Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 03, 2025, 18:26 (3 hours, 24 minutes ago) @ dhw

Balance of Nature: Theology

God and evolution

DAVID: I told you above He did it indirectly: our brain gave us the ability to create all those attributes on our own.

dhw; Your omniscient God, who created all things, now knows nothing about love etc., and has to mimic us humans. Daft! Once more: if your God has these attributes (you believe that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours), how can he be “not human in any way”?

As all-knowing He knows all of our human attributes and may use them in His own way, while not being human in any way.

Balance of Nature: human

dhw: Rejecting the panic should not mean ignoring the current realities listed above, and your country is actively encouraging continuation of these practices by wrecking all hope of international cooperation.

DAVID: The USA record of carbon control is very good. Why bother with Paris if the giants, India and China, ignore all the rules?

dhw: I’m delighted to see that you now fully acknowledge the need for change, and are condemning India and China for flouting the rules. The answer to your question is that the necessary changes cannot take place without international cooperation. Your president is currently threatening to create economic chaos with his tariffs. Similar tactics might work if the international community united in imposing massive penalties on India and China if they did not abide by the rules. There is no hope of change if USA sets the example of non-cooperative self-interest. You've acknowledged the problem. What is your solution?

There is none if nations won't cooperate. Work with cooperative ones in a loose alliance.

Climate discussion at a psychological level

QUOTE: “There is no evidence, none whatsoever, that climate change is disrupting the food supply or causing hunger or malnutrition in Latin America."

DAVID: I have agreed with you to proceed with a pragmatic pace which cannot be speedy as so many social and economic factors must be considered.

dhw: Once more: a) concern over current practices does not = panic; b) I am the one who has called for a balance between avoiding environmental disaster and avoiding social and economic disaster. Hence my view that the changes must be made “as quickly as pragmatically possible”. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Yes. You have softened your speedy approach.

DAVID: The rush to electrify automobiles and trucks has already been shown to create more CO2 than less. Hydrogen is a dangerous solution but may be possible. We cannot get rid of the energy requirement of our civilization and electricity, in the main. must be generated.

dhw:I agree. Hence the need for a balanced approach, as I keep repeating and as you keep agreeing. Maybe you'll write that letter to Trump after all!

No.