Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Historical Roots: As described in a section of the article, God made man the dominant creature and provided him with an environment in which he could utilize to live on, therefore I do not see the actions of plowing land to grow food, or digging wells for water an extreme degradation of nature – I would consider it more of “adapting” to the circumstances God gave man to live. Therefore, we are supposed to utilize nature to suit our needs, just like every other creature does to survive. HOWEVER, our present day advancements of technology and science have reached the border line of what could certainly be considered as exploitation. “Formerly man had been part of nature; now he [is] the exploiter of nature.” We have gone beyond providing ourselves with necessities –now we are going for extreme comforts and conveniences. I’m not saying that I’m against having fast-food or department store clothes – but when looking at our “basics of survival,” we could cut back on a lot of things.

Theology, Ethics, And the Environment: From an economical approach, I would have to agree that many of us do not see the environment as something to cherish, when we look at an open field, we see a potential restaurant or business corporation – we see MONEY - not the trees and grass. As stated in the reading: “Citizens vote according to their own economic interests.” And in the business world, that is all that matters - I think we need to stop and smell the roses.

Chapter 27: I think it boils down to the question, “What right does man have in the universe?” Sticking to my previous statement, I think that God created man on the top of the food chain to be dominant over the other creatures in the world. But, I suppose, with every position of leadership, comes responsibility. Sure, God provided us with animals for food (and using them for necessary meat is understandable) but going beyond that line to just treating them inhumanely, is wrong. I firmly agree in the statement that “man should take care of God’s creation(s).” Even if some are slaughtered for food, man should respect them for their sacrifice.

It is unfair and unrealistic to blame Christan Theology for the state of the environment. Lynn goes back to the middle ages and points to the farmers, under the influence of Christianity, as the genesis of our exploitive attitudes. Thing is, subsistence farmers care this much, |-----|, about theology when it comes to trying to feed their families. They are going to use the best methods to get as much from the land as they can. Lynn also points to a medieval icon, St. Francis, as a patron saint of environmentalism, which I think is a good 'religious' face to put on environmentalism.

Barbour also takes Lynn to task for being overly simplistic, but also presents a set of reasons why religious institutions are the only ones able to address environmental needs. I would offer one more, that people don't listen to politicians, or scientists, or economists, but they will listen to their pastor.

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
“Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. And, although man's body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image.” What is this saying? God didn’t make nature for man’s purposes? Man’s survival? If that is true, I do not agree. If people can use the earth to farm, grow food for survival, then it should be done. I find this way more acceptable that building housing on every piece of land man can find.
“To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethos of the West. For nearly 2 millennia Christian missionaries have been chopping down sacred groves, which are idolatrous because they assume spirit in nature.” This quote also got me. Is it saying Christians do not care about nature or the environment? And how is it just Christians? I believe that anyone that thinks trees would be a good resource for survival (or even not survival) will cut down trees.
Theology, ethics and the environment
I enjoyed that part that said that people should stop debating about whether to accept or reject evolution, and instead focus on the common ground of “caring for creation” in order to save our endangered planet. So many may think that it is important to argue evolution because it is one’s belief and affects a lot on how we see life, and maybe it is. But environment-wise, our planet is endangered if we do not start caring more, and everyone should be agreeing on this topic.

I guess all three articles pointed to the difference between "stewardship" and "dominion". If nature was provided to sustain man and man had dominion over everything, well, we’re doing one hell of a job. If we were supposed to be stewards of the land, we’re not doing so well. With this in mind, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Christianity and its defeat of pagan animism (and such) is the sole or even major factor for the exploitation of the Earth. I think a large part is played by economics; White practically spelled this out (though I doubt it was his intention). When talking about the plow, White states that in the Mediterranean the old plow worked fine but in the wet climate of northern Europe, not so much. So the northern Europeans made a super-plow that worked for their soil. The very next paragraph White writes, “Nowhere else in the world did farmers develop any analogous agricultural implement. Is it coincidence that modern technology, with its ruthlessness toward nature, has so largely been produced by descendants of these peasants of northern Europe?” Is it just me, or did he forget that he just said the old plow didn’t work in northern Europe? It’s not because the northern Europeans were predominately Christian, it’s because their soil was different. So they invented something new to help them get their money’s worth. Christianity didn’t mark the new, clear divide between man and nature. I think the general disregard for nature and the environment was inevitable. Christianity’s prevalence over paganism and “Mother Earth” was just a convenient excuse.

I found the White Thesis to be interesting, but I thought it had a naive simplified historical perspective. Theories relating to history are usually this way, but I thought it is way too simplistic to correlate Christianity and the lack of connection to the Earth which leads to ecological problems. This problem of ecological devastation could be linked to so many other factors than Christian theology. What about population growth, the development of science/technology, the drive humans have for being lazy, the fact that humans stopped being nomadic. The blurb about Whites Thesis talked about pagans that lost spiritual rule of the Western world, and Christians got the power and then began destroying the world with their disregard toward mother earth. Seems dicey. This kind of historical thought can sure get you famous but I don’t consider it extremely valuable to mankind. It makes mankind able to point its finger at some scapegoat that deserves a lot of blame but definitely not all of it. The truth is, it is all our fault if you live a certain way. If you use electricity, eat certain foods, drive a car, and do many other things that the entire society does to hurt the earth you are apart of the problem. Things are really messed up and there is one person to blame, it is egotistical to think that you or I are not a part of it. Those people in the Bible belt stereotypically aren’t going to contribute to ecological problems as much as a Dungeon and Dragons playing computer geek Pagan from a big city. The problem is not black and white; there is no good side and there is not bad side.

It is sure interesting to look at how religion is shaped by history. If the Arians did not invade India then the vengeful violent God would not have been adopted changing the nature of Hinduism. If there was not Zoroastrian faith and their colonization of land then Christianity would not be as we know it. If Christians were not kicked out of Jewish temples fifty years after Jesus’ death then there would not be such a rift between the faiths. I thought about these historical influences when I read about the early belief that the Holy Spirit was in all things, that it flowed over the oceans, was in living animals, etc. What if this became the accepted Christian viewpoint at that time, how different would our reality be. It seems like the Church picks and chooses certain ideas from the Bible and over time that idea is either forgotten or narrowed like in the case of the idea of the Holly Ghost. The definition became more specific over time. This idea got me thinking about alternate realities and the other possible ways this world could have turned out.

The main theme throughout these articles seemed to be the fact that anvances are made in this world at the expence of the environment, which i partially agree with. It is natural for humans to better themselves and to use resourses within their reach to do so. Much of this comes at the expense of the nature and the environment, with is sad and unfortunate, but still the way life goes. One of the examples in the first acticle was that of the advancement in machinery (the plow) in which the new moboard plow required eight oxen instead of two. However, I can tell you this example is not accurate. But that aside, it all comes down to the fact that humans can not live on this earth without somehow damaging it. At least not this many humans.
In the second article, it seemed as though the author was blaming the destruction of the earth on Christians. It is true that God made man to rule over the animals and to use the ground, but that in no way, shape, or form can lead to the conclusion that Christianity is to blame for an overused earth. In the bible, God tells man to CARE for the land and the animals. While this may not be everyones first priority, it shows that the standards God set in place had the earth in mind.

Because the articles are so very similar in topic, I have lumped my responses into one. Overall I agree that religious dogma may have *contributed* to the development of human-centric disregard for natural ecology, but the same can be said for a whole range of social, political, technological and economic factors. Using Christianity as the scapegoat is probably somewhat unreasonable. One would also have to group together democracy, capitalism, private property rights, pop bottles, fiction, the invention of the light bulb, and anything else practiced by or used by humans in the last few hundred or thousands of years. Arguably, all these things affect our attitudes of nature, relate to our use of nonrenewable resources, and represent our ways of distancing ourselves from nature and our methods for seeking to ‘figure out’ nature and frame it in our own biased manners.

Are we not just a part of nature, a product of evolution such that anything we do falls within the ‘nature of our nature’? Isn’t it in our nature as a species to behave the way that we do? Eventually, some species somewhere would, through evolution, assume a dominant role within the global ecosystem. However, I think our awareness of our role within the global ecosystem does set us apart from all other species and place on us a greater burden to limit the effects of our natural tendencies on this global ecosystem. At what point do/did our ecosystem modification actions stop being part of our “nature” and start being some abomination to nature, contrary to it in all ways? Overall we do “destroy” (extensively modify) our environment, yet aren’t we constantly improving the length and quality of our lives because of these modifications? It seems like this is one of the great tradeoffs humanity has been faced with, and to blame any group for the results of this tradeoff is unfair. Real change in our attitudes about ecology (which are selfish attitudes) can only come when degradation in ecosystems affects the length or quality of our lives (even this change in attitude will be selfish in nature). Human nature is the reason for environmental degradation, and religious belief seems to be an integral part of human nature—-but that does NOT mean that religion is the reason for environmental degradation!

In all three articles this week the main idea was how should people deal with the environment? There were the different sides in this article from the tree hugger view or how people should not even use the earth. (This I think is going to far, I think that it is alright to farm in order to feed your family. What is so wrong with feeding your family, even if you are farming the ground? If you didn't farm how the earth would be able to feed itself. I mean come on there is so many people now on the earth and agriculture feed most of them.) Now that I got that rant over with, I think that even if the world needs to farm I think that there is a line that people need to be aware of; they should not abuse the earth. Some of the thing that farmers put their land through is going too far, and suck up the nutrients in the ground. Some people take the earth for granted and if things don't change, the earth will be used up and unlivable, way before its time.

“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” by Lynn White

This article, along with the other two articles both touch on the topic of the environment, man, and nature. In this article, it starts out saying, “Ever since man became a numerous species he has affected his environment notably.” I think this statement holds very true. White covers this point quite well throughout the entire article. He goes into further detail starting all the way back in medieval time to present. Today, technology plays a big role in how are environment is changing. Is this change good or bad for the world and everything in it? Every year part of our natural environment disappears to residential or other human use. How can we, as humans, learn to share the environment with other species? If we could learn how, we could decline the rate of disappearance of the natural environment. Further in the article it talks about our ecologic crisis, which is “the product of an emerging, entirely novel, democratic culture”. Can a democratized world survive its own implications? This can become a big issue. In the article it says that we can’t unless we rethink our axioms. Next in the article, it states, “Man and nature are two things, and man is master.” Is man the ultimate master? I believe this is true. God did create man, woman, animals, plants, and everything in this world. But when he created man, Adam, he gave him the duty to name each animal and establish dominance over them. It clearly states in the Bible. Another interesting part in the article was when it stated, “…insisting that when God shaped Adam he was foreshadowing the image of the incarnate Christ, the Second Adam.” When I read this, it sort of caught me by surprise, because I have never really heard of this. Why would God shape Adam as a foreshadowing image of the incarnate Christ, as a second Adam? Lastly the article tries to relate a lot of things to the Christian religion. What role does the Christian religion play with the natural environment? What about other religions? Overall the article shows good examples for all situations.

“Theology, Ethics, and the Environment” by Ian Barbour

Once again, this article touches on how humans and the environment interact with each other. Even though, many of us say we cherish our environment, we can clearly see that we don’t, otherwise more would be done to save it. People do look at our entire world, and either enjoy how it is, or want to build or do something with a certain area that could either be open prairie grass or part of a rainforest. I thought this was an interesting statement in the article that fits well, “…the common assumptions underlying the domination of men over women and the domination of human beings over nature through technology.” This statement definitely says it how it is. Do you not think human beings have the upper authority over nature through technology like men do over women? I thought it was a good comparison. Lastly, the article further touches on how Christian religion affects nature and the environment. How can one religion make such a dramatic impact on the entire world? This article implied that nature is not to be exploited or worshiped, but is to be respected and appreciated for it is the scene of God’s continuing activity. What will happen when God’s continuing activity ends? Will nature all together end? Overall this was a good article, which shows a lot of good points.

Science and Religion: Chapter 27

In this chapter it touches on the Creator of the universe with ecology. It talks about how nature was first attacked by the humans, and how it presently is today. Technology plays a huge role, along with what the needs of human beings have become. In the article it states, “Instead of humanity’s being thought of as part of nature, the human race was seen as having dominion over nature and, thus, as licensed to violate the physical environment.” How did the human race become in charge with everything in the environment? Why was man the chosen one to have this power? Also in the chapter it suggested that Christianity fostered environmental indifference by eradicating pagan animism. How has Christianity done so? Lastly the article states that “…Christian tradition that man should take care of God’s creation.” I think this should be true. If we don’t take care what God has given us, we will no longer live a beautiful world or have great things, because sooner or later it will be destroyed by the wants and needs of our own species.

It seems like most people don’t think about environmental degradation until they take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and consider the historical changes that have taken place. I thought it was interesting how White said “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them.” That is how religion plays a huge underlying role in technology. And even though today’s population is not centered around religion, it certainly was in the past and these early teachings have still been passed on in subtle ways. For instance, what our culture values, what we avoid, what is wrong, what is right. White discussed a number of differences between Eastern and Western cultures. He said, “It is often hard for the historian to judge, when men explain why they are doing what they want to do, whether they are offering real reasons or merely culturally acceptable reasons.” I think there is a lot that can be added to this excerpt, taking into consideration both religion and human nature.

Historical Roots: I believe that things have been changing because of the humans on this earth trying to change everything so that it better acumulates with humans. I can see the world falling apart because we are to selfish to understand nature and the way it works so we will drive it until it finally dies. I like the fact that the west has had all of these great achievments that we can be proud of in our century. I can't believe how much work our country has gone through to get were we are today. It is kind of crazy when you look at it I think at least.

Theology, Ethics, and the Environment: This article also touches on the humans and environment problem. We don't care of our enviornment and we will soon see the results from it. We already are see the results from not taking care of our environment. I just think it is wrong and imoral not to take care of something that was given to us or made for us to live on if someone made it. I can't see how one religion can make such an impact on the world when there are many different reigions out there with different opinions on how the earth was made and how it should be taken care of. I can't see how people would not want to take care of the place that we live.

Chapter 27: In this chapter it touches a little bit on the Creator and how the different effects that we have on the environment. It talks about how we are distroying it just like we have been for thousands of years. Nature has been attaked by humans since the biginning of our time. We have been distroying it and we keep on doing it until this day. Technology has played a big role in the distruction of the environment and the way that people are and how they don't care about the environment and how it is attcked. Are world is slowly getting distroyed by the wants and needs of our society and species.

Blaming religion for people’s attitudes towards the environment seems a little over simplistic to me. People do things for a variety of reasons, many of which supercede religious attitudes. Chief among the motivations for the most widely environmentally impacting practices are issues of cost, profit, and need, which do not have to do a lot with religion. I liked the example in the article that the Livingstone article gave, of some Eastern religions’ relatively healthy approach to the environment not necessarily being reflected in their actual practices. No doubt religion has effects in shaping people’s underlying values about the environment, but there’s plenty more going on than that.

However, I do think that the point about religion being a way of significantly influencing people’s attitudes towards the environment in a responsible direction is a good one. A healthier environment, an emphasis on sustainability in power generation and agriculture, stronger efforts to protect biodiversity and prevent global warming, etc. are in EVERYONE’s best long term interests, regardless of how vague passages in the Bible may possibly be interpreted as leaning towards one attitude or another. We live in a world in which natural resources are being squandered at rates far faster than are sustainable or responsible. I would prefer that people came to the conclusion that being environmentally conscientious is a good thing on their own, because they realized it is a smart, necessary and responsible thing to do. However, if that’s too much to hope for, then people caring about it because their religious leaders urge them do so is far better than nothing.

Historical Roots: First I wanted to mention in regards to White's images of men working the land, that a concept still practiced in the US is the value of land is based on improvements. The government justified the possession of American Indian land because of the idea that they had failed to "improve upon it" or cultivate it (despite the fact that many tribes did!). Land without ownership or improvement was open for the taking, because there was no claim. I think that the long traditions imbedded in the ideas the author discussed are still alive and kicking.

Second, White's point on how the Judeo-Christian religions provide the justification for the "dominion" of the natural world is well founded. I think that is exactly the argumentation used by the Victorians in defense of their technological advancements which were harmful to nature. The problem with this tradtional view is that it is based in error. Properly translated in the ancient tongues (Hebrew and Greek), Adam was not given "dominion" over the land, but STEWARDSHIP. There is an important distinction there. Looks like Jerome made a boo boo when translating it to Latin.... Just think of what the world would be like now if that difference had always been accepted.

Barbour: Regarding the point made that the Church is the way to protect/help the environment cause, I have to say I would find that unlikely to succeed. First, as mentioned above, it frankly goes counter to long religious tradition. Second, the environment is seen as "not as important" to salvation as issues like banning gay marriage, abortion, obscenity and evolution. Sad to say, but I think the Church is not the angle to aim for here. What humanity needs is a MAJOR catastrophe, one that would put Katrina and the Boxing day Tsunami to shame. THAT would make people wake up and smell the coffee and realize that humanity is killing the planet. Otherwise, people just don't care enough on a wide enough scale. The point in the article that capitalism and our Western values have influenced profit over long term consequence is totally valid. People don't think that way. Bob doesn't care if he gets skin cancer at 70 because he didn't use sunscreen and helped to destroy the ozone layer. Bob wants a tan to get the cute ladies and drive fast cars and not worry about electing leaders whose goal it is to help stop gas emissions.

Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
This essay delved into the destruction caused by the advancement of Western science. Throughout the world, Western science has spread and along with it has spread the destruction and chaos to our environment and ecosystems. The Western philosophy towards science and religion is simple, man comes before nature, and because man is first, all his commodities must be accounted for before the lives of animals and lesser beings. I personally believe that technology at the point where it is now has not significantly improved the quality of lives for people, but it has made life easier which can be a mistake. In the old days people would play in the forest with animals, now behavior like that is strictly prohibited. That may come across as a joke, but what I am trying to say is that man has moved away from nature to bring him happiness and has turned to technology, for the most part.

Nature, Human Nature, & God
The chapter credited Western religion with the responsibility for causing damage to our environment on a massive scale. Theories in Western religion are interpreted to mean that we are all created in the image of God, but not all creatures possess that same power, which gives us supremacy over them. This distance that separates us from the animals allows us to behave like demigods without consideration for the welfare of any other species but our own kind. In turn, massive destruction to our environment ensued because we, as people, sought to maximize our situation instead of taking care of the world and its inhabitants. However, I personally do not hold religion accountable for this because I place blame on the economics of the world today. The chapter also credited economics for playing a huge role in the devastation caused by people to the environment. Economics is a deeply rooted materialist tool that keeps the world in its current state without change. The goal of any economy is this, make the most money you can make. By using all our resources we can make more money so the economy will grow, but in doing this millions of animal homeland is destroyed along with the creatures themselves. This push for the economy to reach the sky has misled people into a high consumption lifestyle that clearly will not last forever.

This is a very well done sight.. a little more research would be nice... its not what i wanted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was happy to find it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]

I was happy to find it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

I was happy to find it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]