Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 22, 2025, 09:06 (4 hours, 3 minutes ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: The need to slow the clearing is recognized.

So as far as you are concerned, the clearing should continue, so that the Amazon Rain Forest can disappear in, say, 100 years instead of 50 (I’m just plucking figures out of the air for illustration.) Yesterday you were a little more enlightened: you wanted more trees to be planted.

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.”

dhw: 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: I've presented current bacterial research. How to accelerate it is your demand. It may be as fast as can be done now. More panic from you.

Same again from you. Let’s go on poisoning our environment for the next 100 years. What’s wrong with trying to end the poisoning as quickly as possible?

DAVID: The current speed of research may be enough for the recognized problems.

But the problems are already here, or didn’t you know that forests were dwindling, and that our air, soil and water were being poisoned? Let’s change the context, as an illustration: if you were a smoker, and your doctor told you that this would increase your chances of lung cancer, would you regard it as sensible to go on smoking, or would you think it wise to stop as quickly as possible? (This is a test of your responses – not an attempt to discuss cancer and its causes.)

Theology

Symbiosis

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: God is a concept for all of us. Mine is nothing like yours.

That does not entitle you to claim that yours is a “real God-like figure” and mine is not. Besides, I have fully accepted your own proposal that your God might enjoy creating, be interested in his creations, and want recognition and worship.” But I’m very dubious about your proposal that he is all-knowing and all-powerful, and at the same time messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

God and evolution: weaverbirds

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Weavers are a necessary part of an ecosystem. All ecosystems exist to support humans and their needs.

And according to you all extinct, pre-human ecosystems also existed to support humans and their needs, even though we weren't around at the time. I still wonder why he left all the other birds to do their own designing but specially designed the weaver’s nest in order to support us and our needs. Weird. Do you yourself feel a need for weaverbirds’ nests?