Why All Christians Should Heed Pope Francis’ Call to “Care for Our Common Home” | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
45

Lou, you switched. First you are blaming the RC policy, now blaming lack of available birth control technology.

Farming is causing less ecological devastation today than it did 100 years ago, partly because of the improvements in technology, and better management of wetlands. As far as a functioning prairie… functioning for who? They function quite well as natural planting areas for wheat, corn, canola, soybeans, potatoes, barley, cattle, and hay. They support many more people than they did 100 years ago. They are functioning to a good purpose, and I think people have an equal ecological right to utilize as the buffalo did in previous centuries.

Yes, there are solar limits. But just as our assumptions for running out of oil in the 1970s have been proven wrong, so our assumptions for food production limits have also been proven wrong. It is not inconceivable that there are some alternatives for direct solar energy for at least some of our food production.

46

Lou, you switched. First you are blaming the RC policy, now blaming lack of available birth control technology.

No JohnZ, I did not switch. As Christine mentioned above, RCC policy has an effect on charities and governments, limiting the availability of birth control to poor women.

I think people have an equal ecological right to utilize as the buffalo did in previous centuries.

This is a common Christian fundamentalist attitude, that the earth is made for humans and we have the right and duty to do what we please with it, even if that causes the extinction of many or most non-human creatures. (I am pretty sure this radically anthropocentric view is not shared by some of the Christian commenters here). You say we have as much right to the land as buffalo and the rest. Well, maybe so, but at the moment, where is the equality? Buffalo are almost completely eliminated, as are almost all native prairie plant ecosystems and their associated animals and insects.

Extreme anthropocentrism of the kind you describe also ignores the important services ecosystems provide to agriculture and to ordinary human well-being, so it is inconsistent even from a human-centered viewpoint. Also, you are betting the survival of the human race on the hope of dramatic new discoveries. What is wrong with making a rational decision to live within our means, at least until such discoveries are actually made?

47

Lou is spot-on here, JohnZ.

And it is also wrong to presume that a wrong prediction about the past means that the thing mis-predicted can now be safely ruled out from ever happening. Around any sobering issues where we need to cultivate a preparatory or preventative mindset, there will always be the fear-mongers who will often predict gloom with timescales that then may be ameliorated or delayed (perhaps by those very ones who are working to mitigate damages). That does not mean that the thing in focus now represents no threat. It is a tragic mistake for any of us to justify BAU attitudes with regard to oil, coal, and our energy consumption habits generally --and further tragic yet when Christianity is strapped to that as justification.

Pope Francis’ encyclical utterly and properly repudiates these attitudes and shows from Scripture how unchristian they are.

The prairie consideration is an interesting one. It is true that ecological-minded ranchers (which many are) do try to be attentive to the land under their care. Untouched prairie reserves may be dwindling in places like here in Kansas. But there are large prairie reserves. Controlled burning takes place on some of it for research purposes. But much of it is being lost to development.

The only reason farm land has been so uber-productive to “feed the world” in this last half century is … oil. The energy intensive farming practices would be impossible without it. So; no oil … no breadbasket. The land simply can’t sustain the practice without heavy fertilizer (and other chemical) input. And even with all of that, given the erosion that is happening because of farming practices it is becoming increasingly clear that the land can’t sustain this practice even if we did have unlimited oil!

Alternative energy may (and is) helping to mitigate on the energy problem, but without changes in lifestyle it is still just a bandage to our larger problems. The Pope is spot on with his assessments.

48

If you don’t like the solar energy limit (and I agree that there are some potential work-arounds, like nuclear-powered artificial light), think about the space limit: if every female person produces 4 kids, and everybody lives 50 years, you will get exponential growth that will eventually fill up the whole solar system. Of course, there aren’t enough atoms on earth to make that many humans, so at some point we will reach a quite horrible limit, under your philosophy. No matter how much we invent, we can’t (and shouldn’t want to) live like that.

49

Lou, you did switch, but you have made a valid connection between policy and availability. Yet, I think you are attributing too much power to the policy of one church, which does not even have the power to control the actions of its own adherents. While it may control its own charities, it certainly does not control the charities of other churches, or of non-church organizations. Ironically, if some organizations did not promote or support abortion, they might actually get more support for birth control than they presently do. Prosperity and education seem to lead to a lower birthrate much quicker than imposing or even promoting birth control to a disadvantaged population.

Lou, I get weary of the “fundamentalist” pejorative assumption attributed to discussions. I believe in fundamentals, and so do you, and although I am not a fundamentalist per se, yet fundamentals are essential. As a descriptor, “fundamentalist” is meaningless and useless, and contributes absolutely nothing to understanding. The attitude about human entitlement to utilize earth’s resources has nothing to do with fundamentalism, and has everything to do with being natural human beings on earth. There is no inherent definition of “equality” between humans and buffalo (or any other species), other than what humans decide to impose on that definition. It is a one-sided discussion of “equality”, where certainly buffalo ( or ants or starlings) are not sitting down wondering how much land they should leave for human use. Would the buffalo be “extreme buffalo-centrists”?

Ironically, humans are now preserving buffalo both in natural parks, and also on farms. Humans are also preserving natural prairie ecosystems… in Alberta a prairie ecosystem on 30,000 acres of private ranch lands has now been registered under a conservation easement paid for by $15 million of donations and $18 million of tax deduction.

I’m betting the survival of the human race on the ability to survive. The human race has survived thru wars and plagues and volcanoes and hurricanes and heat waves and tsunamis. The survival is not really the issue. Even if the population reduced by half it would likely survive. The prosperity and progress and ability to thrive and grow is more to the point. While living within our means is essential, we continue to discover that our means are expanding. We increase our means by discovery, exploration, investigation, and experimentation and innovation. Necessity is the mother of invention, and so trial and error accompanied by a certain optimism are a basic inescapable condition of human life.

50

Merv, I don’t think there is such a thing as BAU when it comes to agriculture and energy. Agriculture started with grazing and plowing and land expansion, and now it expands with labor reduction and energy use and improved genetics, and improved agronomy. BAU is always temporary.

Diesel and gasoline have contributed huge labor reductions and improved efficiencies. They have kept down the price of food, and reduced the literal human footprint on the land, replacing it with efficient soil management, and more timely seeding and harvesting. Oil has contributed pesticides which permit double or triple yields, thus reducing the need for land expansion to meet the same food production requirements. Fertilizer on the other hand, especially nitrogen, is primarily produced by natural gas, not oil. Natural gas is methane, a ghg about 21 times as potent as CO2, so converting it to fertilizer or to CO2 (thru combustion), reduces its potential to warm the climate. The crops that utilize the fertilizer to produce organic plant material also absorb more CO2 in the process, benefiting the ghg balance. These fertilized crops absorb considerably more CO2 than most native grasslands. And vast buffalo herds produce considerably more methane than wheat or canola crops do.

Erosion that is happening because of farming is mostly happening where fertilizer and pesticides are not being used, or where equipment for sustainable farming techniques is too expensive. In north america, erosion has been dramatically reduced over the last twenty years, and much land is improving in quality, rather than being depleted as it was in the 1920s -1980s. This improvement of land is also ocurring in Western Europe, Australia, Israel, and in certain parts of Brazil and Eastern Europe. The ancient erosion problems of Egypt, Asia, and other locations are now slowly but surely being not repeated.

I wonder if the more we change and reduce our lifestyle, the less need there will be for alternative energy sources. Necessity and economics will drive the search for alternative energy. When oil and gas become too expensive, then solar panels and wind power thru mass production become cheaper and more affordable. Then various hydroelectric options become more viable.

I agree to some degree that using less is a good option; We use less than half the average household water use at our home. But from a policy perspective, we need to understand the drivers for energy change, as well as being more holistic about ideological pronouncements, and being fully cognizant about the potential for unintended consequences.

In addition, so often it is those who use the most energy who are quite happy to tell others to use less (Al Gore being a prime example). Utilization of energy may be the best way to reduce soil erosion, as well as reduce unnecessary expansion of farmland by improving yields on existing lands.

51

Maybe you didn’t notice the fuss kicked up in the U.S. where we have separation of Church and State and a Roman Catholic minority over the ACA’s mandatory coverage of birth control? If the RCC and other religious groups that oppose birth control shape policy that governs the availability of options in our own country, you can bet they shape policy in countries where the lines between Church and State are less defined.

Anti-birth control lobbyists are powerful enough in our U.S. Congress that health care non-profits working internationally are not always eligible for government grant or aid money if they provide contraceptives. We are not just talking about abortions. Certain groups have decided hormonal contraceptives and abortions are the same thing.

Also a large percentage of federal aid money is distributed by charities that are explicitly religious. They are the ones working in the poorest countries and have the most experience and largest infrastructure. For example, in 2012 World Vision got $174,520,104 in government grants. But even though as an organization they support making contraception available to poor women and recognize that over-population is a global issue tied to poverty, they have to be super careful about actually providing contraception because of the objections of their donor base and the cultural/political/religious climate of the countries where they work. ( http://liveactionnews.org/world-vision-sponsors-may-be-sponsoring-abortfacients-along-with-children/ )

It is naive to think that the anti-contraception stance of the RCC and some Evangelical groups is not having much of an impact on accessibility for poor women. It most certainly is.

52

I am glad you are here to provide this reality check, Christine. You know more about this than I do.

53

It was you, JohnZ, that brought up the notion of “equality”. I only pointed out that your “equality” was nothing of the kind. Which you are sort of confirming in your last comment. Indeed, nature has no voice, unless we are big enough to give it that voice.

“Fundamentalist” does seem to me to be a useful group descriptor, especially when the group self-describes with that word. Self-described fundamentalists do tend to think the earth is made for us humans.

Will you not admit that there are ANY physical limits on human population growth? It is fine to be optimistic but one cannot deny basic physics.

54

Well, I am glad it is having an impact, since the disrespect for the life of the unborn by some of these so-called charities certainly gives valid grounds for distrusting their pseudonym of “contraception”. As I said before, if some of these groups would actively campaign against abortion, their claims for contraception might be taken more seriously. Abortifacients would not be regarded as contraception, but are only effective post-conception.

We know that few in north america actually pay attention to advice not to engage in contraception, so we can be quite sure that contraception is not the real issue for denying funding, unless there is a huge inconsistency in personal and public attitudes.

With regard to mandatory medical coverage for birth control… that is a complicated subject. Certainly if it excluded mandatory coverage for abortion, whether by surgery or by drugs, then the conversation would change dramatically. But in addition, the philosophy of mandatory paying for optional choices, whether abortion, birth control, sex change operations, in-vitro fertilization, plastic surgery, is a valid point for disagreement. The degree of choice, with the dictatorial directive to pay for (and thus contribute to) someone else’s lifestyle choices, without having a choice about it, is a valid discussion.

55

I am pro-life. But there is legitimate scientific debate over whether all the contraceptives that have been labeled “abortifacient” by religious groups are interfering in any way with implantation. I have read some studies and I am personally convinced they do not. This issue is another example of science meeting rhetoric and the blogosphere, and science losing. We are not talking about drugs that end pregnancies, we are talking about drugs that prevent conception by hormonally suppressing ovulation.

World Vision and countless other Christian charities vocally oppose abortions. But it is not fair to re-label something that is not an abortion, an abortion and then fault a group for not coming out against them.

56

Yes Lou, there would seem to be physical limits, at least theoretically. This makes sense to me. We can do calculations on it. But we know from experience, that limits tend to be pessimistic in general. They have proven to be incorrect in previous predictions. Some examples:

  1. The earth cannot provide enough food for people, so population will not grow. Malthus - 1798.
  2. We will run out of oil soon. 1970s.
  3. Farming degrades the soil. 1920s-1980s.

There is truth in these three statements/predictions. But not the whole truth. We see that demand for food creates more food. Additional natural gas has been discovered which keeps the price down dramatically. Oilsands and oil available thru fracking has changed the estimation of reserves dramatically. Farming does not need to degrade the soil, and has improved soil quality in many areas, with new techniques.

So its not that I deny physical limitations. Its just that I am not sure we really understand all of those physical limitations. Obviously at an atomic level we can see a limitation, but that does not really relate to where we are at presently. As we know, the more food we have and the more prosperity, the more likely birthrates will decline, which is counter-intuitive to Malthus and to the thinking of most population-controllers. So Western Europe and North America look for immigrants in order to fill their labor supply, since their population growth is too slow to fufill it. I understand even Japan looks for immigrants now.

57

Then Christy you just have to meet the argument where it is, if there is legitimate debate. It would seem to me that preventing ovulation is not an abortifacient. I am just saying that acceptance of abortion has caused a huge problem for credibility of some of these organizations. (ie. Planned Parenthood)

As an aside, I would say science does not lose. People lose. Science doesn’t care. It can neither win nor lose. It can be misused and misappropriated, or ignored. (this may be semantics…)

58

:slight_smile: I was more picturing Science v. Blogosphere in an ultimate fighting championship. Just a word picture.

I have tried this debate and quit. People on the other side are asking science to prove that an untestable hypothetical situation will never occur in order to be satisfied. (That a fertilized egg will never be prevented from implanting by hormonal contraceptives.) That is not something you can prove.

I’m sorry for going so off-topic. You should all get back to the discussion at hand.

59

JohnZ, if we care at all about non-human life, we are already way past reasonable limits on human population growth.

60

JohnZ, I don’t see how you can make such absolute statements about abortion. At the earliest stages of pregnancy, the fertilized ovum has no brain, no consciousness, no memories…in no sense is that a person. A potential person, sure, but so are unfertilized ova, which no one cares about.

62

Eddie, yes, I’ve been quiet here lately (been very busy with my work and with personal emergencies), and absent from Hump of the Camel after nearly all the commenters there (except you) found ways to justify the worst biblical atrocities in the name of their god. If anyone wants to understand the mindset underlying the atrocities of ISIS today, they only have to look at those threads to see how easily religion can be used to justify horrors. Those comments left me numb.

Thanks for recognizing the importance of limiting population, and the hypocrisy of the RCC position that claims to care for the poor but which takes birth control off the table for them.

I don’t want to argue much about climate change, the evidence is out there and it is clear. Global warming is a fact, like common descent and the great age of the earth. Not only the mean recorded temperatures, but also biological indicators like migration and flowering dates, are unequivocal. In several parts of your comment you wondered things like “I wonder how much the average global temperature has gone up in the past 20 years specifically?”. You could have answered those questions; the data is there. Check out this NASA site for a quick summary:

I also should note that the really big money interests are all on the side of hiding and providing disinformation (the Heartland Institute is a good example) about climate change to protect business interests and avoid government regulation.

I largely agree with you about the futility of a policy that does little or nothing about the emissions of China and India.

Global warming is like evolution; denying it is simply wrong, but it is healthy and worthwhile to be skeptical about our knowledge of their mechanisms. The real question is, as you say, what (if anything) can we do about global warming. That’s where causal models come in. These models are imperfect and I agree that the problem is fiendishly complex, and that many scientists understate the uncertainties involved.

But the models all show that human-generated CO2 plays an important role, and that the system has considerable inertia, so that a cut in CO2 emissions today will not change things overnight. Should we do nothing until we have 100% certainty? I think it is rational to act on what we know now rather than wait, possibly forever. Energy conservation is good policy even apart from its effects on global temperature.

64

Eddie, some quick responses:

“But you talk about concealment as if it is all on one side.”

I did not intend to give that impression. For example, I did say that many scientists understate the uncertainties involved. But my main point was that the money behind climate change concealment, denial, and disinformation is orders of magnitude greater than that behind environmental concerns. I stand by that.

I am disturbed that you make numerous speculations about models, rates of change, etc, but show no inclination to check those speculations against the evidence. You seem content to judge a field by the tone of some of its participants, and you concentrate on the tone of those you disagree with rather than the (in my opinion much more serious) misrepresentations of those you do agree with. Surely this is not the best way to judge the truth of the matter. Surely you would agree that it would be better to pay more attention to the data itself.

You speak as though the temp leveled off in the 2000s, and you ask when it will start rising again. There was little or no statistically significant leveling off, and 2014 was the hottest year on record.

The global mean temp rose 1.4 degrees since the 1880s with most of that happening since the 1970s. What does that mean biologically? That corresponds to a change in elevation of 200-400 feet. That’s already serious but if it keeps up, it will be very serious thirty years from now.

Sorry if I put words in your mouth when I mentioned RCC’s “hypocrisy”. I would still call it that. At some point birth control will be necessary, and taking it off the table permanently (theology is forever) will certainly hurt the poor and powerless the most. Prohibiting birth control is, in my opinion, considerably worse than doing nothing about climate change. Luckily most people have the sense to ignore that dictum of the RCC.