Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, January 24, 2025, 11:50 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: Theology

DAVID: I can only accept what God does.

dhw: Stop kidding yourself: you only “accept” your theory that your God messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his sole purpose (us plus food).

DAVID: That is the theology I accept.

That is the theology you have invented. And you can find no logic in it, other than by ridiculing your God for being so illogical with his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of fulfilling the one and only purpose you allow him to have.

God and evolution: weaverbirds

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

dhw: 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.: […] Do you yourself feel a need for weaverbirds’ nests?

DAVID: That area of the Earth does.

dhw: And God said: “I’m gonna give all birds the brains to design their own nests, but there’s places in Africa where humans need knotty nests that nobody but me can build. An’ if I don’t build ‘em, them thar humans ain’t gonna survive.” I don’t buy it.

DAVID: I do, but not your inventive distortion.

So please tell us in your own words why you think your God had to design the weaverbird’s nest in order to design Africans and their food, whereas he was quite happy to enable other birds to do their own designing.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Where logging companies work in North America, they replant.

dhw: So do you condemn them for panicking, or could it be that they have realized what you do not realize? That everyone should be doing the same thing! But you will be happy to watch the Amazon Rain Forest shrink and shrink.

DAVID: Only the Brazilians can take action!!! While you panic.

Why can you never answer a straightforward question? Of course only the different countries can take the necessary actions to stop the damage. (Hence the Paris Agreement.) So who do you think is right: your North Americans, who replant, or your Brazilians, who continue to practise deforestation (although they have slightly reduced the amount)?

dhw: If something is harmful, remove it as quickly as possible. Do you think your NA loggers are in the wrong?

DAVID: They are replanting! What is your problem??

The fact that other loggers in other countries are not replanting. Who do you support? Your NA loggers or those who do not replant?

There is no need for me to repeat the two opposing views on climate change, as the point is clear. Different experts have different views. David quoted a retired sea captain and a climatologist who are sceptical, and I quoted the United Nations experts.

DAVID: You pick your experts, I have mine. The UN has become a cesspool of third world countries trying to make the UN into a source of endless money. Like the previous League it is a monstrous stretch of leftist idealism that doesn't work.

Almost every country (including USA and Britain) endorsed the Paris Agreement, having accepted the view of countless experts that climate change is a threat to the health and safety of our planet. They would probably argue that Trump’s withdrawal is motivated, not by his mastery of the science but by his desire not to spend dollars on helping poorer countries meet the requirements of the agreement, and not to endanger major elements of the USA’s economy. (“Drill, baby, drill!”). Your hatred of the UN does not mean that every American, European, Asian, African and Oceanian expert who believes in the dangers of climate change is an idiot, an ignoramus, or a tool being manipulated by the poorer countries. Let me repeat my own view, though: NOBODY knows exactly what will happen or when if we continue to use our current methods and materials. But current pollution and poisoning is real, and it makes sense to restore the balance of nature as quickly as practically possible, rather than as slowly as possible. Of course not overnight….but we should intensify research into new methods and materials rather than extending the use of those that are causing the damage. Your NA loggers are setting a good example.