Just How Pagan is Copenhagen?

Even though negotiations for a new global climate accord at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen seem to be rapidly deteriorating, with frustrated demonstrators trying to force their way into the talks, you wouldn’t know it by reading the (largely) right-leaning pundits. They all seem convinced that global environmental-pagan-cult rule is only days away. For example, we have this little gem from Joe Soucheray.

“It is a religious gathering in Copenhagen, nothing more and strikingly pagan in nature, but religious. They might as well be wearing hemp cassocks and green vestments, with a glittering crown of recycled pop-can tops for their spiritual leader, Al Gore, who is trying to pioneer the theological mischief known as plenary indulgences, only this time you can use gasoline to sin in St. Paul if only you plant a tree in Keokuk after first paying a middleman.”

The environmentalism = paganism rhetoric ranges from conspiratorial to spectacularly florid. It makes the usual climate-accord supporting disclaimer by Pope Benedict XVI seem so understated and reasonable.

“The final point of the Pope is dedicated to challenging those notions of man’s relationship with the environment that lead to “absolutizing nature ” or “considering it more important than the human person”, as it eliminates the “ontological” difference between the human person and other living beings”. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms.

You know discourse on the topic has flown off the rails when the Pope’s “beware of paganism” boilerplate seems like a breath of fresh air. Amidst the accusations that we’ll all soon be worshiping Gaia in an imaginary socialist utopia, there’s still the issue of if the world can actually move forward on an issue that hundreds of institutions and thousands of scientists have a broad consensus on.

“The fundamental question is who are we as human beings if at some future date the next generation lives in a world with declining prospects and no possibility of reclaiming the beauty of this planet. They will look back at Copenhagen and ask why did you let this fail? What were the arguments? Didn’t you realize that we were at stake?”Al Gore at Copenhagen.

With all the hot air over the “climategate” e-mails, and the lockouts and walkouts at Copenhagen, I have a hard time believing we’ll be forcing Michelle Malkin to sing “we all come from the Goddess” anytime soon, let alone see a comprehensive accord from the world’s nations that is anything more than a face-saving fig-leaf at this point. Then again, who knows, maybe we’ll get lucky (about the treaty part, not Malkin singing goddess-chants). As for tarring anyone who supports forward movement on climate change as a pagan cultist, I suspect the meme itself will never die, but that it will grow increasingly hollow as the world’s  (non-Pagan) religions increasingly see the need to engage in “climate justice” for their global flocks.

  • Hathor

    This environmentalism = religion argument is very familiar to me from an environmental science class I once took. Economist and "brownlash" movement pioneer (anti-green anti-conservation) Julian Simon once made the argument that all EnviroScience and disturbing proof of what we've done to the planet amounted to a hysterical religion that we are free to ignore in seek of greater profits. He didn't even honestly engage his opponents, and his argument was and still is mind numbingly stupid, I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

  • http://witchschool.com Ed Hubbard

    The surprising thing is that religions are embracing some idea of a need to embrace Environmental Stewardship. This sort of attack on the idea is to protect fundamental ways our economy moves, by consuming natural capital. Ecological responsibility does denote the acceptance of limits, and then expanding those limits through smart usage of resources. Add to that the disturbing, to some, of the world wide web, Internet and computerization of the planet, which also spreads the arguments out faster, data shared quicker, and ideas spread faster, means we are undergoing a shift that is as deep as if not deeper that the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution. Literally, it is not just a few things changing, but hundreds of things at every level of life simultaneously changing. This forces changed thinking, and for many, the idea that paganism (small letter version) threatens us as a culture is not unlike earlier groups thinking that farms are slavery or factories would destroy us all. This time, smart ecological growth combined with even smarter advances in technology will likely create a better and higher quality life, but not without a lot of pain for many people. This is the essential argument, who feels the pain, who must change.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Erynn Erynn

      Actually, I'm kind of thinking factories did destroy us all.

      The Industrial Revolution: Killing the Planet for 200 Years

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

        . . . and "We keep the landfills full of mass produced, unneeded crap, and pass the inflation and throwaway culture on to you!"

      • http://www.facebook.com/eileen.hall3 Eileen Hall

        Beat me to it.

  • Chandra

    Behind some of this is the crazed Christian fundies who genuinely want to see the world end, as they believe we're in the End Times anyway (and if you've seen Name of the Rose, you'll know how funny THAT is) and they hope that way they get to fly to heaven and leave all the sinners behind – I won't do them the favour of saying it's an outright conspiracy, but the seeds are in there among the other greed-related reasons for opposing restrictions on carbon emissions & pollution. Yet nary a word gets said about that unChristian lunacy.

  • Riverbend

    Funny thing–I literally just gave the final exam in my "Religion, Nature, and Society" sociology course. There's TONS of non-Pagan religious environmentalism out there to draw from, though it's easier to find material from some religions than others. If anyone's interested we used Roger Gottlieb's _A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet's Future_ as one of the main texts and I used several essays from a volume he edited entitled _This Sacred Earth_ as well. In the interest of full disclosure, though, I guess I should admit that I made them read most of Starhawk's _The Earth Path_ too. :)

    Environmentalism is turning out to be one of those issues (or rather bundles of issues) that creates big schisms in the monotheistic faiths, like feminism and gay rights etc: we get the more liberal ones working on finding ways to use their traditions to tackle new issues, and the fundies on the other side saying it's all a bunch of evil goddess-worshipping (and hence Satanic) nonsense. The fundies and their free-markets-at-any-cost allies are louder and economically a lot stronger, but eventually I don't think they'll prevail–if nothing else, they'll die off. Fundamentalism doesn't go away, but even those guys seem to mostly think it's ok for women and African-Americans to vote these days. What worries me most is how much damage will be done before we get to that point, though. It took the suffragists over a century to win women's right to vote, after all, and look how long Jim Crow lasted after the Civil War. Sigh.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Erynn Erynn

      Harvard Divinity School has published an entire series of books called "Religions of the World and Ecology" that's well worth looking at in this context. It looks like a fantastic collection:

      http://www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/resources/print/c…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Riverbend Riverbend

        Yup, I've looked through some of them and actually used a few essays from them–utterly fascinating stuff. I fantasize about having time to just read read read…would sure love to be able to devour all of it.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Erynn Erynn

          I'd read it! Here's to hoping. :D

    • http://www.wiccanweb.ca Makarios

      You raise an interesting issue with your reference to free markets. Many of the people, religious and otherwise, who reject concern for the earth as "Paganism" are, themselves, worshippers of the free markets (falsely so called, in my view). For practical purposes, the market stands in a place equivalent to their God, and woe betide any heretics or blasphemers.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

      "Environmentalism is turning out to be one of those issues . . . . that creates big schisms in the monotheistic faiths . . . . we get the more liberal ones working on finding ways to use their traditions to tackle new issues, and the fundies on the other side saying it's all a bunch of evil goddess-worshipping (and hence Satanic) nonsense."

      The Uberfundies have gotten tried of playing unfair, and are moving into "let's just rewrite the rules our way" mode. The Conservative Bible Project is just the Dominionists' means to have something heavier to beat the Stewardshippers over the head with. Whatcha wanna bet it "removes the ambiguity" on those verses to reflect "nature's fallen state"?

      • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

        Enough! There have been so many references to the so-called Conservative Bible Project by liberal bloggers that you might almost think the thing has legs. In reality, it is a sub-page/project of an allegedly conservative (possibly merely paranoid) wiki that appears to be the product of a very small number of participants. As in, possibly only five. (I counted the number of users I could trace via a talk page. Some of them, however, seem to be basically inactive.)

        There's no need to exaggerate the unhealthy linkages between right wing politics and fundamentalist Christianity. Let's stick to what's real and really significant in our critiques, OK?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

          "Enough . . . . . . . Let's stick to what's real and really significant in our critiques, OK? "

          Sorry, not feeling the need to be called down today. If you are the arbiter of what is and isn't relevant, and therefore disallow that pointing out that not all Christians follow Dominionist mentality, or that the nutcase elements are having to resort to corrupting their own holy text to back up such thinking (which is alienating many of their conservative fellows) has any worthwhile bearing, I suggest you choose between 1) not reading my post 2) having it deleted 3) cramming it.

          • Becca

            Who do you think you are? It was pointed out before, quite rightely, that you are a know nothing nobody, and you are speaking in this way to someone who is a figure in the community? Ms. Bishop's blog is in the recommended list. Are you there? No? Suprise suprise. From someone who calls himself after a vermin that eats the dead.____I have been reading on here for some time, and this is a problem needs to be adressed in the pagan community. This is the problem with our unity and our ability to be taken seriously. There are too many know nothing nobodys who feel they should speak when they should be quiet and learn from there betters. This site has had many good discussions in the past over these controversal issues we have now, only to be dragged down by uneducated people. Other sites have the same thing. Your input is not wanted, be quiet and learn from your elders.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/thewildhunt Jason Pitzl-Waters

            I want everyone to take a step back, breathe deeply, and re-think name-calling in general. Let's pretend we're all in the same room instead of the Internet.

            Becca, I highly doubt Cat would appreciate you calling people "a know nothing nobody" in her defence.

            Let's derail this discussion before it goes someplace nasty, OK?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

            (checks to see if I might have switched genders while I wasn't paying attention) Nope, boobs and a tendency toward asking for directions still present. I suggest you fire your admin staff; their data gathering is abysmal.

            I'm exactly who I should be, and as I said before, that would be someone who would much, much rather be a nobody than be (in)famous for the wrong reasons, or somebody who spends too much time thinking about being a Somebody.

            Yep, opossums are scavengers. It's called recycling what other people throw away, and it's kept my head above water. If you keep them, maybe your staff could look that up for you. I hear it may be a popular trend in the future.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cara.schulz Cara Schulz

    I love Joe Soucheray – I listen to his show – Garage Logic – every time I'm in the Twin Cities. His schtick is to be a somewhat (but he's not very good at being grumpy) grumpy old man, and every day kind of dude, that hangs out in the garage and believes every problem could be solved from there. His show is funny, full of common sense, and I love his battle with the "Mysterians" and his "ruling" and how people Hail him as the Flashlight King.

    What you may not know about Soucheray, or perhaps you do, is when the Pagan community was mobilized to fight for Vets getting the Pentacle approved by the VA – Joe Soucheray commented on his show that we needed to have better PR because our image sucked (paraphrase). He made a few jokes and poked fun (not mean, he's not a mean guy) but he was right and peopla around here took it to heart.

    Pagans in the Twin Cities and surrounding area banded together and created UMPA – The Upper Midwest pagan Alliance. That group has been very well organized and public. Lots of good stuff coming from them. http://www.umpaganalliance.com/

    In fact – on Dec 25th they are doing their Meals On Broomsticks again. They regularly clean up the highway and have sign up about that – and the paper did an article about that. When i move to the twin Cities I hope to be more involved with their projects.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cara.schulz Cara Schulz

    As a person who is involved professionally in the Environmental matters, I do interact with people who profess to be atheists and yet treat environmentalism as a religion. These are the people you both appreciate and dread.

    You appreciate how passionate they are, you appreciate how they are willing to give of their time and money. But you dread how dogmatically they treat environmentalism and how angry they react to perceived heresy – even when it comes from a respected "expert" they previously admired. Most scientists say over and over that our knowledge of this is ever changing and you can't allow things to be set in stone. Most people understand that and can roll with that. But for those who treat this science as a religion to be worshiped – change and new knowledge that conflicts with their beliefs is a threat.

    I watched a beloved and mild-mannered speaker get yelled at when he suggested that – as of now in our area – it was better to either compost paper or to put it into a paper bag and throw it in a landfill (where it could compost there) than it was to recycle it. The level of venom directed at him took him by surprise and he was shaken by that. But you see…he was speaking heresy. Correct or incorrect didn't matter to them. And that's what makes these people a total pain in the ass to deal with.

    So it isn't Pagans who treat environmentalism as a religion (although many Pagans are in the environmental movements) it is (in my experience) more often than not atheists who do so.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      Perhaps these nutters could explain just how composting isn't a type of recycling?

      And isn't the animal rights movement basically when you get down to it, animal worship?

      What can I say? Never trust someone's whose name when translated from the original Scottish is New Church? Coincidence?, I think not.

      Speaking of Ms. Newkirk, just what is it about Nazis and their fascination with making things out of human skin?

      Sorry, but I just couldn't resist. It was just too good not to use. ;-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/cara.schulz Cara Schulz

        *laughs* That was some funny!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sari0009 KarenAScofield

      Ah, they were treating it like an orthodoxy (correct belief, often rigid) instead orthopraxy (correct action, fluid but anchored), the latter which allows for multidisciplined approaches — constant cooperative examination, reality checks, updating, and excellent informative debate. Many Pagan religions, like many academic pursuits, are more orthopraxic and are less given to religionism.

      Old models of behavior and thought die hard. Religionism, scientism and atheism are often populated by the same mistakes and behavioral patterns underneath the surface. Like dualism, either the speaker was 100% correct in their eyes or he was loudly treated with contempt.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sari0009 KarenAScofield

    If they think international environmental concern equals Gaia religion then they really wouldn't want to go to youtube, find user "homeproject" and watch their video "Home." It even comes in different languages, if you want to find them, and they have a fanstastic websites, mentioned in homeproject's youtube profile.

    It's humbling to watch the video, I think. Humbling, mind opening, paradigm busting and moving.

  • Cole Gillette

    Given the world’s politically rightist organizations’ unconscionably dismissive and intellectually dishonest positions regarding issues fundamental to modern Pagan–and human–life, (environmental protection, human rights, land use rights, religious liberty, et cetera) it always strikes me as baffling in the extreme when certain Pagans proclaim their membership in and support for right-wing political parties simply on account of their belief in free-market-Ueber-Alles economics.

    Antifreeze may taste sweet to some people, but drinking it on account of its taste without regard for its poisonous composition is no less an act of suicidal stupidity.

    • http://www.facebook.com/cara.schulz Cara Schulz

      Perhaps it is because you don't understand what their position on many of those issues actually are? If all you hear is the extreme element of any group, it would be flattering. Even less flattering is how the side opposite that then exaggerates those extreme views and represents them as what the mainstream in the group thinks.

      I think if more people took the time to actually listen to one another instead of just point the finger and cry, "us good, them bad" we would find that we have much more in common than we are lead (or allow ourselves) to believe.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      My experience and that of others, with the individuals you refer to, is that they haven't really given up the Christian mindset and have confused Christian values as somehow being Pagan ones.

      We have developed a slang term for them, H-I-C.

      That's Heathens Indistinguishable from Christians.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cara.schulz Cara Schulz

    should have been "it wouldn't be flattering."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      You're a intense debate member, you should be able to go back and edit your posts.

    • http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/ Cat C-B

      Agreed. (And I am FAR from conservative in my politics!)

      Rhetorically demonizing those with whom we disagree only makes it harder for people to take us seriously. And it is a failing I see on both right and left to caricature their opponents; whether the rhetoric mischaracterizes health care reform as "Obamacare" and death panels, or accuses typical conservatives of literally rewriting the Bible to support more right-wing politics, all that kind of argument does is promote raised voices.

    • Paul

      Never heard a truer word spoken! I am an avowed libertarian and a Pagan; needless to say I find myself in the minority in most Pagan circles. The strengh of our community rests in healthy debate and disscussion amonst ALL of our members.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AlexPendragon AlexPendragon

    I would like to think that all the "awareness" I seem to witness here in the end makes some sort of difference, but as an avid observer of the human condition, I have come to the unarguable conclusion that between lemmings and humans, the former seems to possess a more solid sense of self-preservation. So much for sentience; we are screwed.

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    12,000 years ago, global warming caused a sudden ice age called the Younger Dryas. I can assure you that the Paleoindians in North America and the Paleolithic peoples elsewhere in the world weren't causing that global warming. Global Warming is a natural process, caused by a multitude of natural factors.

    The question becomes: are our emissions quickening the process, making it worse? I'd say yes, they were. But even if we went to zero emissions tomorrow, the warming process would not cease. By all estimates, we're overdue for the next climate catastrophe. People don't understand that we are not "out" of an ice age right now, but in the middle of one, and we happen to be living in a brief warming period (an interstadial) in the center of it. The earth's weather and climate is not stable, or even necessarily very hospitable. The mighty earth herself moves through cycles of population expansion and then sudden mass extinction, not slow decline, as our fossil record happily demonstrates.

    People fixate on things too much, to the exclusion of other factors that could be considered more important. Population is the real problem, not warming or cooling. Population is naturally controlled by food supply. We have screwed ourselves- and possibly the rest of the world- by creating an enormous food supply, through unrestrained agriculture. All of the other evils we deplore- like factories and pollution- are only made possible by enormous populations. To create the food we need, we have wrecked entire ecosystems, destroyed zillions of square miles of forest land, driven countless non-human animal populations to extinction, and endangered tons more. Destroying forests of any kind contributes to climate change that we deplore, but that's just one factor (again, among many.)

    We don't produce food at levels to maintain the populations we have. We produce more than we need, and thus, populations grow. When Nebraska produces tons of excess crop, it isn't stored; it's sold to markets worldwide that need it, and populations in other places grow. These troubles we have with starvation worldwide are caused by our excess of food, not a lack of it. All of the cultural boundaries we have seen destroyed, peoples displaced, languages lost, traditional arts and literatures lost, all of it is caused by excess population moving. The consumption of the earth's resources speeding up to catastrophe is a function of overpopulation.

    Frack global warming. We have more pressing issues, I think. "Global warming" is a legitimate issue, I would think, but really, it's become too political, too many political faddists have made their living on it, and it's been over-emphasized for a dozen reasons that have nothing to do with helping out the poor endangered humans.

  • Cole Gillette

    Disagreement is not necessarily the result of misunderstanding. In this instance, my disagreement with some of the most commonly encountered assertions of the political right has varied directly with my study and understanding of the issues and positions at hand.

    Naturally, you’re as entitled to your opinion as I am mine, Cara, but if you’re claiming that the shamelessly misinformed, frighteningly vitriolic and frequently creedist rhetoric highlighted in Jason’s post and links are the views of a minority of American rightists and Republicans, and not rather the views of the majority, I am inclined to wonder how much contact with ideological rightists you’ve had, how many popular right-leaning editorialists and program hosts you’ve read and listened to, and how many speeches by mainstream Republican politicians you’ve payed attention to.

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      I don't think Jason's posts are "shamelessly misinformed." He presents other perspectives, and there are many perspectives. His perspectives, these perspectives, our perspectives, have been silent and invisible for too long. Truth in our world is not a matter of "peeling back layers" until the "ultimate truth is found"- it is a matter of many peoples experiencing common realities and having dialogue about them, exploring them with language and cross-pollenizing them with different points of view. "Truth" has always been this way. It's never been simple or easy. We humans lack the power to remove bias and flawed judgments from our experience of, or accounting for, "what's really going on."

      Who has the "real and true" information by which we judge who is "informed" and who is "misinformed" is not quite as clear, I think, as you'd like to make out. I would venture again to say that there is no "golden information" out there from which to make these judgments. To assume that one particular source out there has the unbiased, perfectly reported truth, and that people can be broken down into "those misinformed fools" on wide side and the "solid dogs" on the other, is a perilously dualistic and simplistic way to view information exchange and discovery in our world.

      I assume you are a very conservative person yourself. You talk a good talk about letting Cara be as "entitled to her opinion" as you are to yours. But clearly, her entitlement doesn't spare her from your vitriol, nor your typical conservative over-simplification of matters that are really complex by nature.

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      Oh, and by "conservative", I don't mean republican. I just mean people who apologize for right-wing views by trying to present the view that right-wingers "aren't all as bad" as those evil "extremist right wingers" that get all the press. That's a fairy tale and an apologetic tactic, I think.

      • Jake

        What?

    • Calla

      I'm a Conservative. I know people from all over the political spectrum and consider them to be good, sane, and thoughtful people.

      What I am sick of is all the hatred directed at people who have views that are different from the ones you (plural, general) hold, all the while proclaiming how kind, open, tolerant, and loving you are – unlike the evil bastards you disagree with.

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    And this quote:

    "The final point of the Pope is dedicated to challenging those notions of man’s relationship with the environment that lead to “absolutizing nature ” or “considering it more important than the human person”, as it eliminates the “ontological” difference between the human person and other living beings”. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings."

    It is precisely THIS attitude- that humans are naturally distinctive, superior, and ontologically different and greater than other creatures, that is the root of our ecological disasters today. When we cannot see other living creatures- plant or animal- in terms of sacred dignity equal to our own, we think nothing of exterminating them and utilizing resources in a wasteful way.

    Why the surge in populations? What was the dream behind agriculture that gave excess foods that allowed populations to swell to bloated, obscene numbers? The simple idea that "more humans = better". To make more humans, at any cost, is just the most holy activity that unwise humans can imagine. Revealed religionists are even more explicit about it; their invented god says "be fruitful and multiply- cover the earth with your progeny, as numerous as stars in the sky…" blah blah blah. The demonic force that inspired those sorts of statements and scriptures is laughing its ass off right now from the otherworld, as humans wreck and poison everything.

    Maybe once, more humans meant more protection, more dominance over an area, etc. Later, more humans was more tribute; more boots for your army; more workers for your factory, which always comes back to more money and power. Now, it's just a critical mass that we can't back out of. The pope's wicked doctrines are based on fundamentally distorted and mutilated truths about humans and their place in this world.

    And these same people hate homosexuals?? Shite! What we need is MORE homosexuals, I'd say! Less chance of them helping the overpopulation problem!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      Have to disagree with you on this a little bit.

      The idea of human superiority is valid. But the Dominionist conclusion that follows it, is not. These things that you mention doesn't or shouldn't give us the right of domination. It does however give us the responsibility safeguard because we have the capacity to know or conclude what our action's results will be.

      Their concept places us in the position of apex predator when we need to be in the position of caretaker or stewart.

      On another site I'm involved with, they're complaining about Hollywood celebrities doing a PSA opposing the culling of wolves in Alaska by aircraft.

      The argument is it's not hunting it's management. That it's the most efficient way to do so and that ground hunting would not bring the needed results. The problem they argue is that the wolves are over predating the feed stocks and will do so until there is no food left.

      It's funny how they get so upset when they see the same behavior of humans in other predators. It's sad that can't recognize it in themselves.

      Robin Artisson wrote:

      "It is precisely THIS attitude- that humans are naturally distinctive, superior, and ontologically different and greater than other creatures, that is the root of our ecological disasters today. When we cannot see other living creatures- plant or animal- in terms of sacred dignity equal to our own, we think nothing of exterminating them and utilizing resources in a wasteful way."

      • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

        Wolf ecology is hardly a good example to use; we have screwed them over to the point that it will take more than mere re-introduction to re-establish that population, if we ever can.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

          We can co-exist quite nicely with most of the prey animals. Mule deer used to come down from the mountains and winter the quad of the dorms when I was in school out in Utah in the mid eighties. Deer never really get the hang of watching and waiting for traffic before crossing the road though.

          The problem is we don't co-exist well with the high level predators. Livestock and pets are far easier for them to catch than their native prey. We have enough problem co-existing with them when it happens naturally. I don't think reintroducing wolves back into the lower forty eight is a particularly good idea.

          The point I was making with my post was that the people see the need to manage overexploitation by animal predators but fail to see the reality that we're frequently guilty of the same behavior.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crystal7431 Crystal7431

      I have to agree with you 100% Robin. In fact I was thinking of this false paradigm this morning on my way to work, along with the effects of over farming. That's two now. Where's my third moment of synchronicity?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

      Humans may not be ontologically different from other animals but are unique, or one of a small set, in having as much information in our central nervous system as in our DNA. And modern humans stand out from humans of earlier times by having a like amount of information accessible from print and electronic storage.

      This leads to our true uniqueness — we have an ability to understand the environment and our effect upon it, possessed by no other animal or earlier human. From this arises a responsibility to preserve and protect.

      Baruch Dreamstalker

      • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

        I think you (and the Loki gentleman above) are being a touch nearsighted in your appraisal of humans and animals. You assume that only we have the ability to understand the environment and our effect upon it, but this, I would say, is a massively huge and quite unsupportable assumption.

        We can't say what earlier humans understood. We can't say what animals understand. We can only infer things in our particular way, pursuant to our particular way of seeing, based on remains left behind, or based on what we read into animal behavior and activity. That's not reality; that's reality filtered through us. It's no surprise that when we compare these things to ourselves, we downplay them. They don't compute based on what WE do, and for US, difference apparently implies lack, not just difference. We're narrow-thinking in what we will understand or relate to meaning. If someone isn't doing a crossword puzzle with us, we immediately drop them into the "below us" category.

        Why do different forms of intelligence, different modes of awareness, have to be put on a vertical scale? Why not a horizontal one?

        Earlier humans may have understood fully well things about the environment and their role in it, but were simply not able to leave behind the same sorts of technological and cultural evidence of their understanding- or, perhaps, they chose not to. Perhaps there was no necessity for them to. Animals may understand it in ways that we humans can't fathom- there are profound mental and spiritual differences between us. But non-human animals may have no need to reflect their understanding, or they may reflect that understanding in ways that seem meaningless to us. But that would be due to our limitations, not theirs.

        Don't be so quick to assume that the modern human mind and ability to communicate is "evidence" that we are so superior. It's just one way that a living being "can be". Living beings can be many ways. Just because other people don't build skyscrapers like we do, or write algebra textbooks like we did, doesn't mean that they were vacant and unaware. Just because animals don't make the same sorts of noises that we do, or don't have the same cute little thumbs that we do, doesn't mean that they don't have reaches of awareness that we lack. Alan Watts had a very funny statement to make about potatoes in his book "Still the Mind"- and how they could be more intelligent than humans. Check it out.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

          Robin, please note that my sole distinction between us and early humans is the amount of information we have in artificial form. Certainly early humans understood they environment; their religious response thereto is our inspiration.

          And please note also I am not arrogating today's humans to a superior position, I'm saying our gifts give us a responsibility.

          Baruch Dreamstalker

          • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

            Yes, on this were are certainly agreed- our gifts do give us a responsibility. An extreme one. And I'm not denying that differences exist- I just choose to see them horizontally as opposed to vertically, if you get my drift. Perhaps humans are the only "rational" creatures out there- but I hate to even discuss that. Whatever is going on, humans ARE rational, and that gives us important duties. If other creatures have amazing reaches of any sort of awareness or consciousness that we just can't see for ourselves, they are bound by natural law to express those things in their own way, even if it's an unseen way to us. It doesn't at all change the human duty to be the sorts of beings we are, and to be those beings well.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Baruch Baruch

            I would never claim that we are the only rational animal. For one thing, I share space with a cat.

            BD

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    And when I said that I didn't think that Jason's posts were shamelessly misinformed, I meant "the sources he quotes" aren't. They aren't misinformed, they are just presenting perspectives that we find to be pains in the ass, perspectives based on conservative and religious claptrap.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/thewildhunt Jason Pitzl-Waters

    I think you are mis-reading Cole's comment. He isn't accusing me of being misinformed. He's talking about the folks "highlighted in Jason's post and links". Just FYI.

  • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

    Yeah, I tried to explain that, but I didn't do a good job!

  • Cole Gillette

    Robin;

    I feel no ill-will for Cara, despite my criticism of aspects of her post. If that criticism was construed by anyone here as an ad hominem attack, I sincerely apologize, as that was not my intention. Rather, I was attempting to express that her assertion (that I was exaggerating the right’s anti-Pagan rhetoric and its denial of a robust scientific consensus around climate change, and that these behaviors in fact represent something outside the mainstream of right-wing opinion) was, frankly, somewhat laughable to an observer who has payed a significant amount of attention to the right’s behavior.

    I resent being accused of “typical conservative over-simplification”, as I am neither politically conservative, nor inclined to think that most problems and their solutions are simple rather than complicated. For that matter, while certain politicians may have convinced some of us otherwise, I don’t even believe that conservatives are more prone to “over-simplification” of matters than anyone else.

    My own political leanings aren’t germane to a factual discussion of modern science’s understanding of climate change mechanics, or of the recorded accusations of “paganism” leveled against environmentalists. However, because you have speculated as to my political orientation, I will offer that I tend to agree most with the libertarian socialist philosophy expounded by Bakunin and Chomsky.

    I stand by my earlier statement. Politicians, pundits, and others with little or no scientific training and education who falsely characterize the findings of modern climate science as anything less than a solid consensus around documented and independently varifiable phenomena are, in point of fact, misinformed. (Or dishonest.)

    • http://www.robinartisson.com Robin Artisson

      Yeah, I misunderstood your post. Sorry bout that. Chomsky, huh?

  • Cole Gillette

    Whether or not climate change occurs at the rapid pace currently predicted by science, and regardless of the degree to which humans contribute to the problem, environmentalism is at once a more believable religion and a “God” more worthy of unquestioning adoration than the system called (in best of Orwellian tradition) the “free market”.

    The hypotheses of environmental and climate science are frequently validated, and are often determined in retrospect to have been too conservative–not scary enough. On the other hand, the failed experiment we call the market system keeps billions of human beings in crushing poverty, billions more in lifelong wage-slavery, subjects hundreds of millions yearly to death and privation, destroys democratic goverments in the process of expanding plutonomy, results in irresponsible overpopulation, and squanders the very resources necessary for the continued habitation of Earth by the human species.

  • Pitch313

    Frankly, I have never been able to figure out why environmentalism becomes "dangerous" because it links up with religious or spiritual themes. And particularly because environmentalism links up with religious or spiritual themes that strike some critics as "pagan."

    But then I am a lifelong Pagan and a lifelong environmentalist.. My zealous Nature worship has no doubt blinded me to the copious benefits of the relentless pursuit of industrial resource exploitation and the ongoing accumulation of pollutants of all sorts. And my dedication to the Earth as a holistic system utterly fails to accept the assured miracles of technology to sustain any and all resources that humans require.

    What's more, I find myself baffled by the critic's demand that nobody should ever wear silly costumes.

  • Cole Gillette

    To what, Lokisgodhi, were you referring when you referenced Nazism? I’m thoroughly confused.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

      Ingrid Newkirk has testified in her will that she wishes upon her death for 'her skin to be removed and made into leather products such as purses' and 'her feet to be removed and made into umbrella stands and other such objects'. She also stipulates that other body parts be used for similar uses.

      I compared this to the actions of Ilse Koch, wife of Karl Koch, the commandant of the concentration camps Buchenwald and Majdanek. She was accused of selecting prisoners with interesting tattoos to be killed so that their skins could be made into lampshades for her home.

  • Cole Gillette

    Agreed, Snoozepossum.

    There’s a difference between unethical exaggeration and calling something what it is, regardless of how unpleasant that may be.

    This “Conservative Bible Project” and the few people responsible may be irrelevant in the scheme of Dominionist politics and theology, but the impulse that underlies their behavior most certainly is not.

    The “Project” may or may not be insignificant. But no-one here has any right to determine the significance of your critique.

    Intense disagreement is one thing; suggesting that others shouldn’t post about certain topics is another.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nope Snoozepossum

      "This "Conservative Bible Project" and the few people responsible may be irrelevant in the scheme of Dominionist politics and theology, but the impulse that underlies their behavior most certainly is not."

      And that's what I find noteworthy about it – whether the thing is going ahead or not, the idea has caught the imagination of the Uberfundies here, who are not even remotely typical conservatives. The typical conservatives, and even some who would be considered far right hardliners, are stepping back from these people, as the Assembly of God did with the Third Wave movement, and saying "whoa, waitaminnit, you people are way over the line".

      I believe that's a point for the environment. People I know who have preached for years that environmentalism was un-Christian, based on the premise that nature is fallen along with man, are balking at the idea of fiddling with Biblical text in order to "clarify the Lord's meaning", and it's making some of them rethink whether that whole interpretation might be questionable. That hopefully spells more people willing to allow for Stewardship instead of insisting on Dominion.

      As a sort of extreme comparison, it's like some of the stupid racist crap over Obama being elected. A lot of people here are violently opposed to having a black man in the White House, over race as opposed to politics, and want him removed yesterday. But many of them think people like Steven Anderson and the serious psalm 109ers are too much, and would rather settle for defeat if that were the only way to win.

      I'd love a mile, but I'll take that inch, thank you.

  • Cole Gillette

    Very well said, Robin. We humans are arguably in a position of uniquely great responsibility because of our capacity to have profound and lasting effects on Earth’s ecosystem, and to understand or even foresee these effects. But are we superior to all other life? Hardly, I think. Personally I feel that there is much we stand to learn by observing our animal cousins and patterning certain behaviors and systems of our own upon those that have proven over the course of hundreds of millions of years to be successful. But maybe I’m just crazy.

    PS- No worries at all! The Internet seems be as effective a facilitator of misunderstandings as it is a promoter of understanding. That probably has something to do with the lack of body language and complex vocal tone signals between posters.

    I enjoy Chomsky not only because I tend to agree with him, but also because his work is so painstakingly cited. As established and often widely recognized facts are the basis of his arguments, he’s one of the more difficult contemporary philosophers to disagree with.

  • Pingback: "A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes. " - Baldur Magazine

  • Pingback: The Wild Hunt » A Few Quick Pop-Culture Notes

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Lokisgodhi Lokisgodhi

    Only the official National-Socialist translation with the forward by Joseph Goebbels. ;-)