements of truth, likewise all of them view the world in a way that, when combined with other religious views, will enable us as a planet to better care for and show proper stewardship over our final home, the Earth.
Why an understanding of evolution is a necessary foundation for an environmental ethic
Let's say that rather than "setting the grandeur of life in motion" (Darwin in On the Origin of Species), God built each species with similar building blocks. One could argue against the vast amounts of genetic evidence for human evolution that humans are built with the same pieces as chimps much like a truck and a van share similar engines and frames. Obviously, many species have hearts because they work for circulating blood and who's to say God didn't make each heart based of a central model. Maybe he even got better and better at "building" as He worked up to humans. That then sets humans at the top of Aristotle's ladder. From our view, we are the pinnacle..the most sentient beings with big 4-chambered hearts and bipedal strides. From this haughty spot, we look down to chimps and frogs and emphasize our differences to maintain our perch on the top rung.
But what of the squid's eye and the insects' open circulatory systems. Those work in their own right and are amazingly complex and unique. Each morphotype of fly has a unique arrangement of hairs distinct for that species and lizards form an amazing rainbow from species to species. Are they any less than us? Yes, perhaps, if we view ourselves as the pinnacle of creation, above all else and unconnected to it.
Now assume that all the beauty and diversity we see is created through the process of evolution. Species have diverged and accumulated mutations and new functions over time. We can trace this history through similarity in the structure of four limbs with five digits and the "junk" in our DNA. No one species is superior to another because each is a product of gradual shaping by a different environment. Some survived better small, some big, some with long necks, some with stubby legs. But deep down we're all the same. AGC&T.
With a proper understanding of evolution, we begin to notice our similarities, rather than our differences from other species. We share hundreds of DNA relics with chimpanzees. We have the similar bone structure to fish and frogs and felines. We are not inferior because of these similarities, rather we are one unique strategy to surviving the pressures of being earth-bound.
The very recognition of our ties to this earth and how our species is shaped by millions of years on it, is what we needed to become a heaven-bound society. If we acknowledge, rather than reject, the theory of evolution, we recognize our connectivity to all other living things. The earth becomes not something we own or are entitled to, but a home for life on all scales. When one of our cities impinges on the space of a threatened species, would we not then stop and think about the bit of humanness we displace if we barrel down in the name of progress? If a chamber of my heart ceased to function when I extracted logs from the habitat of a tiny warbler, then would I recognize it's contribution to my existence? What if every time I washed my dishes, my lungs felt a little weak as I lost the evolutionary contribution of the fish who's lake is now damed and oxygen deprived. Maybe if we realized all the earth has done for us beyond providing raw materials and living space, we wouldn't sprawl to our greatest extent just because we are able to.
The earth is and continues to be an experiment of epic proportions. We are only on the edge of understanding how rock and ooze gave way to such diverse life. If we damage the laboratory, where will we find the answers? We not only won't understand the process of speciation, but also the tenets that medicine and agriculture rely on. With the natural laboratory gone (or gone awry), it will be difficult to improve the human condition. On one hand, because we do not reap the benefits of materials and medicine, but even more so because we will sever the connection that makes us human....our origins. The genealogy that is evolution teaches us that we are not alone, that we are indebted to all creatures that came before, that we are delicate and dependent on the natural world, and that something great, even God, is behind the magnificence.
But what of the squid's eye and the insects' open circulatory systems. Those work in their own right and are amazingly complex and unique. Each morphotype of fly has a unique arrangement of hairs distinct for that species and lizards form an amazing rainbow from species to species. Are they any less than us? Yes, perhaps, if we view ourselves as the pinnacle of creation, above all else and unconnected to it.
Now assume that all the beauty and diversity we see is created through the process of evolution. Species have diverged and accumulated mutations and new functions over time. We can trace this history through similarity in the structure of four limbs with five digits and the "junk" in our DNA. No one species is superior to another because each is a product of gradual shaping by a different environment. Some survived better small, some big, some with long necks, some with stubby legs. But deep down we're all the same. AGC&T.
With a proper understanding of evolution, we begin to notice our similarities, rather than our differences from other species. We share hundreds of DNA relics with chimpanzees. We have the similar bone structure to fish and frogs and felines. We are not inferior because of these similarities, rather we are one unique strategy to surviving the pressures of being earth-bound.
The very recognition of our ties to this earth and how our species is shaped by millions of years on it, is what we needed to become a heaven-bound society. If we acknowledge, rather than reject, the theory of evolution, we recognize our connectivity to all other living things. The earth becomes not something we own or are entitled to, but a home for life on all scales. When one of our cities impinges on the space of a threatened species, would we not then stop and think about the bit of humanness we displace if we barrel down in the name of progress? If a chamber of my heart ceased to function when I extracted logs from the habitat of a tiny warbler, then would I recognize it's contribution to my existence? What if every time I washed my dishes, my lungs felt a little weak as I lost the evolutionary contribution of the fish who's lake is now damed and oxygen deprived. Maybe if we realized all the earth has done for us beyond providing raw materials and living space, we wouldn't sprawl to our greatest extent just because we are able to.
The earth is and continues to be an experiment of epic proportions. We are only on the edge of understanding how rock and ooze gave way to such diverse life. If we damage the laboratory, where will we find the answers? We not only won't understand the process of speciation, but also the tenets that medicine and agriculture rely on. With the natural laboratory gone (or gone awry), it will be difficult to improve the human condition. On one hand, because we do not reap the benefits of materials and medicine, but even more so because we will sever the connection that makes us human....our origins. The genealogy that is evolution teaches us that we are not alone, that we are indebted to all creatures that came before, that we are delicate and dependent on the natural world, and that something great, even God, is behind the magnificence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)