Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 19, 2025, 13:09 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are pressing for more concern. I am not. […]

dhw: You accept all the arguments, but you care less about the future of humanity than I do. I’ll take that as a compliment.

DAVID: For wasted effort.

There is no “effort” involved, as this is simply a discussion of priorities. You downgrade the importance of protecting future generations, although you agree that something must be done.

DAVID: Using wind and sun are very expensive and are not adequate solutions. Hydrogen is a dangerous substitute since it is so volatile a gas, but it offers a way to reduce carbon related sources.

dhw: You clearly share my view that we need to find viable and, of course, efficient alternatives. You just don’t care as much.

DAVID: Yes.

That is the nub of the matter. Instead of focusing on exaggerations, distortions and false alarms, you accept that there is very real damage being done by current practices, and alternatives must be found in order to prevent further damage. I don’t know why you reject the suggestion that the changes should take place as quickly as pragmatically possible, except of course that you and I won’t be around to see the consequences of delay, and you don’t care as much as I do about the wellbeing of future generations.