The spiritual responsibility to protect our biosphere.

[RobinFinderson]

This planet is tiny, and the only planet we have ever known that can support the abundance of life that we see all around us. As an atheist, I am reluctant to use words like 'sacred,' but it seem to me that what we have here is so unique in all of the known universe that it seems appropriate to say that we have a 'sacred' duty to protect our biosphere. Yet this seems like such a secondary or tertiary consideration to so many religions. Our species is racing to consume the material bounty of this planet, jeopardizing its biosphere in the process, and all on the gamble that our technological capability to extract more from a diminishing supply of resources will keep place with our growing rate of material consumption. Talk about putting one's faith in the arm of man.

[CardiacCoug]

I think population growth is more of a threat to the planet than pollution (widely defined). Thank goodness the advance of secularism, education, technology, and wealth have been demonstrated to naturally have the end result of zero population growth.

As long as those things continue to spread (secularism, education, etc.), I'm not too worried about the future of the planet.

[tooblue]

I think population growth is more of a threat to the planet than pollution (widely defined). Thank goodness the advance of secularism, education, technology, and wealth have been demonstrated to naturally have the end result of zero population growth.

As long as those things continue to spread (secularism, education, etc.), I'm not too worried about the future of the planet.

Population control is the argument of weak willed egoists who are seduced by the trappings of entitlement. They see education as a means to an end and offer platitudes in praising it as a worthwhile pursuit undermining it's true value as a path to enlightenment.

Technology to this point has only accelerated the rate of earthy decay. It is more the problem than the solution because consumerism is the driving force behind innovation. Furthermore, Secularist ideology is merely religion by a different name and renders society more prone to extremism, irrationality and violence. I want no part of the future you espouse above—it is too volatile and dangerous.

[CardiacCoug]

Population control is the argument of weak willed egoists who are seduced by the trappings of entitlement. They see education as a means to an end and offer platitudes in praising it as a worthwhile pursuit undermining it's true value as a path to enlightenment.

Technology to this point has only accelerated the rate of earthy decay. It is more the problem than the solution because consumerism is the driving force behind innovation. Furthermore, Secularist ideology is merely religion by a different name and renders society more prone to extremism, irrationality and violence. I want no part of the future you espouse above—it is too volatile and dangerous.

Thanks for the response, TB. It seems to me that the religious people of the world (especially those within radical Islam) are more extreme, irrational, violent, volatile, and dangerous than the secular people. And it seems like as cultures and nations have become more secular and educated, they have simultaneously become less violent. But I appreciate your perspective, friend.

[tooblue]

Thanks for the response, TB. It seems to me that the religious people of the world (especially those within radical Islam) are more extreme, irrational, violent, volatile, and dangerous than the secular people. And it seems like as cultures and nations have become more secular and educated, they have simultaneously become less violent. But I appreciate your perspective, friend.

Your view is the commonly held view but, that does not mean it is the correct view. I have recently read: "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William Cavanaugh. He makes some compelling arguments that may alter your perspective. I especially like his argument concerning the faulty notion that religion is not rational.

[RobinFinderson]

[wuapinmon]

Population control is the argument of weak willed egoists who are seduced by the trappings of entitlement. They see education as a means to an end and offer platitudes in praising it as a worthwhile pursuit undermining it's true value as a path to enlightenment.

Technology to this point has only accelerated the rate of earthy decay. It is more the problem than the solution because consumerism is the driving force behind innovation. Furthermore, Secularist ideology is merely religion by a different name and renders society more prone to extremism, irrationality and violence. I want no part of the future you espouse above—it is too volatile and dangerous.

I feel like there's an inner conflict in what you've said and the lacuna of what you've not said. You say that population control is a weak-willed argument, giving me the impression that you think the earth can handle unlimited replenishing, but then you claim that technology "has only accelerated the rate of earth decay" leaving me wondering if you're referring to some inevitable decay that was happening before the Industrial Revolution, or if technology only means recent tech. I'm not really sure I follow your argument, because you seem to argue in favor of population growth while dreading the future it will bring in a consumerism economy.

[wally]

I don't worry about this. If the earth ceases to have "enough and to spare", I believe God will inspire us with space travel technology, so that we might conquer other planets for resources.

[Katy Lied]

Im curious. Say that the most efficient way to save the planet would be to spawn a religion worshipping mother gaia, with post-life punishment and rewards based upon stewardship in this life. Would you establish the religion and save the planet in false belief? Or would you want people to have a rationally derived feeling of stewardship, knowing that earth will die a swift death?

[Jacob]

This planet is tiny, and the only planet we have ever known that can support the abundance of life that we see all around us. As an atheist, I am reluctant to use words like 'sacred,' but it seem to me that what we have here is so unique in all of the known universe that it seems appropriate to say that we have a 'sacred' duty to protect our biosphere. Yet this seems like such a secondary or tertiary consideration to so many religions. Our species is racing to consume the material bounty of this planet, jeopardizing its biosphere in the process, and all on the gamble that our technological capability to extract more from a diminishing supply of resources will keep place with our growing rate of material consumption. Talk about putting one's faith in the arm of man.

You say the planet it tiny, I say it is vast. You say it is unique, I say there are likely many more like it. You say we are consuming all its bounty, I say its bounty will last thousands of years. You say the supply of resources is diminishing, I say we've only begun to discover them.

So while you are hung up on religious "sacred duties," I live happy with the comfort that scientific knowledge provides.

[Green Monstah]

You say the planet it tiny, I say it is vast. You say it is unique, I say there are likely many more like it. You say we are consuming all its bounty, I say its bounty will last thousands of years. You say the supply of resources is diminishing, I say we've only begun to discover them.

So while you are hung up on religious "sacred duties," I live happy with the comfort that scientific knowledge provides.

Don't you just sidestep Robin's question? Even if resources are bountiful and there are infinite planets that sustain life, is there a sacred duty to act as responsible stewards over what we've been given?

Thousands of years? I think that may be Robin's point. You may be right re: resources. We really can't know, can we? Do we sit around and waste simply because we have faith that technology will lead to the discovery of new, merely endless resources?

I'm no environmentalist, but I believe that there is a sacred duty to act responsibly. You probably agree, but your response seemed a little bizzarre to me.

[Jacob]

Don't you just sidestep Robin's question? Even if resources are bountiful and there are infinite planets that sustain life, is there a sacred duty to act as responsible stewards over what we've been given?

Thousands of years? I think that may be Robin's point. You may be right re: resources. We really can't know, can we? Do we sit around and waste simply because we have faith that technology will lead to the discovery of new, merely endless resources?

I'm no environmentalist, but I believe that there is a sacred duty to act responsibly. You probably agree, but your response seemed a little bizzarre to me.

His question is premised on his assumptions that we are quickly depleting the earth's resources. We are not. I disagree with the assumptions, and so I disagree with his conclusion. Sorry. I thought I was being clear.

Is there a "sacred duty" to protect resources that are not in danger of depletion? Certainly not. What a silly idea. Is there a "sacred duty to act responsibly?" I hardly know what you mean. I, of course, think all people should act responsibly. So does everybody else. That wasn't the question.

[Green Monstah]

His question is premised on his assumptions that we are quickly depleting the earth's resources. We are not. I disagree with the assumptions, and so I disagree with his conclusion. Sorry. I thought I was being clear.

Is there a "sacred duty" to protect resources that are not in danger of depletion? Certainly not. What a silly idea. Is there a "sacred duty to act responsibly?" I hardly know what you mean. I, of course, think all people should act responsibly. So does everybody else. That wasn't the question.

You were clear; you just filled your reply with assumptions and faith-based propositions, while ignoring a rather important aspect of LDS doctrine (which surprises me, since you strike me as very LDS), namely, stewardship. Out of curiousity, which resources are so abundant that there is no risk of depletion? You claim that we have thousands of years of resources remaining (I'm not sure you have a basis for that number, but let's assume it's accurate). Based on the actual age of the earth, I'd say that's a rather accelerated schedule for depletion out of resources, don't you? You honestly don't think God wants us to use the resources we've been given carefully? or were you just reverting to a semantic argument because you were really just trying to be clever in your original response?

[Dwight Schr-ute]

As a conservation biologist, I really appreciate this thread. This is a topic that I've struggled to understand for most of my adult life. Given that God made a very clear edict to Adam in Eden that he was responsible for this planet. As members of the church, we have been given a lot of council on how the Earth has been given to us in trust and for our happiness. I don't think that there's much debate over the above as stated.

But there does seem to be a surprising divide on how I interpret the above compared to how the average member of the church interprets the above. My interpretation includes a responsibility on managing the resources of the planet with as much foresight and low impact as possible. Because these resources are finite.

We live in a closed system and even though developments in technology have allowed us to make advances in the efficiencies in which we extract these resources, these advances in no way have created new resources. Let's take for example, our most critical resource: clean water. Less than 1% of all of the water on the planet is considered drinkable. Now 70% of the Earth's water is contaminated by salt and this could change with developments into desalinization, but for the moment, the technology is such that fresh water is the biggest political chess piece in the seven Colorado River states, to name a local example.

As much as the brethren have preached on the importance of living within our means and good budgeting so that we may have "something for a raining day," they've failed miserably on expounding this principle beyond simple currency. Whether it's due to this lack of voice or the general conservative nature among the general membership of the church, but there seems to be a cynicism within the membership when it comes to topics of environmentalism or even science in general. I once had an institute teacher at Utah State profess that the "Telestial Kingdom would be full of liars, thieves and scientists." Which may very well be true, but there will also be a lot of Mormons in the Telestial Kingdom as well.

I don't really know what my point is, except that it seems to me that believers in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ should have an innate appreciation, reverence, and responsibility to the world around them. On a more selfish level, I would love to be able to introduce what I do for a living without instantly being cataloged into the outskirts with the other fringe members of the ward.

[RobinFinderson]

KL, I think the religious basis for environmental stewardship and conservation can be found in the LDS scriptures. It is the will to act that seems missing. So I don't think that inventing new religions is necessary. I also think that both morality and a sense of need to perpetuate our species are built into our DNA. We know what sustains human life -- clean air, clean water, healthy food. We have a clear understanding of what each of those things are, yet we don't make their preservation, on a global scale, a real priority. Calamity has a way of waking up moral consciousness, but I hope that we can figure out how to wake up before calamity strikes.

Now if you are talking about supporting the invention of some new religion as part of a future science fiction utopia, my cryogenically preserved head will be all over that.