I believe that civilization is evil. Obviously, most people are not going to agree. What moral code does civilization so grievously violate that it can be called evil? You are probably expecting me to talk about slavery, genocide, war and other such horrors, and of course those are all great evils. But as far as I am concerned, that is a much too small and narrow a definition of morality. The scope of our evil is tremendously greater than how we treat each other. In one simple sentence this is how I define morality:
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Aldo Leopold in “Sand County Almanac”
I believe that civilizations every act of destruction and violation of nature is immoral. Our unbelievable atrocities against nature alone are enough to classify civilization as evil, but we do it with such glee and joy that it moves civilization symbolically out of the crime of man-slaughter into the realm of hate crimes. Killing to eat is not immoral because it contributes to the stability and integrity of the community as a whole. A wildfire that naturally burns down a forest is not evil because it contributes to the stability and integrity of the community as a whole Cutting down the huge portions of the Amazon rainforest to save a dime on the cost of food does destroy the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community! Cutting it down without even a thank-you and then not eating it and just throwing it away instead is an obscenity. But cutting it down, then throwing it away while there are millions of people starving to death moves it well out of the realm of stupidity and immorality into pure evil.
Since 1970, over 232,000 square miles of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed.
Leopold made an effort to enlarge and broaden mankind’s understanding of right and wrong by introducing a Land Ethic that governs our actions not only with each other, but with the entire planet. I believe he successfully boils all ethics down to this one, simple sentence:
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”
He defines ethics as the need for a person to fit into a community of interdependent parts. He believes that each of us has a drive for our own selfish ends, but morality dictates that we subdue that drive in order to meet the needs of the whole community. In other words, my life depends on the whole, so I must let go of some of my personal wants and needs so that the whole community survives. He says:
All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for).
He goes on to discuss how morality and ethics have changed over time, he makes the point that in the past we extended our morality to our limited community but refused it to others that are not part of our community. He says that at one time it was perfectly moral and ethical to own, abuse and even kill a slave, but it would have been totally unethical to treat family, friends and fellow countrymen that way. He goes on to say that over the course of time, we saw how limited and wrong that was and we enlarged the community of people who we were obligated to treat ethically to everyone regardless of race, creed, color or social status (obviously we often fail to live up to it, but at least we acknowledge that it’s the moral thing to do).
But he believes that even that ethic was much too limited and the time has come for us to enlarge it again:
“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land…
A land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such.”
Most of you will find that idea ludicrous and shocking. Elevating rocks, rivers, plants and animals to a position of moral and ethical equality to humans is preposterous. But let me ask you a very simple question, can you name one single thing in your life that does not come to you from the earth? Seriously, stop what you are doing right now and look at all the things that surround you, where did they all come from? I would challenge you to find anything that did not come directly from the greater earth community (oil, rocks, soil, water, animals, minerals). You can’t.
That means that we are a part of a total, inter-dependent Earth-Community, and that my well-being depends on the well-being of every other member of the community. If the whole community suffers, I suffer. If it dies, I die. So I have a moral obligation to deny my natural instincts toward filling my own needs and desires in order to maintain the good of the community as a whole.
In the same way that it is immoral for me to steal from you and make you my slave, it is equally immoral for me to do harm to the earth—and for exactly the same reason, to do harm to you is to do harm to me, and to do harm to the earth is to do harm to me.
But, that is still too limited a morality as far as I am concerned. The truth is that just as every human has intrinsic value in him/herself regardless of the value they bring to other people, the earth has intrinsic value in itself regardless of what value it brings to us.
For me to suggest that the world is one giant whole and every part of it is connected and so must be treated ethically, is being substantiated by science every day! There are frequent new experiments and discoveries that lend credence to the truth that everything on the planet is connected and that we are not only formed from interchangeable parts(molecules and atoms), but there may even remain some kind of “spooky” connection between us:
Quantum entanglement is just spooky — even Einstein thought so. As if particles (as in particle physics) have telepathic empathy.
The theory of quantum mechanics predicts that two or more particles can become “entangled” so that even after they are separated in space, when an action is performed on one particle, the other particle responds immediately. Scientists still don’t know how the particles send these instantaneous messages to each other, but somehow, once they are entwined, they retain a fundamental connection.
This bizarre idea riled Einstein so much he called it “spooky action at a distance.” http://www.livescience.com/5499-einsteins-spooky-physics-entangled.html
An artistic representation of two entangled pairs of trapped ions. The mist between the two mechanical oscillators is used to represent the entanglement. Credit: John Jost and Jason Amini – http://www.livescience.com/5499-einsteins-spooky-physics-entangled.html
…proved that this kind of everyday springy motion is entangle-able, and blurred the boundary between the quantum world and the regular macroscopic world we live in, where normal objects don’t behave like that. http://www.livescience.com/5499-einsteins-spooky-physics-entangled.html
We know that every atom and molecule in your body existed in multiple forms before they all came together to form you individually. You have shared your molecules with an incomprehensible number of things going all the way back to the original Big Bang, 14 billion years ago. In fact 93% of the mass in your body is literally stardust!
We can conclude that 93% of the mass in our body is stardust. Just think, long ago someone may have wished upon a star that you are made of. http://physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm
I believe that the entire universe has some sort of a cellular connection and that at some level my actions toward anything has an effect and repercussion on everything else. All we need to do is remember it:
We must remember the chemical connections between our cells and the stars, between the beginning and now. We must remember and reactivate the primal consciousness of oneness between all living things. We must return to that time, in our genetic memory, in our dreams, when we were one species born to live together on Earth as her magic children. Barbara Mor
Many of you will simply reject that as ridiculous and totally woo-woo. But Albert Einstein appeared to put some stock in the idea that every organic and inorganic thing in the universe is connected and actually One and therefore humans have a moral obligation to expand their moral community from just his close circle of friends and include them all:
“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” ~Albert Einstein
I urge each of you to join Einstein and I on the task of widening our circle of compassion and morality to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty–Not as Conquerors, But as Equals.
Surprize! This time, in general, I will agree with you. One doesn’t need science or long diatribes to “prove” this interconnection. No “deep thinking” required, just look around! This is kinda like stepping out into the rain, then saying, “Gee! It’s wet!” Please please please don’t let anyone say “Wow! I never thought of that.”
Anna, if we agree then I must be wrong! I’ll take down the blog right now! Just kidding!!!
It may seem obvious to you and me, but I think we are in the small minority.
Bob
And perhaps that’s the saddest thing of all…
Great post Bob. We as a society ARE a cancer on the planet. I dream of a day when society collapses and those of us who survive will revert to the simplistic and ecologically sound ways of life of the indigenous people in that area. Imagine if we all lived the way that the native americans lived.
[Assuming this is not intended as sarcasm] The Native Americans were not a single group, but several hundred. They did not have perfect lives or enhanced awareness. We can learn from them, but they never managed to make the kind of mess that “advanced” cultures have achieved.
Calvin, I know Cyrus well enough to know that it was not sarcasm, that he is a sincere seeker after a new and better way of life. You may want to follow his blog, I enjoy it.
Of course you are right, we don’t want to romanticize the hunter-gatherer way of life, like you said, it was far from perfect! But it was sustainable and I am confident that it was infinitely more happy and satisfying than ours. The proof is in the pudding–I don’t believe any indigenous peoples ever willingly adapted civilization. They saw it and universally rejected it as far inferior to their life. So we just slaughtered them instead and stole their land.
Bob
Cyrus, you better be careful about letting people hear you talk that way! otherwise someone will be at your door trying to burn you a a stake!
Bob
“Imagine if we all lived the way that the native Americans lived.”
Estimates of the pre-Columbian population of what today constitutes the U.S. vary significantly, ranging from 1 million to 18 million. (per Wiki)
The current estimate of the US population is over 316,000,000!!
Imagine 316,000,000 hunters and gatherers competing for food. I suspect that in less then a year there would be nothing edible left in North America.
I’ll grant we have raped the environment but given the incredible world population,7,099,000,000+, what else could you really expect?
The cause of the problems we’re discussing is overpopulation.
Here is an interesting article.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/causes-of-overpopulation.html
Yet another:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-environmental-issues-today.html
Ed, couldn’t agree more. I recently read a comment that the Renaissance was made possible by the black plaque. Prior to the plaque the population level was not sustainable based on the technology of the time. After the plaque fewer people allowed for a more comfortable lifestyle and more time to engage and explore other things.
I can’t see any way that our global population will get under control short of external factors, plaque, asteroid, etc. Religions have a vested interest in our producing as many converts as possible and can you imagine trying to curtail peoples “right” to replicate. Of course, we may very well bring about our own demise.
As an example, animal farming is a very inefficient use of the land but do you forsee a movement towards a plant based diet? Neither do I.
Humans won’t make significant changes unless they are backed into a corner. That day might possibly be coming.
Not that it matters, but I would say that the cause of overpopulation is civilization.
Exactly true LaVonne! Overpopulation may the final straw that brings down the house of cards, but it isn’t the root problem. When we stopped being hunter-gatherers and started with domestication, we abandoned and went to war with nature. That led to cities and cities led to civilization and civilization led to overpopulation. Ultimately, leaving nature was the problem and Overpopulation just the final nail in the coffin.
Bob
I share your view of the connectedness of everything and the moral and ethical results of that. I particularly agree on the wrongness of waste.
Unlike Anna, I believe most people never thought of that. People in general do as little deep thinking as they can, at least as I perceive them. They occupy themselves with living lives as near as possible to their parents’ or other role models’ and they do not question the underlying values.
Bob, I will admit that I had not been aware of the physics aspect of this, or had forgotten. My awareness of the interconnected universe comes to me from spiritual seeking. The awareness in itself came with relative ease, but the willingness to seek such things resulted from absolute desperation, not from my natural inclination. I am aware that many others, perhaps millions, have found similar desperation but do not know how many of them have found this particular awareness. Also, I know that people in some other cultures gain this through their religious or cultural backgrounds. That still leaves plenty who can ignore the connections.
I think perhaps this would have gone well as the opening to the series. It gives a background to your prior posting. Also, you will probably upset less people with the more abstract quality of these ideas. People will let others philosophize, but when you point out the specific ways they contribute to the problems many of them go to that self-righteous anger as a defense.
I agree with you Calvin the great majority rejected my argument outright. The big three religions, Christianity, Muslim and Judism are built on the concept that the when Adam and Eve sinned the earth and everything in it became corrupt, sinful and is fallen. It must be hated rejected and subdued. Jesus had to die to redeem us from our fallen state. The righteous are only pilgrims hear, enduring it until they return to heaven. 500 years ago this post would have resulted in me being burned at the stake by the righteous ones.
Then there are many who will give mental ascent to these ideas, but it won’t make any difference in their lives, just an interesting concept.
Hopefully a few will take it to heart and actually incorporate it into their lives in some way. Just like you were at some point in your life, some people come to my blog in a moment of need and transition, that leaves them open to new ideas and ways. I hope this improved their lives in some way.
Bob
Your interpretation of Genesis that the earth and everything in it became corrupt, sinful and fallen, and so must be hated and rejected is not supported by the wording. God “cursed the earth” only to the extent that man would now have to work hard for sustenance rather than having everything fall easily to hand. Subdue it? Yes. It’s there. One might say that having a garden plot, fashioning a dwelling and protecting them is subduing. Razing and emptying everything, not so much. That’s some people’s nature. Not sure why you’d define that as biblical, or present the “veil of tears” outlook from plagues and ruthless Mongol invasions as defining the Christian faith. That was people’s reaction to unrelenting misery. When North America finally reaps what it has sown, those horrific times will seem like the good old days, and the hope of anything better will be gone, by choice.
Would your beliefs get you burned at the stake by “the righteous ones”? Definitely not. It’s the self-righteous ones that will get you. Jews, Muslims and Christians alike were burned at the stake in Europe by one group. You, being here in the Great Southwest, might have unceremoniously met the sword or dogs in times past, if you didn’t fold when confronted by them. But hey, weren’t those Christians doing it? As you’ve said, your faith in anything is defined by your walk, not your waving banner or decibel level. If I beat you up and stole your money in the name of Gandhi, would you assign that wrong to Gandhi? Probably not, because if you were aware of his teachings, you’d see through the sham. You’d recognize me as a lying thief and bully merely trying to gain power and escape accountability, most likely. Unless maybe you felt Gandhi died owing you money.
The relevance Garden of Eden story is an explanation of why people would adopt agriculture rather than continue as hunter-gatherers whose living is given to them. Basically, “because God said so.” In order to perform agriculture, Nature must be controlled and turned to human purposes rather than enjoyed and respected.
Calvin, you are right. Agriculture and then civilizations popped up all over the globe at about the same time, and without any exceptions religions came with it. In 100% of the cases, the religions were for the sole purpose of controlling the population. Of course if you ask a Christian, he will tell you his was the exception and is the only true one, all the others were just for demonic control. If you ask a Hindu, he will tell you the same.
Hard to know which one is right.
Bob
Doug I really hesitated before I sent this reply. Most Christians are going to be very offended. And most most Christians are very good people who I honestly do not want to offend. Offending and hurting people is rarely acceptable and should be done only after serious consideration and only with a very clear and compelling necessity to do it. But I decided to send it anyway for this reason:
Christianity has done so much to cause the destruction of the earth and it needs to be made plainly aware of it and very clearly acknowledge it’s part. Then, it needs to change and adopt a theology that embraces and protects the earth. Of course I don’t think that it should promote the earth to equal status with humans, that is asking too much. But I think it would be very reasonable to claim that God does not HATE the physical earth, but also does NOT want us his people to Destroy it in his name.
I am going to have to disagree about the earth being corrupt. It’s my understanding that it has been fundamental Christian theology for a very long. T0day, after 2000 years of hating the earth, they can see the error of their ways and are back-pedaling, but the NT is pretty clear:
Rom 8;18-23 clearly has 2 subjects, the sons of god and the earth (all of creation) and it’s pretty clear that the earth is in bondage to corruption
2 peter 3:6-11 tells us very plainly that the result of the earths corruption is that it must be destroyed by fire.
Rev 21 makes it clear that there will be a New Heaven and Earth because the old one is gone. Obviously destroyed by fire because it is inherently evil.
Throughout the NT the “Flesh” is continually hated and reviled. So the question is does that mean the literal Flesh or the symbolic flesh? The backpeddlers today say it was only symbolic and the physical Flesh is not inherently evil. But that deosn’t explain why asceticism has been such a main part of Christian Theology. The truly righteous abhor and abstain from the physical flesh. The really holy punish the flesh (self-flagelation). Why? The flesh is evil and must be punished.
Why have Christians for the last 2000 years hated sex and the human body? Because it’s evil. Again, the stupidity of that is so obvious that today the theologians are distancing themselves from it, but that doesn’t make it less historically accurate. Historically, Christianity has taught that the the natural world (including human flesh) is evil and corrupt and to be hated.
About the Righteous burning the witches/pagans/Me at the stake. The OT very specifically instructs them to, so of course the righteous people would have done it. Besides they are all saved by Faith and not by works, so no amount of good works can save them, and no amount of evil works can unsave them.
Gandhi never told people to do evil, so I would know they were lying if someone did it in his name. But the OT very clearly orders genocide, slavery and murder. So when a Christian does those things, I am not surprised. I am surprised when he does not do them!
Bob
Bob, there is no offense from anyone who has suffered the disappointments you have, and who has earnestly and thoughtfully pursued a belief system that works for him/her. Had I been in your shoes, I seriously doubt I would be as far along. Honest. The motivation for my comment was not to defend Christian theology – which I am not qualified nor interested in doing – but to point out that God is not limited to the labels and dogma ascribed to him by man. You’d probably be mildly horrified by the extent to which I agree with you. For better or worse, my own faith is not theologically-based. It is experiential, which is admittedly a very risky and hazardous way to go. Yet I am not in the least a spiritually-inclined person. Still, as a result, I am utterly convinced of God’s basic nature, which is quite different than what you get from skimming through the Old Testament. I understand where you’re coming from. That difference just can’t be explained or justified in a blog comment since, let’s face it, this is a comment, not an opportunity to write something the length of War and Peace.
As for Romans, “…because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.” (RSV) This reflects its “demoted” state from Eden, which is not what God had originally intended for it. It did not sin, and it is not sinful. It is “corrupt” only to the extent that is is not what it was to have remained. To infer that man should treat it with scorn is simply not there. If anything, there is in the whole passage an impatient joy in creation’s coming restoration.
Second Peter is just as you say, “…but by the same word the heavens and the earth have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of ungodly men.” When the Discovery Channel says that the earth will one day be consumed with fire from an expanding sun, we accept it with a resigned shrug. When an unseen intelligence pronounces the same end, we get all indignant. What is the only practical way to deal with a meth house, one which the occupants have rendered utterly uninhabitable? Ask any experienced police detective. This plane of existence is not sacred in itself, yet as God’s creation, it deserves respect and stewardship from man. Scripture says to not swear by the Lord, nor by the earth, for that is His footstool. That implies deep respect for it, and that’s just not happening. Just as the meth house did nothing wrong, neither did creation. But the earth will become an uninhabitable mess from our pervasive wrongdoing, and will need to be replaced with something much closer to what Eden was. It’s a do-over.
Rev 21 “…because it was evil” is your own inference and isn’t anywhere in the wording there.
You may be grateful at this point: I’m stopping! Yea! Hope to see you this Winter and, as a follower of Christ, hork your satellite dish. ; )
Doug, when it comes to organized religions that depend on holy writings, it all comes down to what do you take literally and what do you take figuratively. It can’t all be literal or every Christian would have plucked out his eyes and cut off his hands. So what is literal and what is figurative and how do you decide?
I just take it to it’s logical conclusion and if it ends up doing evil, it obviously can’t be literal. History has verified that by showing us that most true fundamentalists end up doing evil (hating gays, killing abortion doctors, owning slaves, burning witches, the list is endless over the course of civilization). It’s pretty close to whatever mainstream theologians decide is literal and figurative, I take just the opposite stance. I just assume 99% of it is figurative and it takes extraordinary proof to make me think it is literal.
If you live by the principles and ideas of the worlds religions you do good, if you live by the details, you do evil.
Bob
History shows that the Earth has it’s own ways.
The climate changes & mankind could pass, we soil our own nest enough and mankind could pass. Mankind has the technology to kill ourselves off, just another way of mankind passing.
Mankind is just another part of the Earth. Dominate species today doesn’t mean we will be tomorrow and there have been others in the past. Just another species in the long line….
People talk as if mankind going extinct will affect the Earth. I suspect it will only matter to us, the Earth abides.
It’s good to have a civilization that allows us the time to think & talk about all these heady thoughts rather than getting ready to survive another winter…
I agree Rob. The way I look at is that in the long march of human evolution there have been many experimental branches that failed. The neanderthals are a classic example. They were good, but not quite right. So Mother Nature pruned their branch and gave us a try.
This experiment has gone terribly, horribly wrong!!!!!! So out comes the pruning shears!
Bob
Haha, the pruning shears haven’t come out yet Bob. I think that humans will find a way of managing to continue onwards – we’re lucky that nature is so forgiving.
greenminimalism, i’m afraid I take very different attitude toward nature, I see no element of forgiveness in it. If something is old or weak it dies. If a forest is old or distressed, it burns down. If the dinosaurs are the wrong branch, along comes an asteroid. If the Earth needs to rest and lie fallow, along comes an ice age.
No, nature is not sparing of the pruning shears. To nature, the 9,000 year experiment with civilization is a blink of an eye and I’m afraid we are an extremely fast-growing and toxic cancer that needs to be cut out.
Can you think of some examples of nature being forgiving because I can’t?
Bob
I really see no offense in what you have said in this blog.
The earth has many cycles from hot to cold. While I don’t think that humans have as huge an effect as some think, I do not think that we have helped. I have done landscaping for years and I prefer not to use pesticides/herbicides. Mainly because I despise the smell. Another reason is that with so many using these chemicals, eventually they lose their potency, especially with animals. Plants even have been known to develop tolerances to chemicals.
I have been a proponent of getting back to an agricultural or hunter gatherer system, or a way of being self sufficient, that way not to depend solely on another for our food supply.
The human race in general has not been a very good steward of the earth. In fact as a species we have been downright horrible. But, we are not as big a deal as some think.
Douglas you might be right. I just know that it is hard for us to see what is going on a global scale because our vision is so limited to our immediate surroundings. The more I have read and studied what is going on around the whole globe the more I come to believe humans really are having an impact much greater than our parochial vision can see.
The U.S. has done a good job with environment in the last 40 years and we have drastically improved most of the really horrible things we were doing. The problem is those were all things we could see and taste and touch and so we have been lulled into complacency about the truly harcore underlying problems. We saw acid rain, smog, land, air and sea pollution so we reacted. But because we can’t see the carbon we are pumping into the air or the rainforest burning or the ocean turning acidic from the rise of carbon in the air or the reefs dying or factory trawlers decimating the fishstock of the ocean or the huge beyond words floating piles of garbage in the ocean we can just pretend they aren’t there.
But closing our eyes and pretending doesn’t stop it from being true. It also won’t stop the consequences of our actions.
Bob
I think almost everyone is going to agree with you on this issue. It’s impossible to believe that destroying any part of our environment is morally right when you live close to nature and see first hand how human greed ruins so much of the natural world. Many areas will never recover. Nature will win in the end but future generations of humans will pay the price with disease, starvation and eventually extinction.
Bob, we never hear this type of thoughtful soul searching from our capitalist,conservative friends and relatives. You might have to change your description of yourself! 😉
Really Karen!? I’m pretty sure I first heard this on Rush Limbough!
Honestly, I’ve been a conservative for so long that all my first reactions are as a conservative. I know it is hard to believe but I am pro-business and pro-profit, Capitalism works!! I also destroys the planet. Thats why I see no short term hope. The medicine that can save us is also going to burn the house down around us. My idea is to just reject the whole mess and let them destroy everything. I’ll try to make smores while it burns.
Bob
Sorry Bob, I have a hard time getting past the “environmental wacko” and “feminazi” labeling by Rush. I guess I missed his concern for the environment and people other than his peer group of rich old white guys. 😀
Karen, but old rich white men are people to! No, I suspect Rush might not buy into my arguments. While I think my arguments are irrefutable, arrogance blinds us to simple truths. Civilization (and thus civilized men) is built on total arrogance.
Bob
Rush, the great bloviater, doesn’t agree. He is a man of large tastes and will say whatever he can think of to maintain his constituency and I am pretty sure that his group have little love for the environment or self examination.
Jim I can’t agree that Rush will say anything to keep his audience. Being a conservative I find myself fundamentally in agreement with Rush on many, if not most things. There is NO doubt in my mind that he has a certain set of core principles that guide all his thoughts. I share that core set of ideas. His audience just happens to have the same core ideas. of course he is an entertainer, so the WAY he says things is 100% pandering to his audience. I have no problem with that.
But you are totally right that he has no love for the environment. So at that point we part company with irreconcilable differences.
Bob
Profit is a good thing, but at what point does profit become greed?
The way I look at it, it happens when you harm someone. Whether by actual direct physical harm or indirect harm.
We may disagree as far as size and scope of harming, but we could agree that greed is bad. Greed is in every area of the world, no matter the form of government. We have seen with the housing “crisis” back in 2006 that has lasted even to now, that greed throughout has done harm to people. The banks gave loans to people that could not afford the house that they were buying, the government backed a lot of those loans (I do not know the figure, and I usually don’t give statistics, because liars figure), the people went in by one reason or another and were able to get a loan for a house that they would not be able to afford in regular circumstances. That is, in a way, harming someone indirectly through greed.
Bob,your quite lucid views on the environment and civiliation are clearly rooted in a deep “conservatism” of the Teddy Roosevelt sort. Unfortunately that has long been replaced in the GOP of today by: “screw the planet and everyone else over and get to the top, and then make damn sure no one tries to steal your stuff.”
“The GOP of 2013 resembles an apocalyptic cult or one of the idelogical parties that dominated Central Europe in the mid 20th century.” That was the assesment of a longtime House and Senate Republican staffer, Mark Lofgren. Google it. The other day on youtube I watched a debate between Ronald Regan and George Bush I in 1980 and was flabbergasted. They sounded like…Democrats, and, they actually talked about…issues. Real honest to good issues, not soundbites. The truth is the only “Conservative” politcal party of today is led by Barak Obama. There is no true left of center or liberal party in the US anymore, and the Republicans have turned into a party of frothing at the mouth Christo-facists. I keep my UK passport polished up and ready to go should I need to flee in the wake of a Christofacist political victory in America.
I look at the Jews in Europe pre WW II and wonder, why didn’t you see it coming? All the signs of the coming malestrom were there. The honest truth is you can’t see the fire until its ontop of you.
I don’t really want to get into the details of politics. I want this blog to be non-political. While I do apply a label to myself I don’t apply them to anyone else and the only position I take a stand on is pro-environment.
So those are the rules of MY blog:
1) No labels or name calling for anyone besides yourself.
2) No discussion of any positions except the environment.
Those rules will probably evolve but that is what they are for now.
Bob
Some of us have always sensed a “spiritual connection” with earth since birth. For us, protecting the environment has been a life long duty because it was preserving who we are as individuals. Three years I lived in Indianapolis and wilted emotionally, spiritually, and physically. The viewing of earth’s degradation no doubt was the greatest cause for the disharmony. Every time someone destroyed the few remaining groves of trees and creeks, or polluted the streams, fields, and woods with chemicals, trash, or a new subdivision, for the sake of progress I’d feel sick. I had a hard time understanding how people could not see or feel the damage.
However, for me, the damaging of “Mother Earth” is the disconnection of people from God. God designed man in his image. Man had specific instruction to care for the earth that He created. Damaging of the earth is a direct disobedience and I feel the further we get from God as a nation, the more damaged the earth in our area becomes and the more “sick” we become as a nation. The more sick we become as a nation, the more damage we do to the earth and the cycle goes on and on.
To say “I hate civilization”, would not be true. I hate the way people treat the earth irresponsibly for personal gain or self gratification. We are all part of civilization, so were the natives. They weren’t perfect either, but most of them had a greater connection to God’s sense of respecting His earth. They practiced and experienced their spirituality as a way of life.
That is were I feel the connection is lost in our current society. When people start worshiping money, possessions, and power, they lose connection with God and His way of life on earth–they lose respect for nature because its no longer important to them.
I don’t hate civilization. I hate that people have lost their spiritual connection with God and thus the earth and I fear that more we become interested in self-serving gratifications, the more damage will be done to the earth.
Its difficult to tolerate those who don’t share that spiritual connection and feel they can come visit natural settings and literally “piss” on the earth and its beauty.
yesican, that is very well said and obviously very heartfelt, thank you!
I read a book on the Navajo once and the first anthropologists who came and lived with them at first thought they had no religion because they couldn’t identify their “religion practices.” Over a period of time they came to realize that their religion was so intertwined in every aspect of their life that it only appeared as if they had no religion. In fact they were totally religious, just not on Sunday.
I believe all true religion is “wordless” and “thoughtless”. It is experienced and lived, not talked about. You and I have tried to talk about it as best we can, but it is obvious that you are actually living it. That is the only thing that counts.
Bob
AWSOME great post !
Bob, Thanks for the thoughtful post. On a different note, there’s a PBS Nova video “Earth From Space” which have detailed satellite images from 20 orbiting satellite that reveal the web of connections that sustain life on Earth. It’s simply an amazing, awesome revelation. It’s two hours long and I watch it twice to absorb it all in. The graphic is beautiful and educational to explain such complex web. I thrive on knowledge and understanding. Trust me that it’s worth the time. Enjoy!
“Earth From Space”
http://video.pbs.org/video/2334144059/
Jenny thanks for the head-up. I’d love to see it but I only get 5 gigs a month and I usually use them all so it isn’t an option. I see it is out on DVD so I may order it. UPDATE! Amazon.com sells it, so I just ordered it.
Bob
I’m with you all the way, Bob.
In one respect I go further; I’m accustomed to “the
look” that I receive when I disclose that I do not eat animals or animal products for health, environmental and cruelty issues of CAFOs. Calvin,I also agree that people don’t want to think deeply, especially when doing so might require making difficult choices. The way we live depends on people willful turning away from actual events and we’ve become very skilled at it.
Thank you both for expressing your thoughts here.
Karen, let’s face it most of us have wonderful lives, why would we want to rock the boat? It’s easy to just close our eyes to the ugliness and go along our merry ways.
It would be much easier for you to keep eating meat, but something in you won’t let you do that.
It would be much easier for me to just talk about batteries, but something in me just won’t let me do that.
Have you considered what your last words will be as the good people are tying you to the stake and lighting the match?
Bob
What shall I say ?
The universe has seen many wonders,
none greater then the ignorance of it’s inhabitants.
Perry Rhodan 2433
232000 square miles of new land.WoW
Let’s go and plant some beans for spilling.
Good plan Rolf. We don’t need no stinkn air to breath when the trees are gone, we’ll just fart more!
Bob
This goes for both sides of this argument. Read what the other side has to say with an OPEN mind. I don’t believe anything Bob is saying on this subject is documentable by independent sources. That is, someone without an axe to grind or a book to sell. There is nothing new here.
Sameer and Yesican, you are commenting to a man who says he doesn’t believe.
Sameer, you have an open invitation to my table anytime. The opportunity to converse with a Sufi would be an honor.
I believe in trying to be positive in one’s outlook on life. Dwell with negativity and unhappiness will find you.
My comments are timed out, and thus not posted. Didn’t know this was a race.
oh boy
Jack London said it best about civilization (aka life) in his “The Sea Wolf” as words spoken by his character, Wolf Larsen: “I believe that life is a mess,” he answered promptly. “It is like yeast, a ferment, a thing that moves and may move for a minute, an hour, a year, or a hundred years, but that in the end will cease to move. The big eat the little that they may continue to move, the strong eat the weak that they may retain their strength. The lucky eat the most and move the longest, that is all.”
jackal, that is one way to look at it. I sure admire Jack London!
Bob
sameer, what a wonderful comment, thank you so much for it. In fact you wrote my whole civilization series in one concise comment–now I don’t have to! BUT, I will anyway! I seem to have verbal diarrea!
Honestly, you really have summarized it all extremely well. I too see the divine in everything so whatever label you may have for yourself means nothing to me. The divine in me, sees the divine in you! You are always welcome in my camp! Literally, stop by any time.
Bob
Bob:
These truths that you espouse are self evident to anybody with common sense. Unfortunately there aren’t many of us left with common sense. As a boy my very conservative parents taught me these things of which you speak not by word, but by example until the day they died just a few years ago.
They also often voted republican, but to them conservative meant “to conserve all things of the earth” for our children and the future generations beyond them.
My parents had a dishwasher, but decided that it wasted too much water, so they used a small bowl that they placed in the sink with hot soapy water, and washed each of their dishes and items of silverware by hand, and dried them with a towel.
They never used fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides, and were always very careful to prevent erosion. As a boy scout, my dad was a leader, and he organized all the events that he organized around conservation projects which he wanted to assist. One was plating 10,000 small trees of various types at a state park, working with the state department of conservation and forestry with their guidance and cooperating with the park management.
Another was to prevent erosion on some local streams, and there were others, including hauling away discarded appliances and materials that were dumped into streams to recycle the metals and materials, and to assist in stocking streams with fish and other naturally occurring wildlife that the conservation department wanted to re-establish nearby.
All parents should be teaching this very important message, and they should be teaching it by example. But unfortunately too many of our citizen parents are teaching the opposite message BY EXAMPLE. I hope your message takes root out there in this world nearly devoid of common sense. Thanks for speaking out and being a leader in this thinking.
Maybe one way that we can gain the friendship and support of the BLS and national forestry management is to volunteer and assist on setting up some projects to help advance the objectives of the local forestry officials, and to let them know that we’re really working toward the same objectives. Conservation and care for the publicly owned lands, and the water and the air.
Regards,
Dan
Dan, I agree totally! It’s up to parents to lead by example and then we might see some serious change in individual behavior.
Unfortunately, parents like yours are few and far between!
Bob
white trash, it is very much like the idea of moving the human race to a different planet once we have made this one uninhabitable for humans. And that statement is very much like “Blacks don’t have souls so we can make them slaves.” We don’t get to decided who or what has a soul so has the same rights that we do.
No, all the inhabitants of this planet have certain inalienable rights regardless of how they might serve me. To disregard the rights of one, is to disregard the rights of all.
Bob
Sameer, enjoyed your post. One quibble or perhaps you intended something else. In my view our “tribal” ways are part of our problem.
We identify with a nation, state, city, school, political party, race, religion so strongly that we don’t see what is common in all of us. If we did, we might act in the best interests for everyone on the planet rather than our narrow tribal interests.
And our tribal mentalities explains part of why there is so much hate.
Of course, to many that kind of talk smacks of “The New World Order”, black helicopters, UN troops at your doorstep.
I like DIY stuff a lot better than this.
CAE, I understand and so it is a minority of the posts. Right now I am doing 3 post a week and only one is philosophical (last week had 2, but that is unusual and not normal).
It’s pretty easy to just not read them, hopefully there will be other things you like.
Bob
I’m the person, or one of them, who mentioned George Carlin. I’m not dull enough to believe we can survive without most of the other species prospering. In fact, the way we live makes other species even more important. Biodiversity is necessary to our own species. The most blindingly obvious current example is that honey bees are in trouble. Honey bees fertilize many human crops. If the honey bees go away, humans starve and go away as well. Many more examples could be presented, but most of us get the idea.
Paid paridice ,,,
paradise,,, had it spelled correctly, don’t know what happened.
This has been a very interesting conversation & set of posts. Although I’m very much in tune with living a simpler life and have a deep awe for nature I don’t necessarily agree that civilization is destructive. I think it can be, especially when first starting out, but I believe as groups become more economically stable they naturally start to take an interest in their environment. It’s a progression which cannot be stopped.
Look at a place like Hong Kong, say, where 20 years ago environmental concerns were not a consideration (at all) whereas now people are starting to take an active interest (I became an active part of this when we were living there a few years back -> mainland China is still far behind of course). It’s just one example of many. For most struggling 3rd world countries survival trumps environment, but as those countries become more economically sound environment naturally becomes a conscious choice -> people want to live in a cleaner place, with better and healthier controls. There will always be people who don’t care, but overall I feel the drive will be in a positive general direction….and WE can contribute to that.
Then again maybe it’s just me. My last boyfriend always told me I was too optimistic and that…one day…my life would come crashing down to reality LOL. I spent enough of my youth in that dark place so I left him and have found someone else who shares my love of life and the belief in a positive future for mankind, despite everything. I sure hope I always feel this way.
Nina
Nina, like you, I consider myself an optimist and find it critically important for my mental and emotional well-being. But as I have researched the global environment, I see no hope for the future.
Fortunately, my goal is to live in the moment, and this moment is perfect just as it is. It can’t be better! I once posted the story of the monk being chased by a tiger through the woods and jumped off a cliff to get away. He grabbed a bush and was dangling on the side of a sheer cliff. he noticed a wild strawberry, plucked it, and ate it. Then he smiled. http://cheaprvlivingblog.com/2013/05/sunday-sermon-gratitude-the-cure-for-the-craving-for-more/
Death is waiting for each of us!! For some it is far away, for some it is close, But we all have the choice of being happy right NOW! In fact, it is the only possible time we can ever be happy!! Future happiness does not, and can not exist. It’s a moment by moment choice, and an optimist can always be happy now even if he is hanging on the side of a cliff looking doom in the face.
Bob
The importance of living in the now is definitely something I can 100% agree on 🙂
Nina
Anyone ever think that maybe feeding everyone, clothing everyone, nursing everyone, housing everyone etc. is a good thing?
You can’t do it without civilization.
Hermits can survive for awhile but the vast majority wouldn’t last a month. Many people, my mother, a diabetic for instance, would barely last a week end. Yes, hate civilization until you need a doctor or a meal and you can’t get out of bed.
Or sit in your van as hordes of young men surround you and burn you alive because no police are available.
When I was a kid you couldn’t walk downtown LA without a mask. We fixed that. The Cuyahuga river outside Cleveland caught on fire one day. Fixed it. The Love canal in Niagara Falls N.Y poisoned the people who lived there. Fixed it.
By the way, I had a stent put in a couple of years ago. This heart attack would have killed me a few years previously but the system you hate was there.
And it will be there for you!
My point is if worshipping nature makes you feel good go for it but hating the system that makes it possible makes no sense other than assuaging your religious convictions.
Civilization is an ongoing process. Like living as a nomad in the 21st century it has it’s own limitations, problems and solutions.
Besides, your stuck with it!!
CIVILIZATION ………..GARY????
HUMANITY IS ALWAYS PLAYING CATCH UP WITH THE MALADIES IT CREATES. AS POPULATION GROW AT AN UN NATURAL RATE PROBLEMS LIKE WATER POLUTION, AIR POLUTION AND NON NUTRITIONAL FOOD CREATE THE VERY HEALTH PROBLEMS MANY PEOPLE HAVE. IT IS AN INVERSLEY PROPORTIONAL SITUATION. IF POPULATIONS ONLY GROW AT A NATURAL SUSTAINABLE RATE I THINK THAT MANY HEALTH AND ENVIORMENTAL PROBLEMS WOULD NOT EXIST. YOU CITE SO MANY EXAMPLES OF POLLUTION, THAT POLLUTION IS CREATED BY OVER POPULATION AND THE STRAIN IT CREATES ECOLOGICALY. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WORSHIPING NATURE RATHER THAN LIVING IN HARMONY WITH IT. THAT IS WHAT I THINK BOB MEANS WHEN HE STATES CIVILIZATION IS EVIL. JUST AN EXAMPLE, TOO MANY PEOPLE IN A GIVIN AREA CREATES WATER AIR POLLUTION, THEN TECHNOLOGIES MUST BE DEVELOPED TO COPE WITH THE POLLUTION. THE POPULATION GROW EVEN MORE BECAUSE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT CORRECT THE POLLUTION CREATED BY THE EVER GROWING POPULATION NUMBERS. LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE, IF POPULATION NUMBERS ONLY GREW TO A LEVEL THAT A NATURAL ENVIORMENT CAN SUSTAIN THE AIR WILL BE CLEAN,THE LAND WILL BE HEALTHY AND THE AIR FIT TO BREATH. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS IN THE CENTRAL UNITED STATES AS FAR AS NATURAL RESOURCES GO, THE OGALALLA AQUIFIER IS RAPIDLY DEPLEATING, IT IS NOT A RENEWABLE WATER SOURCE, IT IS USED HEAVELY FOR LIVE STOCK AND AGRICULTURE. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE FOOD AVAILABILITY IN TH US WHEN THE VERY WATER SOURCE IN THE BREAD BASKET REGION DRIES UP. All CHEAP READILY AVAILABLE FOOD IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE US IS HEADING FOR SOME SERIOUS DIFFICULT TIMES BECAUSE OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS WILL CORRECT THE UNATURAL STRAIN OF OVERPOPULATION THAT TECHNOLOGY CREATES. AND TECHNOLOGIES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FROM THE HARD TIMES AHEAD. I WILL PARA PHRASE A NATIVE AMERICAN ACTIVIST JOHN TRUDELL AFTER HE SAID THAT ” THIS HAS BEEN THE MOST DESTUCTIVE,BLOOD THIRSTY AND BRUTALIZING ERA” AND “IF THIS IS WHAT CIVILIZATION IS, THEN THE GREAT LIE IS THAT CIVILAZTOIN IS GOOD FOR US” AND IT IS A G R E A T LIE!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT DETRIOT,CHIGAGO,LA, CHERNOBYL AND FUKASHIMA THE SHEEP ARE ASLEEP … REAL EYES REALISE REAL LIES!!
ROB C
Rob, very well said and every word is totally true!
Bob
Even the founders of the united states knew that huge cities were bad. I am unsure as to what extent, but they knew. I personally do not worship nature, but the Creator of that nature. Plus, evil men have kept us in debt, both personally and as a nation. I try not to speak much broader than that, because I have not been off of this continent. I have many times thought of leather tramping and surviving off the land. People have been starving all over the world for centuries in varying ways and in varying parts of the world. I think that it is coming soon that those that are unprepared or unable to prepare will have problems.
Yelling does not seem to help the case. It is the words that you use to state your case, not the decibel level in which you state it.