The Workermonkey

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Johhny Boy 

# posted by Brancibeer @ 9/13/2005 11:46:00 AM

I wanted to comment on that Michael C. article. I enjoyed reading it and it made me think. Well first...
"Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion."
Hey thanks! What do I owe for such a compliment?

"Why do I say it's a religion (environmentalism)?.....You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious."
Well, what he says makes sense, but i don’t think it is truly accurate. The word "religion" has a different meaning than what he's claiming. That word has a history of meaning. A meaning that is burned into all of our brains and behavior. I do have beliefs that give meaning to my life and that shapes my world- but it I still do not feel it is religious. Believing in good, morals, and a better world is not religious. It’s down right decency and common sense. Yes, we all have to live by something, some kind of standard and I can see why and how he relates the two. But there is simply more to it than this simple analogy.

Then he goes on to talk about how harsh nature is and how people don't understand it. Ya ya, good good, he goes way off point though... Then he talks about his little trip to Karakorum:

" Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly."

Now I bolded that last sentence because that's what I wanted to point out. "A little slip could be deadly". Is not the human race a simple trekker on the planet Earth? Should be not tread lightly and carefully? Or should we wait for disasters to strike first (i.e. Katrina) then spread the blame and regret around? "...the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed." That's right Mike, we are not certain about how best to proceed. So why take away the caution? Why not just trudge across that 3 foot river without a rope? Conservation Biology is a tricky field. There are no true facts or answers. We have to make the best informed decisions of what we have and what we believe to be. We need that safety rope.

And on a side note:
"over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere."
Gee! Why don’t you examine the facts on this one Mike! Is there a reason for an unexpected change in fertility rates? Is it because there is an unnatural amount of toxins in our bodies that is screwing up our hormones? Why have men's sperm count decreased by OVER 60% over the last 60 years? Isit because of the religious environmental scare tactics?

Overall I found this speech very self contradicting. He advocates caution while seeking to eliminate the caution. He calls for a change in environmental policy that is based on hard science, in a field where you will never have hard science (before it is too late). Basically he says alot without really saying much at all. He tries to stick to his "environmental religiousness" point but falls short of making any kind of genuine analogy. But I liked entertaining many of his thoughts nonetheless.

5 comments

Amen

By  Damon, at Tuesday, September 13, 2005 3:43:00 PM  

oh you know i've got something to say about this one. wait til later.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:53:00 PM  

heyyyyyy matt's alive!

By  josh, at Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:32:00 PM  

ok, fertility rates aren't really dropping because people are still having as many kids as they ever did. the population is still growing and this trend isn't expected to change for almost 50 years. whats happening is that there is a widening gap between where these people are being born and in which social class they belong. rich smart people are having less children then stupid poor people. The idiots of this world are simply out breading us almost 2:1. Look at the population booms in india and africa. China had to limit reproductive rights to stop thier own crazy upward spiral.

but china has already surpased us in a lot of stuff. we have a Joint Review coming up at work and there has been an inspector appointed to the review team. i was talking with my insurance inspector and he said this guy looks like he's from china. i said that sounded odd but apparently what the chineese have been doing is sending people over to take jobs like this and then pull them back and start thier own version of a ASME code. they work in the USA for a while and then bring back any and every system we have. sounds nuts again but its happened a few times. and i won't go into the history of chinese steel in this country, no room.

the analogy to religion is silly. because i believe oranges are orange doesn't make it my religion. facts are facts, if you belive them you don't belong to the religion of truth. This need to have some sort of higher authority tell you what to do is a little unsetteling. why can't you just think for yourself? or use the experiences of millions of other people to derive proper corses of action when confronted with a problem, or to prevent a problem. those who ignor history are doomed to repeat it.

on the crossing of the river, why cross the river when you could just dam it up, divert the water across a field and then rasie the temp. of the area by pumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere. thats even safer right? thats the approach we've taken so far.

By  Supreme Monkey Overlord, at Thursday, September 15, 2005 4:55:00 PM  

Yeah, I'm pretty sure none of our evidence has been concretized. Even the catastrophists will concede that the Earth has its cyclical temperature fluctuations. Because of that, our causal relationships between data and effect get muddled.

By  DJ Booze Piñata, at Friday, September 16, 2005 5:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment