Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 15, 2025, 08:49 (19 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The message could hardly be clearer: although we can’t know the extent or the timing of future disasters, we do know the damage which is already being done. It is therefore only common sense that we reduce and ultimately eliminate these dangers as quickly as pragmatically possible. That means finding alternatives to current practices that will not create social and economic havoc.

DAVID: "Social and economic havoc" is a major consideration the green folks try to shove aside. Example: Wind farms are not a solution killing birds on land and fish in the oceans. The numbers are carefully hidden.

Of course it’s a major consideration, and you are agreeing with me that we have to find alternatives that will not create social and economic havoc!

dhw: And that in turn requires money being poured into research. Only when viable alternatives to fossil fuels and current poisonous forms of transport and agriculture can be found will it be possible to make the necessary changes.

DAVID: Exactly.

Again you agree with me.

dhw: The USA, China and Europe should be among the powers that lead the way, and eventually there will have to be cooperation between the ca. 200 nations. Discussions on how big and exactly when are totally unproductive, As regards Trump, I wish he would use his power to focus as much on current global environmental realities and the need for international action as he does on American self-interest. The latter is politically necessary, but should not be at the expense of the former.

DAVID: Become a Trump advisor. Have you noted the public response to the greens? Conservative far right leaning populist governments have appeared.

How does this contradict anything that I have said? You have agreed that current practices involving the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and poisonous methods of transport and agriculture can only lead to an escalation of damage in the future, and therefore we should try to find alternatives as quickly as pragmatically possible, i.e. without causing social and economic havoc. As for being a Trump advisor, would your advice to him be to encourage all countries to pursue their own interests, regardless of the damage their practices may cause to humans and all other occupants of our planet, or would you suggest that he should encourage them to follow America’s example and cut down on such practices?

DAVID: I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.

dhw: You have completely ignored every single argument with which you have previously agreed.
I have summarized the situation above. Please tell us what you disagree with.

DAVID: No longer specifically ignored.

You have simply drawn attention to examples of measures that do not achieve the balance which is required. There is nothing in your response that contradicts anything I have written.