Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 15, 2025, 10:29 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

Watts and global warming

DAVID: Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

dhw: I summarized the views Watts expressed: “He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated […] the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.”

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.
Later:
DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

dhw: […] If it is a fair summary of his current views, why are you disputing it?

DAVID: One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: In order to reach your conclusion, have you daily reviewed every website that covers the view that global warming is a fact, and that contributory factors are the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production, and that these practices if continued will lead to more and more catastrophes as we systematically destroy the balance of nature? I might say one website “is quite incomplete”.

DAVID: A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!

dhw: Current agricultural practices are producing vast quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. They are not only contributing to global warming but are also poisoning the very earth that we depend on. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that it is safe for us to continue cutting down the forests, burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, using the same methods of transport and agriculture that we are using today, or do you share Watts’ original view that we need to tackle the problem of climate change in a pragmatic manner through gradual transitions to new technology?

DAVID: Your view of Watts is very incomplete. I agree with the limited quotes as correct but uncomprehensive as to the site's total viewpoints. Yes slow changes when achievable.

If you and he believe that global warming is a fact, then clearly the dispute is over the degree of damage that it is causing/will cause. The “experts” disagree. I can quite believe that there is hype on one side, and understatement on the other, but since you and Watts agree that current practices must change, the only question that matters is how quickly we can find pragmatic solutions to the problems these practices are creating.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Theology

Root controls

DAVID: Tell us our brain appeared by chance mutations!! Think of the odds!

dhw: More repetition: As above, I keep acknowledging the logic of design in relation to all life forms. You keep ignoring the logic of non-design in relation to items such as the 2-billion-year battle between iodine and oxygen, or the billions of stars that come and go for no apparent reason, or the existence of sourceless consciousness (God) while at the same time you insist that consciousness (ours) must have had a source.

DAVID: It did not come from chance.

I keep agreeing! And you keep ignoring all the factors that remain inexplicable and therefore throw doubt (a) on your God’s existence and (b) on all the absurdities that underlie your anthropocentric theory of evolution. See below for a possible alternative to chance as the creator of the brain:

Symbiosis

QUOTE: The results provide insights into how the microbiome can help the host adapt to extreme environmental conditions.

I will add the fact that it was Lynn Margulis who pioneered the vital importance of this process in evolution. She also championed the theory of cellular consciousness. I found the following quote, though I’m sorry I can’t provide an actual link.

The Conscious Cell - MARGULIS - 2001

‘The evolutionary antecedent of the nervous system is “microbial consciousness.” In my description of the origin of the eukaryotic cell via bacterial cell merger, the components fused via symbiogenesis are already “conscious” entities.’

This of course is the basis of Shapiro’s theory of evolution, which proposes cellular intelligence as the driving force through which eventually our human brain evolved. Conscious processes do not occur through chance. But the origin of “the conscious cell” remains an open question. Maybe it was designed by your God. Lynn Margulis was an agnostic.