Environmental impact and the "Fall"

[Jane_the_Bane]

Just to clarify, I am very much for taking care of the environment. My only objection is that the current trend in environmental populism is that it elevates the environment over humanity.

Well, and this is where you misunderstand the first thing about the relationship between humanity and the environment. We cannot live without clean air, clean water, or, in fact, biodiversity. Create too many negative feedback loops, and the system comes crashing down, and no amount of artificial prostheses for human survival will help.
One of the most fatal errors underlying Western thought is the misconception that we are somehow above and beyond the rest of the world, when the very air we breathe depends upon other organisms. Ignoring this interdependence leads to MASSIVE problems.
It's not about protecting some nice scenery or inconsequential furry creatures. It's about us. All of us.

For instance, many people are advocating for population control and other things in the name of environmentalism.

Well, here is what we DO know.
Overpopulation is EXTREMELY bad news. Not just for some disconnected planet that we could take or leave. For us, for our future. Ironically, we actually endanger our very survival by multiplying indiscriminately - just like a locust swarm that keeps on growing until it depletes the foundation of its survival.
Don't believe me?
Deforestation is directly tied to overpopulation, and forests are vital to the climate, the air that we breathe, the regulation of the water cycle, and a nutrient-rich soil. Each year, we lose approximately the size of Panama of forest area. Continuing at this rate, there will be none left by the end of the century.
Likewise, species die out at approximately 10,000 times the natural extinction rate, and again, human population growth is directly tied to it. The last time species were disappearing at this rate, it took immense natural disasters - this time around, it's us. And it does not have to be.

Now, what can we do about that? There are no easy answers for that question. We certainly cannot go about killing or sterilizing people, that much is for sure.

 

[ExodusMe]

This reminds me of when I was in high school I heard by 2015 we wouldn't have any more oil for automobiles.

 

[dlamberth]

This reminds me of when I was in high school I heard by 2015 we wouldn't have any more oil for automobiles.

I remember back in High School being warned that the rate of pollution and over population of the earth will end up killing people as well as the very land we depend upon for our survival. That's come true.

 

[ExodusMe]

Alright, let's tackle this then, because I am interested.

What do you mean by overpopulated? Like can you give me some specific details/characteristics/evidence of what you mean here. Is human population too dense? If so is that only local to certain areas? Would you be more comfortable if humans spread out more? etc....

Do you think there should be no trace of human presence on the earth? Like if humans make any mark on earth that would be there for a significant period of time - is that good, bad, or it doesn't matter?

When you talk about the extinction of other species - can you tell me why this is a bad thing?

I don't mean to be brash, but I just want to understand the basis of your argument.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Sorry, it's not God's fault that we have raped and desecrated His Creation.

Exactly!!!

We often ignore, or marginalize just how much we destroy - especially since a common mantra is "...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone."

We have no idea who we hurt, how we hurt them, and the magnitude of pain we can cause because we often qualify the pain we cause as industrious, or progressive.

Then, we blame God when we fail, or when the planet we are on begins "rejecting us," and the cosmos point their weapons at us because we (ignorantly and/or unconsciously) destroy.

And, after all of that, we accept fragmented historical newspeak to justify our empty justifications for our destructive pattern anyway.

The Fall was more than a fall - humanity lost its title as children of God, lost their perfection, and created the initial conditions that produce chaos (mathematically, and in general.) I get the distinct feeling most Christians even do not, and possibly cannot fathom the magnitude of the fall, and it's implications for all of humanity.

I get annoyed with God often, but I would be a lame and weak believer if I vehemently blamed Him for things I know is my/our fault.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Sooo...is this going to happen soon or should I keep saving for retirement?

People will be marrying and having fun in the end, so it seems as if the world will continue right up to the point of His advent.

So, keep saving for retirement.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I always imagined Adam and Eve as vegetarians. Is there any tradition where Adam and Eve hunt in the Garden of Eden? It seems like hunting was the glamorous and manly part of hunting and gathering, so it needs to be in the myth for it to describe a transition to agriculture.

I am 95% positive antediluvian people of God were vegeterian.

God didn't give the decree that humans could eat living things until after the flood. And, He knew the righteous would know what to eat. But, of course further away from Noah humanity got the less we stayed true to God.

So, God gave the Levitical laws because His people were too degenerate to remember and understand what type of living creature is suitable to be called food.

Adam and Eve - having shared in fellowship with animals before the fall, and understanding a portion of creation - would have stayed vegeterian, and would have taught his children the same.

Meat is second and third rate energy, depending on what you eat. Eating animals that eat animals means that the energy you can retrieve after biochemical processes is often not worth the mastication and digestion. And, Most animals do not have the digestive system to properly filter toxins from their flesh - also known as "unclean." It often costs precious energy to digest meats. Vegetables, herbs and fruits are FIRST RATE energy - getting its energy directly from the sunlight, or thermal energy.

Having been Perfect, Adam and Eve would have recognized that a meat diet would age them and reduce what life they were blessed to have after the fall.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I remember back in High School being warned that the rate of pollution and over population of the earth will end up killing people as well as the very land we depend upon for our survival. That's come true.

I can understand overpopulation problems. Although, that is largely due to the fact that humans have stacked themselves on top of each other in cities. An argument is that if we spread out evenly, there are enough resources for all, and it would allow a restoration of those resources quicker than consumption.

This won't work.

Why? Because, most of humanity cannot survive outside the cities. That is why a show like "Naked and Afraid" exist - in one way to ridicule humanity in that even the alleged most prepared of us are still unfathomably green in survival.

So, that means we need another way to relieve the planet. Enter the population arguments. Everytime i hear these arguments, I shudder. Generally, these arguments are absolutely ghastly, because most proponents are 100% down for it, but no one ever talks about how we go from 7,000,000,000 people to a suitable number for the planet.

How do people propose we get rid of the extra people, because that is what it will come down to. Genocide? Eugenics? GTNW? Engineering viruses*? Slavery? Poisoning the water? Racial exile? [Driven] Infertility? Radiation? Experimentation of unsuspecting populations? Religious wars? Genetically modifying foods so that humans become allergic to "nature?" Apartheid? Selective breeding? Psychological manipulation into martyrism? Race wars? The PIC? ...

Because all of these things are going on now, and any one of them can be used on a large enough scale to raze the human population. In fact, at least several have been used in history to depopulation regions or people. I don't think many people are against a more efficient polulation, but we need to kill a bunch of people off before we get there. That is the part most people don't agree with.

 

[dlamberth]

I can understand overpopulation problems. Although, that is largely due to the fact that humans have stacked themselves on top of each other in cities. An argument is that if we spread out evenly, there are enough resources for all, and it would allow a restoration of those resources quicker than consumption.

This won't work.

Why? Because, most of humanity cannot survive outside the cities. That is why a show like "Naked and Afraid" exist - in one way to ridicule humanity in that even the alleged most prepared of us are still unfathomably green in survival.

So, that means we need another way to relieve the planet. Enter the population arguments. Everytime i hear these arguments, I shudder. Generally, these arguments are absolutely ghastly, because most proponents are 100% down for it, but no one ever talks about how we go from 7,000,000,000 people to a suitable number for the planet.

How do people propose we get rid of the extra people, because that is what it will come down to. Genocide? Eugenics? GTNW? Engineering viruses*? Slavery? Poisoning the water? Racial exile? [Driven] Infertility? Radiation? Experimentation of unsuspecting populations? Religious wars? Genetically modifying foods so that humans become allergic to "nature?" Apartheid? Selective breeding? Psychological manipulation into martyrism? Race wars? The PIC? ...

Because all of these things are going on now, and any one of them can be used on a large enough scale to raze the human population. In fact, at least several have been used in history to depopulation regions or people. I don't think many people are against a more efficient polulation, but we need to kill a bunch of people off before we get there. That is the part most people don't agree with.

All good points. My wife and I in our discussions of wondered if the earth itself is starting to take care of the over population. That thinking between us arose because it's clear that earth can absorb only so much pollution and abuse without effecting the life forms living on it. And it seems clear, at least to us anyway, that the overall health of the earth has reached a tipping point towards that end.

 

[dlamberth]

I think it is driven less by religion and more by politics.

I'd add that it's also driven by an image of God that is separate and apart from His own Creation. "IF" the earth were experienced as sacred and being filled with the presence of God, I have no doubt that the thinking would be much different.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

All good points. My wife and I in our discussions of wondered if the earth itself is starting to take care of the over population. That thinking between us arose because it's clear that earth can absorb only so much pollution and abuse without effecting the life forms living on it. And it seems clear, at least to us anyway, that the overall health of the earth has reached a tipping point towards that end.

If you have a localized itch, what do you do? When the earth has an itch, it may quake (seismicity.)

If you have a cyst (a collection of destructive organisms,) what do you do? If your natural defenses don't work, you lance it, put ointment on it, or go to the hospital. When the earth has a cyst (like a dense, population of squalor,) it does the same thing - when the natural defenses dont work (quaking, flooding, vulcanism, extreme weather, etc.) obliterating the cyst, chemically attacking it, and/or opening yourself up to outside "help" to rid the area of infection (like celestial activity incident upon a weakened field.)

When we have cancer, we go through chemo. When we are the cancer on the planet, the planet undergoes natural chemotherapy - suddenly 10,000 year old viruses appear and wipe out populations. Degeneracy in nature occurs, poisoning the resources so that the cancer growth (us) would be stunted.

I won't go as far as say the earth is an "entity," as it were, but it certainly mimics US in the ways it deals with filth and disease.

Since the planet is driving toward dgeneracy (that asymptotic tipping point you talked about,) eventually it will need a Physician (guess who) to completely fix the problem. Interestingly enough, the first physician the earth will yield to is NOT an MD, and earth will find itself in degeneracy once again - in desperate need of help.

Enter the Second (or final of many) Opinion from THE best Physician available - where health, not cost, is the most important issue. In fact, the only Physician that can help the planet actually already paid Earth's medical bills. But, other "physicians" would have us accept better health at the expense of our first born (often, literally.)

 

[MehGuy]

Even if the Earth will be remade in the Second Coming, what Christian goal is served by the activities that harm the environment? This is like suggesting that Christians should eat lots of junk food because they will get new bodies in the Second Coming. Does gorging on Twinkies help spread the Good News?

I remember growing up we were one of the few families in the neighborhood block that didn't recycle. My father is like "the end times are coming anyways". Honestly in my household it was kind of viewed as evil "liberalism globalism" to recycle. Even now, I feel a little queasy when I throw something into the recycling bin. Lol. I also do not really know what kind of trash is recycle trash and which trash isn't, lol.

A lot of my friends and their parents were angry with me when I was at their house and just threw everything I had into the trash. They were like "THAT DOESN'T GO THERE!" and I was like "go away godless heathens I throw away trash wherever I please!". Lol.

 

[ExodusMe]

I think I took a wrong turn into crazy town. I will have to catch you guys later. Thanks for the discussion!

 

[cloudyday2]

I remember growing up we were one of the few families in the neighborhood block that didn't recycle. My father is like "the end times are coming anyways". Honestly in my household it was kind of viewed as evil "liberalism globalism" to recycle. Even now, I feel a little queasy when I throw something into the recycling bin. Lol. I also do not really know what kind of trash is recycle trash and which trash isn't, lol.

A lot of my friends and their parents were angry with me when I was at their house and just threw everything I had into the trash. They were like "THAT DOESN'T GO THERE!" and I was like "go away godless heathens I throw away trash wherever I please!". Lol.

My family never recycled either when I was growing up. I have tried recycling when I have lived alone, but I am never consistent. I remember once taking a load of newspapers to the recycling center and the person working there told me I was wasting my effort because they just threw it away. That was a bit discouraging.

 

[MehGuy]

My family never recycled either when I was growing up. I have tried recycling when I have lived alone, but I am never consistent. I remember once taking a load of newspapers to the recycling center and the person working there told me I was wasting my effort because they just threw it away. That was a bit discouraging.

I remember watching a program from Penn And Teller where they expose stuff like how bottled water often comes from tap water and the like, they had an episode on recycling, and a lot of it seems to be a sham.

 

[awitch]

I remember watching a program from Penn And Teller where they expose stuff like how bottled water often comes from tap water and the like, they had an episode on recycling, and a lot of it seems to be a sham.

Even still, it's better the garbage ends up in a contained dump than in the water supply.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What do you mean by overpopulated? Like can you give me some specific details/characteristics/evidence of what you mean here. Is human population too dense? If so is that only local to certain areas? Would you be more comfortable if humans spread out more?

Overpopulation occurs when a population exceeds the carrying capacity of a specific location, i.e. needing and consuming more resources than the area can provide, depleting and polluting more than can be restored or regrown, etc. This term can be applied both locally and globally.

The direct results are (among others):

Inadequate/polluted/depleted fresh water for drinking as well as sewage treatment and effluent discharge.
Depletion of non-regenerative natural resources such as oil.
Increased levels of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution.
Deforestation and loss of ecosystems (8 million hectares lost each year).
Anthropogenic climate change.
Loss of arable land and increase in desertification.
Mass species extinctions and contracting biodiversity.
Intensive factory farming ( ->pollution ->epidemics)
Increased chance of new epidemics and pandemics.
Elevated crime rate due to poverty.
Conflict over scarce resources.
Less personal freedom and more restrictive laws.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've read some hypotheses stating that the Biblical story of the "Fall" echoes the transition from nomadic hunter-gatherer societies to agriculture - as well as some of the environmental disasters that followed from it.

Those who don't want to see Mona Lisa in that painting can just pretend she's Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, or even Rosa Parks.

 

[Noxot]

Holy bump Batman!

human success has given birth to new tragedies. Some types of pollution collect in the Arctic regions of the Earth and so the natives that still have a simple lifestyle are being Poisoned With a massive amount of DDT.

I don't think that there should be 20 billion human beings on this planet but humans are not going to stop wanting to reproduce. I wonder how future humans will solve their problem of success. if no one takes any action at some point there will be Mass starvation and mass Wars. maybe someone will be sneaky and create a genetically modified virus to wipe out the old and the weak.

 

[Noxot]

I can understand overpopulation problems. Although, that is largely due to the fact that humans have stacked themselves on top of each other in cities. An argument is that if we spread out evenly, there are enough resources for all, and it would allow a restoration of those resources quicker than consumption.

This won't work.

Why? Because, most of humanity cannot survive outside the cities. That is why a show like "Naked and Afraid" exist - in one way to ridicule humanity in that even the alleged most prepared of us are still unfathomably green in survival.

So, that means we need another way to relieve the planet. Enter the population arguments. Everytime i hear these arguments, I shudder. Generally, these arguments are absolutely ghastly, because most proponents are 100% down for it, but no one ever talks about how we go from 7,000,000,000 people to a suitable number for the planet.

How do people propose we get rid of the extra people, because that is what it will come down to. Genocide? Eugenics? GTNW? Engineering viruses*? Slavery? Poisoning the water? Racial exile? [Driven] Infertility? Radiation? Experimentation of unsuspecting populations? Religious wars? Genetically modifying foods so that humans become allergic to "nature?" Apartheid? Selective breeding? Psychological manipulation into martyrism? Race wars? The PIC? ...

Because all of these things are going on now, and any one of them can be used on a large enough scale to raze the human population. In fact, at least several have been used in history to depopulation regions or people. I don't think many people are against a more efficient polulation, but we need to kill a bunch of people off before we get there. That is the part most people don't agree with.

Terence McKenna once asked the mushrooms what we should do about overpopulation and the answer he got was that everyone should only have one child. Pretty decent answer I think. It's simple math.