Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 21, 2025, 12:06 (21 hours, 59 minutes ago) @ David Turell

My apologies: I had mistakenly posted my entry under “Erectus”. I’ve corrected the relevant headings.

DAVID: Poisoning air and soil is more alarmist propaganda.

dhw: Does this mean you think we should go on indefinitely cutting down the forests etc.? (We needn’t go into the details of how modern fertilizers, pesticides and other chemical aids are poisoning air, soil and water. Just answer the question, please.)

dhw: The fact that the changes will be difficult does not prove that it is OK to continue present practices. Please answer my question above.

DAVID: I think I did.

dhw: Your answer was that agricultural methods are not poisoning air and soil. You have not told us if you think we should continue to cut down the forests etc.

DAVID: Yes, with good conservation methods, replanting as we cut. Follow the principal of fallowing fields. Gradually finding reasonable substitutes for fresh lumber, etc.

You are beginning to get the message. Meanwhile, approximately a quarter of the Amazon Rain Forest has disappeared. Counter measures have recently been taken, and in the last four years, “only” about 14,000 square miles have been lost. OK to carry on losing?

DAVID: […]. Here is a slow but helpful way to poison the soil [sic!]:]
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/01/250116161230.htm

QUOTES: "A recent study shows that gene-edited bacteria can supply the equivalent of 35 pounds of nitrogen from the air during early corn growth, which may reduce the crop's reliance on nitrogen fertilizer."

"'To replace all synthetic nitrogen would certainly be something. Maybe 100 years from now we will have found the microbes and genetic tweaks to get close to that goal, but these microbes are not there yet.”

Current fertilizers and pesticides are known to poison the soil, air and water, and you reckon you’ve solved the problem through possible solutions 100 years from now. What is wrong with changing as quickly as possible through more replanting of trees and accelerated research into non-toxic fertilizers?

DAVID: You spew alarmist propaganda and my answer is we can go very slow in any possible mitigation.

dhw: Neither of us is an expert in the field, but if you really believe that the current pollution of our waters, deforestation, the burning of fossil fuels and the noxious gases from current forms of transport (and agricultural methods) are harmless, then so be it. If you recognize the damage they are causing even now, would that not be sufficient reason to replace “very slow” with “as fast as possible”?

DAVID: What is wrong with slowly changing?? The apocalypse is not here, while you think it is alarmistically.

What is wrong is that if we go on destroying forests without replanting, and poisoning the soil, air and water with fossil fuels and toxic pesticides and fertilizers, we shall kill off more and more species and cause increasing damage to the health of millions of our fellow humans. Not to mention the chaos that will result from our fellow humans fleeing the areas most affected and seeking refuge elsewhere. Nobody knows if or when we shall reach “apocalypse”, but from every point of view it makes sense to find alternatives as quickly as possible, even though some changes will have to be slower than others for social and economic reasons.

Theology

Symbiosis

DAVID: Agnosticism grudgingly suggests a God might exist.

dhw: You have just agreed that “no one knows!” Agnostics accept that no one knows, and we can see the logic and the non-logic behind the choices made by theists and atheists. In our discussions, I offer various alternative theories, which include God as the designer – the intelligent cell being one of them. There is no “grudgingly”. But you stick to your own illogical theories (e.g. anthropocentric evolution, an all-powerful but inefficient designer, an all-good creator of evil (theodicy), selfless but might want to be worshipped), and you pretend that my alternatives, such as an experimenting God or a God who enjoys creating, or learns as he goes along, are atheistic!

DAVID: You always create a humanized God, never a real God-like figure.
And:
DAVID: A very humanized version.

No more humanized than your inefficient designer and worship-seeker, but in any case, a God with thought patterns and emotions like those with which he has endowed his creations is still a "real" God, so stop pretending that such versions are “grudgingly” theistic.

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: You insist that your God designed the weaverbird’s nest. Do you believe that other birds had the intelligence to design their own nests?

DAVID: Yes, simple dish style.

dhw: Excellent news. You accept that your God must have given most avian cell communities the autonomous intelligence to design their own nests. Any idea why he might have chosen weaverbirds for special tuition during his single-minded quest to design us and our food?

DAVID: Their complex knot styles require deep mechanical understanding of knot designs.

Yes indeed. Isn't nature wonderful? Many thanks for once more agreeing that other avian cell communities have autonomous intelligence. Now please tell us why you think your God gave special knot-making courses to weaverbirds in order to design us humans and our food.