The Workermonkey

Sunday, May 08, 2005

an unprecedented defense of religion, and why we should screw the environment 

# posted by josh @ 5/08/2005 02:25:00 PM

PART I - RELIGION

to say it's either science or religion is a horrible false dichotomy. yes, many republicans use faith to justify their stances (hell, our airport security plan is completely a "faith based initiative"). but so does al qaeda use faith to justify their actions against the US. but as many (i would hope) have realized, al qaeda is just wrong. they misinterpret islam. so, while i often have bad things to say about religion, i also think it should be noted that no one ever questions whether these guys are getting it right or not. don't get me wrong, delay is an unethical bastard, frist is a moron, and i dont know how zell miller is a democrat, even in georgia. but most of my problems with religion stem directly from the church, or statements released therefrom. or i disagree with the policy of using faith to make these decisions which affect everyone, including those with different beliefs. but in this latter case, there is a huge distinction b/w attacking this policy, and attacking religion itself.

religion does not necessarily oppose scientific thought and growth. the reason it seems so, is because the only issues that make the news are those in controversy. stem cells, abortion, etc. no one gives a fuck when everyone agrees, because its not news. don't get me wrong, i'm not endorsing any particular religion, nor even religion itself, but i do think that sometimes we oppose it too vehemently without contemplating why or if it's really religion that is the problem. in some cases, yes, there is direct opposition. but not always.

i'm not convinced that religious people refuse to listen to logic or logical debate. they just feel their faith outweighs it. and while i think that is just ridiculously stupid, that is their belief and part of what is great about our country is that they are free to hold these beliefs. if someone thinks being gay is wrong, fine, but KEEP IT TO YOUR FUCKING SELF. i dont want to hear about it, gay people dont want to hear about, no one wants to hear about it. if you cant keep it inside, then move to the south and redneck it up. but stay the fuck away from me. beliefs are fine, trying to use them to influence others is not.

PART II - ENVIRONMENT

i think johnny is a welcome addition to the blog for me, not because i'm republican (which i'm not), but because i feel i am not as liberal as many of you.

no one is arguing we should destroy the environment (despite the title of this post). but i think john makes some good points, that at least need to be considered. yes, the environment should be preserved to the extent that is feasible, but i think many pro-environmental theories are too optimistic, because, as john urges, they do not consider philosophy.

i'm mainly speakign of human nature. to what end does all our technology and progress aim? sustaining life? maybe. how about making life easier. how soon we lose sight of acham's razor. the simplist solution is often the best. humans live based on this philosophy. we want to find the easiest way to get thru the things we need to do. the reason these renewable energy resources arent catching on as well is because humans are lazy. why make all this effort and change when i can easily do what i've been doing. and sure, long term consequences will be worse and eventually we'll have to change. but the world is ever changing and more faced paced than ever. people simply dont see the big picture. they deal in the present, not the future. this is why many are unwilling to make a committment to change. it would mean a lot of work now even if the consequences would be better in the future.

another thing is that while we could change to unlimited resources, many people who resist change have made their whole life's work based on the other resources (please do not mistake this for sympathy to oil companies). and why arent the renewable resources being utilized correctly? because it would take too much work to replant trees. why look to the future when if i go cut down more trees somewhere else now i can make more money? greed is not only one of the seven deadly sins, but it's also a staple of human nature. we all want to survive, and we have blurred the line between survival excess.

finally, another theme of humans (and if you dont buy this one then you've been under a rock) is avoidance of personal responsibility. one of hte most refreshing things i've seen in a long time was dr phil (who annoys me to no end) on larry king, talkign about pat o'brien. phil said he admired o'brien because he admitted his problem and took responsibility. holy shit! i thought that was unheard of these days. when's the last time anyone publicly took responsibility for anything that mattered? ummmmmmmmmm. the o'brien story is nice, but that only matters to his overcoming his problem, and anyone he's victimized because of it. but when do people take responsibility anymore?

they dont.

oh i have add, adhd, depression, anxiety, its not my fault i was drunk, etc. stop being a fucking pussy and accept responsibility. remember life before add and adhd ruled the world? i do. it was almost alright. and as long as people can get away with not taking responsibility, they never will.


goddamn that felt great.

3 comments

josh, i was feeling ya up until dr. phil/pat o'brien. pat o'brien was told, do this special or you lose your job and we black mail you to the rest of hollywood. CBS used it's own resident "psycologist" dr. phil (who holds a doctorite in history and not psycology) to creat a prime time special exploiting pat's low point for prime time ratings during sweeps week. and yes, i saw the dailyshow point out that john stossels follow up "expose'" was on bottled water, haven't seen that before.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Sunday, May 08, 2005 10:59:00 PM  

business is about one thing and one thing only: making money. it doesn't matter what the situation is, if it comes down to making more money or not making more money, a corporation will always choose making more money, reguardless of the impact upon the average person. if it's cheaper to dump toxic waste rather then clean it up responsibly, any corporation will choose to pay the fines and continue dumping.

this indiviualism/personal responsibility arguement is a huge load of crap by the right. if my choice is dump toxic waste, or lose my job, what do you think most minimum wage earning illeagle immigrants are going to choose? the reality behind many of these arguments are lost on people trying to persuade the ignorant. i just worked for a couple republicans who swore against illegal imigrants, but employed at least three of them (there were a few we couldn't prove were illegals). there is no responsibility umong corporations. its all about the bottom line.

liberalism does not preach that people can't run thier own lives, john you're reading too many right wing books, its trying to hold people accountable for thier actions, the pinnicle of personal responsibility. we're not asking for the government to fight all our battles, just to hold people responsible for thier actions, to be the check to a corporations unweilding desire for more money, to eliminate things such as off-shore tax shelters, giant tax cuts for the rich, the unchecked destruction of our environment, a return to common sense and the end of poor people demanding the end to the estate tax that doesn't affect them. when a man who ruins the lives of thousands of people gets 6 months probation, and a person who sells a bag of pot on the corner get 7 years, there is something wrong with the system. it's an end to hipocrisy that is sought.

when people put thier own concerns before the "public good" there is chaos. there would be no military, those people fighting your war in the middle east aren't there because they want private tax accounts for social security, they are fighting foir the greatere good of the american people. they are fighting so that WE can be free and live our lives as we see fit. they are putting the greater good in front of thier own lives and sacrificing what they have for the betterment of hte rest of us. that is not individualism, that is selflessness. when everyone is only looking out for number one, or individualism, no one gains anything.

no one is nice to you anywhere unless they want something from you. salesmen aren't trying to sell you thier product because its the best one out there, they're selling it because they can't feed thier family if they don't. thier livelyhood is dependant on selling you whatever piece of crap the company is selling. they have no personal attachment to the product. thats why its called a "product". it could be batteries or porno, cars or bubble gum. if they can make you think you need it then they profit. reguardless of anyones wellbeing.

there is no such thing as a profitable charity. there is no money in helping people.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Monday, May 09, 2005 1:34:00 AM  

I guess you could say that even the altruist is out to get something - fullfilment of oneself and the easement of conscience. The reward just isn't always tangible. I smile cuz I like being liked.

*gets clocked*

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Monday, May 09, 2005 5:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment