Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, February 10, 2025, 08:49 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

Balance of Nature: Theology

DAVID: he gave us life to handle. Dayenu.

dhw: An atheist might say we have life to handle. What a stroke of luck. And an agnostic might say we have life to handle, and we have no idea how we got it. If they spoke Hebrew, they might add “dayenu”. Where does that get us?

DAVID: We have a gift of life. Dayenu tells us 'it is enough'. Not to question its 'reason'.

I know what it means. And atheists and agnostics can say the same. What is it supposed to prove? We are all agreed that we have the gift of life If that is enough, why are you so keen to prove the existence of God, and to convince yourself and us that we and our food were his one and only goal? I would like to think that you and I and millions of others share a burning desire for knowledge, and even if we can never solve all the mysteries, it is an admirable trait of us humans that we never give up the search.

Balance of Nature: human

DAVID: Study our carbon results! We are a fine example of what to do. We should work on sanctions with other nations, no Paris Accord needed.

dhw: The purpose of the Paris Agreement was to bring all nations together to agree on and implement measures to be taken (which almost all of them did). You are absolutely right: USA should work with other nations, to ensure that the rules are not ignored. Instead, Trump has not only turned his back on other nations, but is even hell-bent on starting a trade war through sanctions that have nothing to do with the environment but are designed solely in order to serve America’s interests. A fine example to set for China and India!

DAVID: The tariff threat got results with no trade war started. Your point "which almost all of them did" is not true. It is like NATO supposed dues, never fully implemented.

dhw: The tariff war has scarcely begun. Europe is waiting in fear and trembling, and China has already announced counter-measures. My initial comment was badly phrased: I meant that nearly all of them (including China, India and USA) had agreed on the necessary measures and had signed up to implement them. I stand by my view that Trump’s withdrawal, on the grounds that America’s economic interests come first, already supports all those countries who are breaking the agreed rules. What hope is there, then, for the cooperation which you yourself have agreed is essential for a balanced approach to the known threats to our environment?

DAVID: Trump's point is the USA will cooperate while not enshrined in a toothless set of papers.

They are toothless because countries like China and India and now America are determined to put national economic and social interests ahead of any other considerations, instead of seeking a balance between these and averting the expansion of current known dangers.

DAVID: See Hossenfelder for an analysis

Her analysis confirms my own fears! I shan’t repeat all the quotes. The final one is enough:

"It’s only a matter of time until they’ll [net-zero plans] be abandoned and no amount of suing by climate activists is going to do anything about this."

dhw: She accepts the reality of climate change, and her prophecy makes it horrifyingly clear that economic interests (plus AI and people’s reluctance to change their habits) will outweigh what you and I and even Musk have agreed are very real threats to our environment. I agree with you that we should ignore the panicky folks. As I keep saying, and you keep agreeing, current known dangers should be enough to make us strive towards a balanced, pragmatic approach to avert their continuation and – as she points out – the probable escalation of those dangers. Sadly, Trump epitomizes those powers which will lead to more and more damage and will help Hossenfelder’s prophecy to come true.

DAVID: Yes, we drill baby drill, while our carbon contributions are falling. It is easy to proclaim, follow us.

I’m delighted that you agree with Musk that “climate change risk is real”, and that you acknowledge the damage being done by current practices, and are in favour of balanced measures to prevent further escalation. We both condemn silly exaggerations aimed at creating panic. We even agree that without international cooperation, the Paris Agreement is toothless, and I expect you too are dismayed by the obvious truths in Hossenfelder’s analysis. In fact our only disagreement here is on the role being played by Trump, who is now playing a central role in ensuring that Hossenfelder’s prophecy will come true.